Case Study

National Master Plan for Development of Waste-to-Energy in India
Technical Memorandum on Waste-to-Energy Technologies
Executive Summary
A. Preamble
1. The driving forces behind the development of many distinct waste-to-energy conversion
technologies that are presently available worldwide was the realization, three decades ago,
that the global petroleum-based energy supplies have a finite life span and are dwindling fast.
This realisation is relevant today also and in fact, there are further other serious concerns for
investigating renewable energy options including waste-to-energy options. These concerns
include sustainability, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, shift from landfilling of wastes,
developing philosophical preference for “green” energy and the fundamental desire to deal
effectively with increasing quantities of organic wastes.
2. The most significant waste-to-energy technologies are based on biological or thermal

methods:
• Biomethanation involves the biodegradation of organic wastes under strict anaerobic

conditions to yield methane-rich biogas.
• Incineration is based on the combustion of organic wastes as fuel with the evolution
of heat energy for recovery.
• Advanced thermal conversion involves destructive heating of organic materials under
reducing conditions, with a limited supply of oxygen (gasification) or without any oxygen
(pyrolysis), to produce a combustible gaseous product consisting of simple hydrocarbons
and hydrogen.
B. Technology High-Lights
Biomethanation
3. Biomethanation of aqueous wastes involves hydrolysis, acidogenesis, acetogenesis and
methanogenesis reactions, which generates a mixture of methane, carbon dioxide and other
gases. It is essential to establish a stable heterogeneous bacterial consortium under strict
anaerobic conditions and to establish process parameters that influence biomethantion rates
and biogas yield for various types of organic waste.
4. Several designs of bioreactors were developed and commercialised during the past three
decades for handling diverse industrial wastewaters and municipal sewage. These include:
• Suspended growth reactor systems

Completely Mixed Digesters, Contact Reactors, Anaerobic Lagoons (Covered) and
Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) Reactors
• Attached growth reactor systems
Anaerobic Upflow/Downflow Filters, Fluidized Bed Bioreactors
• Hybrid reactors.
The suspended growth reactor systems are suitable for wastewaters containing a high
concentration of suspended solids and soluble biodegradable substrate.
ES I
MWH
Attached growth reactors utilize biomass grown as a film on an inert media immersed in the
reactor. As the wastewater flows through the media filled reactor, in upflow or downflow
mode, the attached anaerobic biomass converts both soluble and particulate organic matter in
the wastewater to biogas. The attached growth reactors are well suited for wastewaters that
contain primarily soluble biodegradable substrates.
In the hybrid system, the concentration and level of the sludge blanket is easily monitored and
maintained. The media at the top of the reactor assists in the retention of biomass and also
serves as a gas-liquid-solid separator. The hybrid processes are applied to wastewaters with
intermediate levels of particulates, although their performance is usually better with soluble
biodegradable substrates.
5. The low-solids (4-6% solids) anaerobic digesters such as standard-rate digester, two-stage
digester and high-rate digester are widely used for biomethanation of sludge produced in
aerobic wastewater treatment plants.
6. Biomethanation of solid/semi solid wastes can be carried out either with medium-solids (8-15
%) or high-solids (20-35 %) process in anaerobic digesters, using a variety of proprietary
features.
The medium-solids process is suitable to generate methane gas from animal manure, poultry
litter and municipal solid waste (MSW). One of the disadvantages of this process is the large
quantity of water required for dilution. The high-solids process is also used for energy
recovery from MSW. Two important advantages of the high-solids process are less water
requirements for dilution and high gas production per unit volume of the reactor.
7. An extensive literature review of biomethanation technology indicated that several variations

of biomethanation plants, ranging from small farm digesters to large-scale waste treatment
plant with biogas recovery, has been built in many countries by private, government, research
and non-governmental organizations.
8. In India, the high rate biomethanation process for energy recovery has been successfully used
for various industrial wastewaters and sewage. The highlights of some biomethanation
projects implemented in the country are presented in the report.
Incineration
9. In Incineration, a series of oxidation reactions take place in the combustion of organic waste
in presence of oxygen. In this exothermic reaction, heat energy is liberated which may be
utilised for different purposes. This technology is commercially well established and is fully
understood in terms of maximising efficiency and obtaining optimum energy yields. A critical
issue associated with incineration is the control of atmospheric emissions, to achieve stringent
regulatory norms.
10. Two approaches are currently available for incineration of MSW-Mass Burn Systems and
Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) systems.
Mass-burn incinerators burn raw waste in the same physical form as it is generated and
received.
Refuse-Derived Fuel (RDF) systems refer to solid waste that has been mechanically processed
to produce a storable, transportable, and more homogeneous fuel for combustion. RDF can be
co-fired with fossil fuels in existing large industrial or utility boilers or used as the primary fuel
in specially designed ‘dedicated’ boilers.
MONTGOMERY WATSON ES II
Fluidized bed combustion (FBC) is a versatile novel design and can be operated on a wide
variety of fuels, including MSW, sludge, coal, and industrial wastes.
11. Incineration of MSW is a well established WTE Technology and widely adopted in the
developed countries. The recent focus is on environmental compliance using elaborate air
pollution control systems for flue gas clean-up which has made it a rather expensive option.
Gasification and Pyrolysis

12. Gasification or pyrolysis forms a molecularly simple and high quality gaseous fuel (producer
gas) for which complete and efficient combustion is inherent. It can be combusted in a gas
engine or gas turbine to generate electricity. These systems have low environmental emissions
and higher energy recovery potential.
13. Gasification and pyrolysis processes can have a higher level of acceptability due to the
advantages over incineration. Gasification technology is at a commercial uptake in developed
countries and has a high potential of adaptability in India.
Emerging Technologies
14. Emerging technologies like plasma pyrolysis, microwave waste destruction and laser waste
destruction are at various stages of commercial uptake and merit a continuing review to assess
their relevance for possible application to the treatment of certain waste types under Indian
conditions.
15. The plasma arc pyrolysis for waste destruction apparently creates no gaseous emissions and
the flue gas produced and the inert solid slag can be beneficially used. The process is a totally
enclosed system that achieves waste volume reductions of the order of 200 to 1 against 10 to
1 achieved in conventional incineration processes.
16. Some patented processes using microwave energy are available for the destruction of
hazardous, infectious or otherwise intractable wastes, without any energy recovery. However,
it is clear that this technology has positive benefits for the treatment of two particularly
difficult waste types namely medical wastes and tyres. The net export of energy, which is
possible in the tyre processing configuration and the minimisation of emissions, are attractive
factors.
17. The laser waste destruction technology is relatively new and has not yet been applied for
waste treatment applications.
C. Assessment of Technologies
18. WTE technology options have been analysed using a set of five main evaluation criteria:
System Configuration, System auxiliaries, Environmental Aspects, Resource Recovery and
Commercial Aspects. A uniform and unbiased numerical ranking (0-30 points) is assigned to
each of these criteria for the initial analysis. A maximum of 150 points can be scored by any
technology in terms of a judicious rating of the various input criteria. Each of these main
criteria are also analysed using a set of sub-criteria and represented by an appropriate
numerical assessment.
• System Configuration (0-30)
MONTGOMERY WATSON ES III

Simplicity and operability (0-12), process flexibility (0-12) and scale-up potential (0-6).
• System auxiliaries (0-30)
Pre-treatment (0-20), post-treatment (0-10).
• Environmental Aspects (0-30)
• Resource Recovery (0-30)
• Commercial Aspects (0-30)
Capital Cost (0-12), Operational Cost (0-12), Track Record (0-6).
19. An evaluation checklist with the ratings for the different main and sub-criteria for the five
competitive technology options showed the following overall scores and rank
Technology Score Rank
(Max:150)
Biomethanation 107 1
Landfill with gas recovery 83 2
Gasification 80 3
Incineration 67 5
• Biomethanation has emerged as a mature and widely accepted WTE technology on a

global basis. It ranks first.with a good track record and less environmental impacts.
• Landfill with gas recovery system ranks second due to system simplicity and long track
record with good control of atmospheric emissions and leachates. However, it has a low
energy recovery potential.
• Gasification/pyrolysis processes have emerged as a distinct third choice with a higher
energy recovery potential and reduced environmental impacts. With an increasing number
of installations worldwide for handling MSW, gasification can also emerge as a mature
technology.
• Incineration technologies with a long track record of several successful operating
installations in the developed countries, has slipped to the fifth position according to this
study, owing to the competing features of gasification technologies.
• Composting is also included in this analysis for the purpose of comparison. Composting
scored an overall rating of 67 out of 150 points.
• The average quality of Indian MSW is generally poor and variable with a high proportion
of moisture and inerts. These together have a great relevance to the selection of suitable
WTE technology for MSW in India. With a gradual adoption of various technologies on a
large scale in India, the relative weightage for the commercial factors could become even
more important with most of the technical and operational inputs becoming routine issues.
These aspects would not be potential deterrents to technology selection for a given WTE
application. Technologies like landfill with gas recovery and composting can also become
viable options for certain locations in India, as a short to medium term option.
MONTGOMERY WATSON ES IV
Nevertheless, the global ranking of the WTE technologies developed in this study can be
considered to be relevant to Indian MSW after a preliminary screening of the alternatives.
D. Mass and Energy Balance

20. Process calculations for typical MSW biomethanation plant capacities of 150, 350, 500 and
1,000 TPD show an average power generation potential of 1 MW per 100 TPD of unsorted
Indian MSW.
21. Energy calculations carried out for a 500 TPD MSW gasification system based on ‘SWERF’
(Solid Waste Energy and Recycling Facility) process indicated power generation potential of
2.0 MW per 100 TPD.
22. Similar calculations for a 500 TPD fluidized bed incineration system indicated the power
generation potential of 1.24 MW per 100 TPD of MSW as RDF.
23. The power generation potential of a landfill serving a population of 2,00,000 (100TPD MSW)
will be a modest 0.4 MW.
24. UASB plant handling 10 MLD domestic sewage has the potential to generate 150 kW power,
while saving 53 kW power over a conventional activated sludge process.
E. Cost Analysis Upcoming/Proposed

25. Costs of nine upcoming/proposed projects are used to indicate the current Indian scenario (six
based on biomethanation technology, two utilizing gasification technology and one on RDF
incineration).
26. Costs and revenue income for high solids (dry) and medium solids (wet) anaerobic digestion
processes for capacities of 300,500 and 1,000 TPD indicates the following trends:
• The cost of a biomethanation project varies between Rs. 10-14 lakhs per T of MSW
• The high solids anaerobic process will be relatively cheaper by 5 % than the medium
solids anaerobic process
• The unit capital cost decreases for both the processes with an increase in plant capacity
• The revenue generation in the high solids process is more than the revenue generation in
the medium solids process
• The revenue generation increases with the increase in the plant capacity
• One-third of the revenue can be generated through sale of manure.
• The pay back period of biomehanation project will be 4 - 6 years depending upon the
process and the capacity of the plant.
27. The commercial viability of a typical 1,000 TPD waste-to-energy project showed that the
capital cost of gasification plant is higher than biomethanation (Rs. 220 vs 90 Crores) and the
present value of net revenue (Rs. 151 Crores ) will be similar for both.
MONTGOMERY WATSON ES V
F. Conclusions
28. A number of distinct Waste-to-Energy conversion technologies are now available worldwide.
These technologies are suitable for various waste such as - aqueous wastes, sludges, slurries
and municipal solid waste (MSW). While some technologies (e.g biomethanation, incineration,
landfill) have been well known and widely used for many years, others such as gasification and
pyrolysis, have been developed to a successful commercial stage recently.
29. Evaluation of the applicability of the technologies of biomethanation, gasification/pyrolysis,

incineration and landfilling as Waste-to-Energy options, and their comparison against
composting as a competing technology for waste disposal, has shown the following:
• Biomethanation has emerged as a favoured technology for various urban and industrial
waste.
• Gasification/pyrolysis have a distinct promise, and although there are limitations to its
uptake, these can be overcome as the technology matures.
• Incineration is a mature technology for energy recovery from urban and industrial wastes
and has been sucessfully commercialized in the developed countries. The recent focus has
been on environmental compliance due to which it will become an expensive option.
• The present trend is in favour of material recovery facilities and a shift away from
landfills for MSW disposal in developed countries.
• Compositing is not a WTE option and does not come out as worthwhile waste treatment
process.
• Technologies like landfill with gas recovery and composting can become viable options
for certain locations in India, as a short to medium term option.
MONTGOMERY WATSON ES VI
8 Waste-To-Energy Technologies – Overview

8.1 Introduction
A number of waste-to-energy (WTE) options are available throughout the world to handle various
kinds of wastes. The selection of an appropriate technology to convert a specific waste in to energy is
a crucial task that requires a detailed evaluation of the options that are available with respect to its
location, and characteristics of the waste. This technical memorandum on “Waste to Energy
Technologies” strives to identify a range of effective WTE technological options that can be
applicable for various waste streams.
8.2 Alternate Energy Resources

World oil prices increased by more than 50% during the seventies, subsequent to the oil embargo by
OPEC (Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries). This necessitated a global search for
alternative energy resources. The Government of India recognised this potential and formulated a
separate ministry, Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy Sources (MNES) in the year 1992. The
functions of MNES is to co-ordinate, fund, manage and implement the projects in the non-
conventional energy sector utilizing resources such as the wind, solar, biogas, hydro and geothermal
and urban and industrial waste in the country. There is an exclusive group in MNES, which deals with
"Energy Recovery from Wastes". The waste-to-energy projects are implemented through National
Programme on Energy Recovery from Urban and Industrial wastes and UNDP/GEF project on
‘Development of High Rate Bio-methanation Processes.
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) emerged as a potential energy source owing to several desirable
attributes – high organic and low sulphur contents. Other wastes originating from animal and
agricultural farms also has a high proposition of organic matter an also be utilized for energy
recovery. The former includes cattle farm and poultry wastes, while the latter consists of agro-
residues (such as rice, wheat, sugar-cane), stalks, leaves, trees, stumps and saw dust. Industrial
activities also generate liquid and solid wastes with a significant proportion of organic constituents.
Some examples of industrial wastewater in this category include black liquor (paper), spentwash
(distillery), steep liquor (corn), milk processing (dairy products), food processing, and leather tanning.
The typical characteristics and energy recovery potential of some urban and industrial wastes
generated in India are given in Table 8-1 (liquid) and Table 8-2 (solid/ semi solid).
8.3 Technology Options

Several technologies are now available for energy recovery from urban and industrial wastes that are
based on thermal or biological methods (Figure 8-1).
Landfill has been the most common and widely prevalent practice of MSW disposal in many
countries. Some of the issues that now tend to limit the practice of sanitary landfilling include land
availability, production of leachates and deleterious odorous gases, and public acceptability of landfill
as a disposal method. Adverse public opinion has been a critical factor limiting the overall success of
refuse disposal by landfilling, even though well-engineered landfills have overcome some of the
operational problems. A further issue has been the absence of a satisfactory waste collection
infrastructure. Biomethanation of municipal sewage has also emerged as a proven WTE option
(Figure 8-2) with energy recovery as biogas.
The thermal methods utilize the calorific value of the solid waste and release the energy potential. The
carbon and hydrogen contents in the waste either combusted in the presence of oxygen to generate
heat that can be used in boilers/turbines for the production of steam/power, or the waste is
MWH Chapter 8-1

decomposed in the absence of oxygen to generate carbon monoxide, hydrogen, traces of other gases,
fuel oil and char.
Incineration systems have been widely adopted in North American and European communities for the
safe disposal of MSW and power generation to augment grid supply. Recent technological
developments have focussed on advanced thermal conversion (ATC) processes such as gasification
and pyrolysis (Figure 8-1) as viable waste-to-energy systems with increasing commercial uptake.
Sugarcane bagasse, a solid waste from sugar industry, used as a conventional boiler fuel, has been
used for cogeneration with surplus power supplied to the state grid. Newer technologies being
developed/ adopted in India include fluidised bed combustion (incineration) and gasification systems
for handling distillery spentwash, and paper mill black liquor after concentration in multiple effect
evaporators. (Figure 8-2).
Technology options available for energy recovery from industrial and farming sector wastes are
shown in Figure 8-2. Several of the high strength (BOD, COD) industrial wastewaters listed in Table
8-1 have been successfully utilised for energy recovery by biomethanation techniques through various
bioreactor configurations. Farm wastes (poultry, cattle, etc.) have been slurried and digested to
recover energy as biogas or dewatered and dried for thermal processing. Abattoir, tannery fleshings
and sludge have also been used for bio-energy recovery through anaerobic digestion.
Bio-conversion of waste matter to biogas can provide the dual benefits of energy recovery and safe
waste disposal. The potential for methane fermentation of various organic feedstocks is high and can
significantly contribute to the ever-increasing energy needs of society. The anaerobic digestion of the
organic fraction of wastes such as proteins, fats and carbohydrates involves hydrolysis – acidogenesis,
acetogenesis and methanogenesis reactions - to generate a mixture of methane, carbon dioxide and
traces of few other gases. Proprietary anaerobic digesters are available for handling MSW, animal
waste, farm waste and other organic solid residues. Crops such as seaweed and water hyacinth can
also be anaerobically digested.
A wide variety of systems have been developed and commercialised during the past two -three
decades to tap the energy potential of various solid wastes, and concurrently solve the problems of
waste disposal. The use of solid waste for energy recovery has a great potential for full-scale
applications. Newer energy recovery processes based on biological or thermal technologies can be
implemented to meet long-range energy needs of modern societies.
All of these processes are based on the use of several heavy-duty mechanical equipment for handling
a large quantity of MSW or other solid wastes for feed preparation. Both thermal systems
(incineration and advanced thermal conversion) and anaerobic digesters incorporate unique process
features and skills in operation to meet performance stipulations.
Energy recovery as electric power is a feature of all waste-to-energy systems. Consequently, these
systems generally involve significant capital and maintenance costs. In order to match the quality and
amount of waste to be processed with an appropriate technology package diverse expertise and skills
in materials management, engineering skills, finance, judiciary, statutory regulatory aspects,
ecological and socio-economic issues are required.
8.4 Assessment/ Selection of WTE Technologies
A checklist of criteria, based on the nature of solid wastes, process technology features, system costs,
environmental factors, socio-economic and other aspects for technology assessment/ selection of
WTE projects is given in Table 8.3. The significance of the different criteria is discussed below:
Nature & Characteristics of Feedstock
MWH Chapter 8-2

The quantum and characteristics of waste available for processing are important factors. The waste
quantity will decide the capacity of the WTE plant, unless storage hoppers can be utilised to take
account of a waste stream that varies widely in daily quantities. The nature of the constituents making
up the organic fraction of the waste will determine its thermal or biochemical energy potential. An
adequate quantity of waste of a desirable quality must be available to sustain continuous operation of
the system selected.
Successful implementation of such programmes also requires an efficient waste management system,
specific for the type of waste considered for large-scale utilization in WTE projects. Many of these
application will also require elaborate pre-treatment via shredders, hydrapulpers, cyclones, air
classifiers, etc. for the removal of grits, ferrous/ non-ferrous metals, glass, etc, to obtain a suitable
feed-stock.
The scale of operations of an individual unit is rather too small in many sectors such as tannery, starch
(sago), poultry and cattle farm. The utilisation of the wastes from these units will require an
appropriate collection mechanism to obtain an adequate quantum of feedstock to sustain the operation
of a viable full scale WTE facility. Clustering of the individual units in some locations can be
considered to make the WTE facility a viable proposition. Industrial and urban wastes can also be
blended for co-processing in a WTE facility.
Technology Features
Process technology plays a key role in the selection of appropriate process equipment and accessories,
process instrumentation, layout, manpower, training, capital and recurring expenses for the
implementation of a waste-to-energy project on a turnkey basis. A major difference between the
thermal and biological process is the operating temperature level viz.10000C vs. 350C – 600C
respectively. The large size equipment associated with the thermal systems will also entail high
capital investment.
The maturity of a particular technology indicates whether that technology is well proven and has a a
good track record. It is also important to know whether a technology is available on a commercial
scale with a reliable supplier and, if necessary, whether it can be scaled-up to meet specific
requirements. It is not always true that a small-scale successful WTE plant will perform well on a
commercial scale. Experience has indicated that heat transfer characteristics may be one of the
barriers in scaling-up a WTE plant, especially in the case of Advanced Thermal Conversion (ATC)
processes.
Effectiveness of a technology will be determined by its flexibility in responding to a variety of wastes,

potential future improvements, and its adaptability to changing regulations. The ability of a
technology to treat waste effectively and to recover significant quantities of energy will help to
determine the efficiency of a WTE plant. Critical analysis of mass-balance and energy-balance data
can help in determining the efficiency of a system. Factors such as land requirements and other site-
specific requirements are also important for the successful implementation of the selected scheme.
The success of a WTE technology will depend critically on its ease of operation and maintenance. It is
likely that highly sophisticated technologies will require specialized manpower and process
instrumentation for their operation and maintenance. Training of operators may be a very significant
and limiting issue in the case of such highly sophisticated technologies.
Economic Factors
There are two important economic aspects of waste-to-energy technology selection: the first is capital
and operating costs, and the second is the revenue generated from the sale of recovered energy.
MWH Chapter 8-3

Disposal of by-products in an efficient way can not only save disposal costs, but also produce some
additional revenue.
• Capital and Operating Costs
Several factors such as the size of a plant, the plant location, process type, technology developer, cost
of local labour, construction material proximity and pre-processing requirements will determine the
capital and operating costs. Initial costs and running costs can vary significantly due to local
conditions. For example, high-pressure gasification systems are more efficient and cheaper at
electricity generation stages but require high capital, as compared to low-pressure gasification. Proper
consideration of all of the above factors is required while selecting a particular technology.
• Revenue From By-Products
Electricity is the most common form of energy produced from WTE facilities constructed today.
Assuming a uniform energy sale price the quantum of energy recovered will primarily determine the
viability of the WTE technology.
By-products produced in waste-to-energy processes present two-fold economic considerations. The

first is the cost of residue disposal, and the second is possible revenue from the sale of various
residues. For example, for biomethanation, the reactor residue has a potential value as a compost or
soil conditioner, and in gasification, the vitrified slag comprising of inert inorganic constituents can be
used as road material.
Environmental Factors
Environmental issues are recognized as critical to the viability of WTE facilities. Most technologies
for treatment and disposal of MSW have associated environmental issues and concerns seriously
limiting their widespread adoption. Landfills have been the most popular disposal option in developed
countries in spite of problems of leachates contaminating groundwater and soil, odour, fire and other
local hazards. Composting also has limitations such as odour nuisance and poor off-take of compost.
Thermal methods such as incineration require elaborate air pollution control system to comply with
strict regulatory requirements, besides problems of dioxins and furan emissions, which are highly
toxic. The technology that has lower pollution control costs as well as minimal general impacts on the
environment will be the most favoured one on environmental grounds. For a given technology the
impact of emissions on air quality, water quality, land and other environmental consequences needs to
be resolved and addressed. Incineration, for example, is coming under intensive scrutiny in terms of
deleterious emissions to air. Installation of air pollution control equipments is often exceedingly (and
increasingly) costly and an associated perception of emitting greenhouse gases is also a concern.
Socio-Economic/ Others
General public acceptance is critical in choosing a waste-to-energy technology. Issues such as traffic
generation to and from the facility site, odour, noise, air pollution, and other perceived health risks of
waste treatment, disposal and energy recovery options all play a role in public acceptance .
Alternatives that are politically sensitive need special consideration. The system that is compatible
with existing systems and which generates significant employment opportunities are more likely to be
favoured by the local population. The potential effects of construction and operation on public safety
are important factors.
The hierarchy of integrated waste management focuses on waste minimization/ prevention, recycling
and reuse, waste transportation and disposal. The quantum of waste to be transported will be reduced
significantly due to the waste to energy facility. In case of MSW it could be possible to reduce the
final residues for landfilling to less than 25% of MSW after recycling (35%-50%).
MWH Chapter 8-4

8.5 Summary
This chapter presents an overview of the nature of various urban and industrial wastes available in the
country as renewable sources of energy. Thermal and biological processes available for energy
recovery from these wastes are indicated. The methodology adopted to gather details of WTE
technologies and a checklist of critical factors for technology assessment/ selection of WTE Projects
are also highlighted.
MWH Chapter 8-5

Table 8-1. Characteristics of Indian Urban and Industrial Liquid Wastes
Sr. Waste Sector pH SS BOD COD Oil & TDS Indicative Bio-
Waste chemical Energy
No. Generated (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Grease (mg/L)
(mg/L) Potential
(m3/Ton) (N m3 biogas/m3)
A. Urban Liquid Waste
1. Sewage 100+ 7-8.5 150-250 200-400 400-750 15-30 500-800 0.25
B. Industrial Liquid Wastes
2. Distillery 25* 4-4.5 4000-6000 45000-50000 90000-100000 Nil 70000-90000 25
3. Mini Paper (Black liquor) 15-30 10- 1000-1500 4000-9000 12000-25000 Nil 10000-15000 5
11
4. Dairy
Chilling Plants 2 10- 180-360 400-600 150-300 500-1200 -
11
Milk Plants 3 8-9 1250-1350 1800-2000 2500-3200 650-750 2000-2400 1.2
Integrated Dairy 4-4.5 6-8 150-350 1000-12000 1800-2500 70-150 600-900 0.8
5. Starch
a. Maize 15 4-5 560-1100 4000-12650 10000-20000 <20 4000-6000 6.0
b. Tapioca 30 5-6 550-650 4600-5200 5600-6400 <20 3500-4000 2.5
6. Tannery 30-40 7.5- 3000-4500 1200-2500 3000-6000 <20 14000-20000 1.0
8.5
7. Abattoir 40-50 7.3- 420-750 3500-4000 6000-8000 50-150 2500-3000 0.25
7.5
8. Sugar 0.3-0.5 4.5-6 250-300 1250-2000 2000-3000 60-100 1000-1200 1.0
9. Pharmaceuticals Variable 4-8 Variable Variable >5000 Variable >12000 Nil Variable >4000 Variable
>500
Source: Adapted from various sources

* cum per cum of alcohol produced + lpcd
MONTGOMERY WATSON Chapter 8-6

Table 8-2. Characteristics of Indian Urban and Industrial/ Farm Wastes
Sr. Waste Sector Moisture Total Inerts Organics Thermal Energy

No % Solids % (Volatile) Potential *
% % TS Kcal / kg
(Dry basis)
A. Urban Solid Waste
1. MSW 30-40 60-80 35-50 50-65 1000-1200
B. Industrial/ Farm Solid Wastes
2. Poultry 75-80 20-25 25 75 1000-1400
3. Cattle Farm 80-90 10-20 20 80-85 3700
4. Sugar
a. Pressmud 75-80 20-25 10-20 75-80 4000
b. Bagasse 50 50 5-8 80-90 4000
5. Abattoir 75-80 20-25 NA 75-85 NA
6. Tannery fleshings 75-80 20-25 NA 75-85 NA
7. Starch
a. Corn cobs 10-15 85-90 <5 95 3500
b. Tapioca peelings 10-15 85-90 5-10 85-90 3000
c. Tapioca Tippi 80-90 10-20 2-5 90 3000
8. Rice husk 5-8 70-78 20-25 75-80 3000
9. Coal (Bituminous) 8-10 90 25-30 70-75 4500
10. Fuel Oil 0 - <2 > 98 10000
Note: Values of coal and fuel oil are included for the purpose of comparisons
*Adapted from www.indiasolar.com

9 Biomethanation Processes
9.1 Introduction
Solid and liquid wastes consist of both organic and inorganic constituents, and the degradation of the
former can take place in the presence or absence of oxygen (air). When microbial degradation of
organics takes place in the absence of air, the process is known as ‘anaerobic digestion’ or
‘biomethanation’. This results in the production of biogas, which contains methane, carbon dioxide
and traces of other gases. Anaerobic digestion occurs naturally in swamps, waterlogged soils and rice
fields, deep-water bodies, and in the digestive systems of animals. Anaerobic processes can take place
in a reactor such as digester vessel, covered lagoon or landfill in order to recover the methane gas (as
biogas), which can be used for power generation.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a brief overview of various biomethanation processes
developed and adopted for handling diverse types of wastes, having significant bio-energy potential.
Biomethanation systems are amongst the most mature and proven processes, which converts waste in
to energy efficiently, and can be used to achieve the following goals:
• Pollution prevention/ reduction

• Reduction of uncontrolled GHG emissions and odour
• Recovery of bio-energy potential as biogas for fuel/ power generation
• Production of stabilized residue for use as fertilizers
Biomethanation processes can be used to recover energy from various municipal, agricultural and
industrial organic wastes, which are listed below:
• Municipal solid waste

• Municipal liquid waste (sewage, leachate)
• Animal farms and agricultural residues (cattle, poultry, bio-mass)
• Industrial wastes (sugar [pressmud], starch, distillery, paper, rayon, dairy, tannery, abattoir,
etc.)
• Other industries producing organic wastes
Anaerobic digestion systems were constructed more than a century ago for the stabilisation of sludges
originating from sewage treatment plants. These sludge digestion systems merely acted as storage
tanks with a long detention time (30 – 50 days). This practice was continued to benefit from the
energy produced as biogas and to use the stabilised sludge as soil conditioner/ manure.
With a better understanding of the mechanisms of the pathways of anaerobic digestion processes and
the experiences of operating installations, the conventional sludge digester design and configurations
have undergone major developments. Anaerobic digestion has evolved into a mature technology, and
several innovative high-rate reactor designs are now available for the treatment of diverse municipal,
industrial and farm sector wastes. Commercial systems available for anaerobic processing can be
classified on the basis of the nature of waste used as the substrate. These are listed below:
• Aqueous industrial and municipal (sewage) wastes
MWH Chapter 9-1

• Semi-solid/ slurry wastes from industrial, municipal (sewage sludge, municipal solid waste-
MSW), and farms as well as biomass residuals
The feedstock generally undergoes pre-treatment prior to biomethanation. Pre-treatment of industrial

process wastewater would generally include equalization of flow and composition, heat exchange for
temperature regulation, neutralization for pH adjustment, sedimentation for the removal of suspended
particulate matter and oil/ grease, and other physical – chemical processes for detoxification. In the
case of municipal sewage, preliminary processing will include bar screen, detritor and primary
clarifier.
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) consists of biodegradable organic fraction (volatile solids) up to 50%-
70% (dry basis) and the rest is non-biodegradable matter such as grit, sand, metal, plastics, glass,
wood, rubber, etc Pre-processing of MSW involves both dry and wet techniques for handling a large
quantum of waste, and represents an elaborate preparatory stage prior to biomethanation.
Biomethanation processes have also been successfully applied to solid/ semisolid wastes from cattle
farm, poultry farm, food processing industries, etc. Water is added in all these applications to increase
the moisture content (20% – 40% solids) or prepare slurry (10% – 15% solids) depending upon the
process requirements.
Anaerobic processes offer several benefits such as methane production (biogas as fuel), low capital,
and operating costs, power savings with no aeration requirement and high treatment efficiency. Full
scale anaerobic treatment plants are in operation in many countries, including India, in industrial and
urban sectors such as distilleries, breweries, chemical manufacturing, dairy, food processing, landfill
leachate, pharmaceuticals, pulp and paper, slaughterhouse, sugar, sewage sludge and MSW.
9.2 Principles of Biomethanation

The anaerobic microbial conversion of organic substrates to methane is a complex biogenic process
involving a number of microbial populations, linked by their individual substrate and product
specificities. The overall conversion process may be described as involving both direct and indirect
symbiotic associations between different groups of microorganisms present in the digester.
A simplified schematic diagram of the major biochemical transformations during anaerobic

fermentation processes is given in Figure 9-1. These processes were developed for reducing solid
content and improving the dewatering characteristics of sludge produced in wastewater treatment
plants. This has been accomplished by a consortium of anaerobic bacteria capable of converting
insoluble particulate organic material to form biogas (consisting of methane and carbon dioxide),
through a number of intermediate steps.
These conversion possibilities can serve as a convenient basis for emphasizing some important
biochemical and environmental requirements of anaerobic microbial treatment of municipal,
agricultural and industrial wastes, and for directing the development or selection of substrate-linked
process configurations. The methanogenic bacteria are crucial for the anaerobic stabilization of
various substrates, since they constitute the final step leading to the generation of biogas.
Waste composed of particulate organic material (waste sludge, MSW, etc.) must first be solubilized
by the action of extra cellular enzymes that are produced by hydrolytic bacteria. The solubilisation of
particulate material is relatively slow and accomplished by providing a long contact time between the
substrate and an anaerobic microbial consortium. Wastes containing soluble organics will require
short retention times for achieving high treatment efficiency, since the kinetic rates of the acidogenic
and methanogenic bacteria are relatively rapid.
MWH Chapter 9-2

9.3 Biomethanation Systems: Aqueous Wastes

Various anaerobic reactor designs are currently in use for full-scale applications for treatment of
domestic sewage and various industrial wastewaters to produce methane-enriched biogas as shown in
Figure 9-2. In general, the suspended biomass growth processes are advantageous for the treatment of
wastewater containing low proportions of particulate biodegradable material. The attached growth
processes are well suited to wastewater that primarily contains soluble organic substrates. The hybrid
processes can be applied to wastewaters with intermediate levels of particulates, although
performance is usually better with soluble wastewaters. A comparison of the salient process features
of suspended growth and attached growth bioreactors are given in Table 9-1. Table 9.2 gives a
consolidated list of the major advantages and limitations of the different commercial reactors,
classified on the basis of the retention of microbial biomass in suspension or attached in the system.
Table 9.3 gives a comparative assessment of some important process design features of different
bioreactor configurations handling distillery spent wash, based on feedback from full-scale operating
installations in India. The information/ data contained in these tables will be valuable in preliminary
screening and selection of an appropriate reactor configuration for a given application.
9.3.1 Suspended Growth Systems

A. Continuous Stirred Tank Reactor
The simplest form of suspended growth anaerobic digester is the completely mixed digester Figure
9.3 Mechanical impeller-type or gas recirculation mixers are used to achieve the completely mixed
conditions in these reactors. In a completely mixed digester, the concentration of suspended solids
remaining in the effluent after treatment will be a function of the influent composition and the degree
of treatment provided. Completely mixed digesters are particularly suitable for wastewaters
containing high concentrations of suspended solids. The process is susceptible to toxics and shock
loadings with relatively low biomass concentrations and short operating SRTs.
The system offers several process advantages as illustrated below:
• Process can provide uniform environment throughout the reactor

• Good mixing can minimize short circuiting, dead pockets and flow channeling
The main disadvantage of the process is large reactor volumes required to provide necessary SRTs
B. Anaerobic Contact Reactor
The anaerobic contact reactor configuration can overcome some of the disadvantages of the
conventional digester by recycling the biomass enhancing the SRT in the digester. Figure 9-4. The
biomass separation system used in the anaerobic contact process will retain active microorganisms
promoting biodegradation of organic matter in the influent. The anaerobic contact process retains
most of the advantages of a conventional digester with the extra benefits of increased SRTs and
smaller reactor volumes. Anaerobic contact systems that utilize gravity settling for anaerobic flocs
usually entrain biogas. Solids settleability can often be problematic, and can be improved by gas
stripping, or vacuum degasification, inclined plate or lamella settlers and the addition of coagulants
and flocculants to promote floc formation.
The treatment efficiency of an anaerobic contact process is usually much greater than that of a
completely mixed digester. Total COD reduction of 80-90% is possible for highly biodegradable
wastewaters with COD concentration 2000 – 10000 mg/L.
Some of the major advantages of the contact system are listed below:
MWH Chapter 9-3

• Suitable for wastes with high concentration of organics

• Uniform substrate concentration in the uniform environment
• Relatively high quality effluent
• Aerobic post-treatment sludge can be wasted to the anaerobic reactor for stabilisation
• Can handle waste with low to medium concentration of suspended solids
Disadvantages
• Biomass settleability is critical

• Vacuum degasification to promote settlability
• Limited equalisation capacity for shock inputs
C. Covered Lagoons
A low-rate treatment process that has gained acceptance is an advanced version of anaerobic lagoon
(shown in Figure 9-5). Feed is introduced at one end of the reactor through a distribution system to
maximize contact between the wastewater and a bed of anaerobic biosludge at the inlet zone of the
tank. The biogas evolved at the inlet zone contributes significantly towards internal mixing, which
takes place along the length of the tank. Near the outlet end of the lagoon, where biogas production is
minimal, a relatively quiescent clarification zone is maintained to reduce the suspended solid content
of the treated effluent. In recent designs, internal mixers and sludge recycle are incorporated to
improve contact between the wastewater and the anaerobic sludge. The entire reactor is covered with
a floating synthetic membrane that conserves process heat and permits the collection of the biogas.
D. Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) Reactors

The UASB reactor incorporates multiple functions of a treatment system such as pre-sedimentation,
anaerobic treatment, sludge/ biogas separation and stabilization in a single unit, making it the most
attractive high rate bioreactor system. It produces relatively high value by-products such as treated
wastewater for reuse; methane enriched biogas and mineralised sludge, which can be used as manure.
UASB reactors were developed initially for the anaerobic treatment of industrial wastewaters with
moderate to high COD concentration. The basic idea is to develop flocculant or granular sludge insitu
in the reactor, depending on the wastewater characteristics and operational parameters. The sludge
will tend to settle under gravity and will be retained when applying moderate upward velocities in the
reactor and a separate sedimentation unit will not be necessary. Organic compounds present in the
wastewater are absorbed or adsorbed on the sludge granules in the reaction zone during its passage
through the sludge bed.
An integral three-phase Gas-Liquid - Solids separator (GLSS) is provided to dislodge the sludge
particles from the entrapped biogas bubbles and separated in the settling zone. Wastewater enters the
reactor from the bottom and travels through the reactor in the upward direction. The rising biogas
bubbles, settling sludge particles and the differential density currents in the bulk of the reactor,
achieve further mixing in the reaction zone.
Biogas contains methane (CH4), carbon dioxide (CO2), hydrogen gas (H2), hydrogen sulphide (H2S)
traces of ammonia (NH3) and nitrogen (N). A cross-sectional view of the UASB reactor system is
given in Figure 9-6
MWH Chapter 9-4

9.3.2 Attached Growth Systems

Attached growth or Biofilm reactors utilize a support medium for the development of a high
concentration of required biomass for efficient anaerobic treatment. An inert medium is placed in the
vessel and the process is operated to favour the growth of microorganisms as a layer (biofilm) on the
surface. The media is fully submerged and wastewater flow can be in upflow or downflow mode. The
attached anaerobic biomass converts both soluble and particulate organic matter in the wastewater to
biogas. The most common designs of anaerobic attached growth systems are anaerobic filters and
fluidised bed reactors.
A. Upflow Filters
Waste stream is passed upward through a bed of medium in an anaerobic filter. The high
concentration of biomass grown and retained as biofilm on the surface of the media contributes to the
short hydraulic retention time and high organic loading rates.
The earlier designs, with stone media having low voids, have largely been replaced by synthetic
medium with an open structure and high void volumes (95%). The large interfacial area available
promotes the development of an attached biofilm. Figure 9-7 gives a schematic representation of an
upflow anaerobic filter.
Random loose-fill packings such as plastic pall rings and stacked modular media, formed from plastic
sheets, have both been used in full-scale applications. The specific surface-to-volume ratios of these
packings provide interfacial area of 100 – 150 m2m-3 for biofilm development.
B. Downflow Filters
The downflow reactor utilizes stacked modular packing, which provides relatively straight vertical
flow channels (Figure 9.7). By operating the reactor in a downflow mode, influent suspended solids
and sloughed biofilm solids are carried with the flow and require a downstream clarifier unit. This
may result in lower effluent quality in some circumstances, particularly when the influent contains a
large proportion of insoluble material.
In general, fixed bed reactors offer a stable and simple anaerobic treatment process. The large
proportion of attached biomass in fixed bed reactors enhances biomass retention and improves the
stability of the process under variable feed conditions. In comparison to suspended growth systems,
the cost of the biofilm support medium could be prohibitive.
C. Fluidised Bed Bioreactors
A fluidised bed bioreactor utilizes an inert medium such as sand (0.4-0.6 mm) for the growth of
biomass as an attached biofilm.
The higher upflow velocities produce 25% to 100% bed expansion and the media particles remain
suspended in the fluidised state. The high-energy requirement for bed expansion or fluidisation
through effluent recycle is one of the major disadvantages of a fluidised bed bioreactor.
The inert medium increases the average density of the biomass particle and prevents washout of the
bed even under very high flow rate conditions. The large upflow velocities increase turbulence at the
biofilm/ liquid interface and promote good mass transfer across the biofilm and exert sufficient shear
to prevent the development of thick biofilms on the media. The high upflow velocities allow compact
reactors to be designed with a relatively large height/ diameter ratio.
MWH Chapter 9-5

Sand is the most common medium used in full-scale anaerobic fluidised bed systems. An absorptive
medium such as activated carbon could prove to be an advantage for the treatment of toxic or
inhibitory wastewaters. In addition, the adsorbed toxicant may eventually undergo biodegradation if
an acclimated microbial population can be developed.
Fluidised beds have some design requirements that are comparable to those of the fixed bed
processes. The need for influent equalization should be evaluated in both cases. Efficient influent flow
distribution is also critical in fluidised beds. The design of the influent distributor is one of the
proprietary features of the fluidised bed. Maximum dilution of wastewater is provided at the reactor
inlet by the very high effluent recirculation ratios required for media fluidisation. This enables the
fluidised bed processes to accommodate a wide range of wastewater with a COD concentration of up
to 100,000 mg/L. Organic loading rates of up to 20 kg COD/m3/d are typical of these systems.
9.3.3 Hybrid Reactors

The recent trend in design is toward the use of a “hybrid” reactor. The removal of the lower 50% –
75% of the media in anaerobic filters could produce a hybrid sludge blanket/ anaerobic filter. The
resulting hybrid design has the potential of substantially reducing media plugging and the associated
hydraulic and mass transfer problems found in fixed bed reactors, while realizing the advantages of
both fixed film and upflow sludge blanket treatment.
In the hybrid process, non-attached biosolids are free to accumulate, and the concentration and level
of the sludge blanket is easily monitored. Wasting of excess biomass from the sludge blanket zone is
also relatively simple. The packed zone at the top of the reactor serves as a gas-solid-liquid separator
that assists in the retention of the non-attached sludge flows. It further provides a zone of attached
biomass that improves process stability under transient operating conditions. The most significant
benefit of the hybrid reactor concept is the reduced cost of the support media required.
9.3.4 Wastewater Characteristics

The general range of characteristics of various industrial wastewaters suitable for anaerobic
processing is given in Table 9-4. Some factors to be considered for screening the suitability of
anaerobic treatment technology include the following:
• Source and nature of wastewater

• Flow rate
• Concentration of organic pollutants (BOD, COD) and suspended solids
• Temperature
• Presence of toxicants, and
• Biogas and sludge generation potentials
The rates of all biomethanation reactions are controlled by the biomass activity and biomass
concentration in the system. Suspended growth processes can be designed in such a way that biomass
is separated from the treated effluent and returned to the reactor. In this manner, Solids Retention
Time (SRT) and Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT) of the process can be segregated and controlled/
varied independently. Biofilm reactors utilize an inert medium or carrier to favour the growth of
microorganisms on the media surface as a fixed film. This physical attachment will prevent biomass
washout and enable the development of the high biomass concentrations.
Wastewaters containing particulate organic material are degraded relatively slowly, since hydrolysis
becomes the rate-limiting step. Minimum Solids Retention Time (SRT) of four to ten days may be
MWH Chapter 9-6

required at mesophilic temperatures to prevent the washout of hydrolytic anaerobic bacteria. The
growth rate of methanogenic bacteria will be the rate-limiting step for anaerobic fermentation of
soluble wastewaters containing acetate as the primary organic contaminant. In this case, SRT of two
and a half to five days may be required to allow growth and retention of methanogenic bacteria.
9.3.5 Features of Bioreactor Operation

The rates of methanogenesis in anaerobic microbial conversion processes depend primarily upon
substrate availability and viable microbial population besides environmental factors such as the pH,
temperature, ionic strength or salinity, the presence of nutrients and toxic or inhibitory substances in
the reactor. Some of the features of bioreactor operation are as follows:
• Most anaerobic processes operate best at neutral pH and are maintained with sufficient
alkalinity in the medium. Gas production and pH levels are good indicators of the satisfactory
performance of biomethanation processes.
• Low pH, excessive acid production and accumulation are inhibitants to methanogens than
fermentative bacteria.
• Methanogenesis reactions are strongly temperature-dependent, with reaction rates generally
increasing with temperature up to 600C. Optimal temperature ranges used are mesophilic
(350C - 40°C) and thermophilic (550C to 600C), with decreased rates between these optima,
due to lack of adaptation.
• The nutrient requirements are met with BOD : N : P ratio of 100 : 0.5 : 0.1. The organic
constituents of the waste usually supply the fundamental requirements for macronutrients
such as carbon and nitrogen.
• Other trace elements necessary to sustain metabolic activities include iron, nickel,
magnesium, calcium, sodium, barium, tungstate, molybdate, selenium, and cobalt.
• Toxicity or inhibition of methanogenic processes can be attributed to a variety of
circumstances, including the generation of intermediary products such as the volatile fatty
acids, hydrogen sulphide and ammonia, besides some heavy metals and cyanide present in
process wastewaters.
• Several full-scale facilities have been constructed and operated successfully for dilute
wastewaters such as municipal sewage and for very concentrated effluents such as rum
spillage (distillery spentwash).
• Anaerobic treatment alone can give 70%-90% BOD and 50%-75% COD removal efficiency
leaving relatively high residue of un-degraded organics in treated effluents.
• Higher BOD (COD) concentration levels would entail the recovery of a higher quantum of
biogas necessary for power generation.
• Wastewater characteristics suitable for efficient working of anaerobic system are shown in
Table 9-4. For concentrated wastes containing a COD of more than 30,000 mg/L, or for high
concentrations of suspended solids, low-rate anaerobic digestion system will be more
appropriate.
• Anaerobic digestion is well known as a treatment process for sewage sludge and animal
manures that contain high levels of suspended solids. The high concentration of insoluble
organic material will lead to a long digestion periods (10 – 30 days) in order to allow for the
relatively slow biological process of hydrolysis and solubilisation of the insoluble materials.
• High-rate anaerobic treatment technologies are intended for wastewaters in which the organic
pollutants are soluble.
MWH Chapter 9-7

9.4 Biomethanation Systems: Sludge/ Semi-solids/ MSW

9.4.1 Low Solids Digestion (4%-6% solids)
Conventional (standard-rate) sludge digestion is carried out as a single stage process. The
functions of digestion, sludge thickening, and supernatant separations are carried out concurrently.
Raw sludge (4%-6% solids) is added in the active digestion zone. (The sludge is heated by means of
an external heat exchanger to maintain mesophilic conditions). The biogas rises to the top dome
section for collection, and it also lifts sludge particles and other materials, such as grease, oils, and
fats, to form a scum layer.
Digested sludge is mineralised, and thickens due to gravitational force and he supernatant layer is
formed above the digested sludge. As a result of the stratification and the lack of intimate mixing, not
more than 50 percent of the volume of a standard-rate single-stage digester is used. Because of these
limitations, the standard-rate process can be used only for small installations.
In the two-stage digestion process, the first tank is used for digestion. It is heated and equipped with
mixing facilities consisting of one or more of the following:
(1) Sludge-recirculation pumps;
(2) Gas recirculation using short mixing tubes, one or more deep-draft tubes, or bottom-mounted
diffusers;
(3) Mechanical draft-tube mixers, and
(4) Turbine and propeller mixers.
Figure 9-10 is a schematic diagram of a two-stage, high-rate anaerobic digester system. Due to the
reason that anaerobically digested sludge does not settle readily, many secondary digesters have not
performed well. They produce dilute sludge and a high strength supernatant. The second tank is used
for the storage and concentration of digested sludge and for the formation of a relatively clear
supernatant. Frequently, the tanks are made identical, in which case, either one may be the primary. In
other cases, the second tank may be an open tank, an unheated tank, or a sludge lagoon. Tanks may
have fixed roofs or floating covers. Any or all of the floating covers may be of the gasholder type.
Alternatively, gas may be stored in a separate gas holder or compressed and stored under pressure
Higher solids loading rates can be applied on the high-rate-digestion process compared to the
conventional single-stage process. The sludge is intimately mixed by gas recirculation, pumping, or
draft-tube mixers (separation of scum and supernatant does not take place) and it is heated to achieve
optimum digestion rates. With the exception of higher loading rates and improved mixing, there are
only a few differences between the primary digester in a conventional two-stage process and a high-
rate digester. The mixing equipment should have greater capacity and should reach the bottom of the
tank, the gas piping should be somewhat larger, fewer multiple sludge draw offs replace the
supernatant draw offs, and the tank should be deeper to aid mixing.
Sludge should be pumped to the digester continuously or in cycles. The incoming sludge displaces
digested sludge either to a holding tank or to a second digester for supernatant separation and
residual-gas extraction. Because there is no supernatant separation in the high-rate digester, and the
total solids are reduced by 45 to 50 percent and given off as gas, the digested sludge is about half as
concentrated as the untreated sludge feed.
Compared to operation at ambient temperatures, control of the temperature in the mesophilic range
speeds up the process substantially. In temperate countries, medium to high solid wastes such as
sewage sludge and animal slurries are usually treated in fully mixed mesophilic digesters with a
relatively long retention time and low volumetric and organic loading rates (1-5 kg COD/m3/d). This
MWH Chapter 9-8

is because a substantial percentage of the biodegradable portion of these wastes is cellulosic material,
and the slow rate of hydrolysis of these compounds requires long retention times to achieve a
reasonable level of degradation. Retention times are typically 15-30 days for most of these wastes.
Mixing and heating together lead to a uniform reactor environment and maintain conditions for the
optimum growth of the microbes that drive the digestion process. Figure 9-11 is a schematic diagram
of a single-stage high-rate, continuous stirred digester.
Mixing creates a homogeneous environment and allows newly introduced waste to come in contact
with the microorganisms. It also evenly distributes temperature and waste products. Mixing can be
accomplished by a variety of methods, either mechanically or by the use of compressed digestion gas.
The three common methods of gas mixing include:
• injection of compressed gas through a series of small-diameter pipes suspended from the
cover into the digesting sludge,
• the use of a draft tube in the centre of the tank with compressed gas injected into the tube to
lift recirculating sludge from the bottom, and
• supplying compressed gas through a number of diffusers mounted in the centre at the bottom
of the tank.
9.4.2 Medium Solids Anaerobic Digestion (10%-15% solids)

The medium-solids anaerobic fermentation process is used in many parts of the world to generate
methane gas from sewage, animal waste, agricultural wastes and the organic fraction of MSW.
Medium-solids anaerobic digestion is a biological process in which organic wastes are fermented at
solids concentration of 10-15 percent. One of the disadvantages of this process is the water required
for dilution, which must be dewatered prior to disposal. The disposal of this liquid stream resulting
from the dewatering step is also an important consideration.
There are three basic steps involved in medium-solids anaerobic digestion process. They are:
1. Preparation of the organic fraction of the MSW involving sorting and separating.
2. Addition of water and nutrients, blending, pH adjustment (6.5-7) and heating of the slurry to
55oC - 60oC (if necessary). Anaerobic digestion is carried out in a continuous flow stirred
reactor. The required moisture content and nutrients can be added to the wastes to be
processed, in the form of wastewater sludge or cow manure.
3. Collection of biogas (50%-60% CH4).
4. The dewatering and disposal of the digested sludge is an additional task.
One of the disadvantages of this process is the water required for dilution, which must be dewatered
prior to disposal. The disposal of this liquid stream resulting from the dewatering step is also an
important consideration.
9.4.3 High Solids Anaerobic Digestion (25%-35% solids)

High-solids anaerobic digestion is a biological process in which the fermentation occurs at a total
solids content of 25–35 percent for energy recovery from the organic fraction of MSW. Two
important advantages of the high-solids anaerobic digestion process are lower water requirement and
higher gas production per unit volume of the reactor size.
MWH Chapter 9-9

The three steps described for the medium-solids anaerobic digestion are also relevant for high-solids
anaerobic digestion process. The principal difference is at the end of the process, where less effort is
required to dewater and dispose of the digested sludge.
The effects of many environmental parameters on microbial populations are more severe in the case
of the high-solids concentration. For example, ammonia toxicity can affect the methanogenic bacteria,
which will have an adverse effect on system stability and methane production. In most cases,
ammonia toxicity can be prevented by a proper adjustment of the Carbon to nitrogen ratio of the input
feedstock.
Process selection between anaerobic processes is typically between the medium-solids and the high
solids options. Selection of equipment and facilities for the medium-solids anaerobic digestion
process usually involves the type of mixing equipment (internal mixers, internal gas mixing and
external pump mixing), the general shape of the digester (e.g. circular or egg-shaped), the control
systems, and the ancillary facilities needed for feeding the incoming wastes and dewatering the
digested sludge.
Table 9.5 gives some important process design consideration for medium and high solids anaerobic
digestion processes for handling the organic fraction of MSW.
9.5 Environmental and Regulatory Aspects

Biomethanation processes have been very successfully adopted for handling both urban (MSW and
sewage) and industrial process wastewaters. The primary driving force has been the significant
savings in energy requirements compared to conventional aerobic processes. The pollution load (BOD
or COD) on aerobic treatment can be reduced considerably by an anaerobic pre-treatment. The energy
required to operate the latter is very low, and offers an opportunity for energy recovery corresponding
to the bio-chemical energy potential of the waste. The sludge produced by anaerobic processing of
urban waste is also well stabilised for potential use as manure.
Downstream treatment of the post-anaerobic treated waste by aerobic or other suitable techniques will
be mandatory for compliance with regulatory stipulations. Consequently, environmental and
regulatory considerations would apply for the pollution control facility as a whole.
This will be a matter of concern where stand-alone anaerobic (biomethanation) systems have been
widely adopted for the treatment of some industrial wastes such as distillery spentwash. The
performance of the down-stream pollution control facility must meet the stipulated norms as
applicable for the specific application.
9.6 Overview of Biomethanation Technology

9.6.1 International Scenario
Several variations of biomethanation plants have been built in many countries by private, government,
research and non-governmental organizations. Unlike advanced thermal conversion (ATC)
technologies, relatively few patented biomethanation technologies are in existence. However,
biomethanation is a mature technology and there is extensive experience worldwide in all the aspects
of biomethanation. Thousands of biomethanation plants have been built, ranging from small farm
digesters to large-scale waste treatment and biogas recovery plants. Biomethanation technologies are
among the most promising options for waste-to-energy recovery, particularly for agriculture-based
countries such as India. Around 135 commercial installations were available for anaerobic digestion
of different feedstock (1999). Figure 9-12 shows the number of anaerobic technologies that are
MWH Chapter 9-10

available for waste-to-energy recovery. Source separated MSW has been used as a feedstock in the
existing plants. One-quarter of the plants are utilized for manure and industrial organic waste.
Other factors influencing success have been local environmental regulations and other policies
governing land use and waste disposal. Because of these environmental pressures, many nations have
implemented, or are considering methods to reduce the environmental impacts of waste disposal. The
country with the greatest experience using large-scale digestion facilities has been Denmark, where 18
large centralized plants are now in operation. In many cases, these facilities co-digest manure, clean
organic industrial wastes, and source separated MSW.
The numbers of installations to the credit of individual system providers are shown in Figure 9-13.
Commercially available technologies - Kruger (Denmark), Kompogas (Switzerland), Entec (Austria),
Eco Tech (Finland), BTA (Germany), Dranco (Belgium) are some of the major players who have
installed most of the units around the globe, with more than six units adapting the individual process
configuration.
An extensive literature search was carried out for representative case studies, projects and experience
in various regions of the world. The literature searched, and the available information are organized
in the following manner:
• Commercial Biomethanation Technologies and Technology Providers (Appendix 9-A)
• Status of Biomethanation in Representative countries (Appendix 9-B)
• List of Worldwide Representative Biomethanation Projects and Technologies (Appendix 9-C)
• Case Studies (Appendix 9-D)
9.6.1.1 Commercial Biomethanation Technologies
As mentioned above, there are not too many biomethanation technologies that have been
patented. However, various distinctive processes and unique technologies have been
developed and are being used for biomethanation of organic waste. Some technologies are
listed below and further details are given in Appendix 9-A. Contact details of Indian and
International technology providers is also included in Appendix 9-A
• High Solids Anaerobic Digestion (HSDA)
• CBI Walker/ Enning ESD™ System
• Biogas Induced Mixing Arrangement (BIMA)
• Valorga Process
• Smag Process
• Dranco Process
• Wabio Anaerobic Digestion Process
• Linde-KCA-Dresden GmbH
• TBW-biocomp Process
• BTA Process
• Kompogas Process
• PFMSW Methanization - WAASA® Process.
MWH Chapter 9-11

9.6.1.2 Representative Countries Status of Biomethanation
Six to eight million family-sized, low technology digesters are used in the Far East with varying
degrees of success. There are also over 600 farm-based digesters operating in Europe and North
America. More than 115 large-scale anaerobic digestion plants are in operation, or under construction
worldwide for treatment of municipal solid wastes. The total annual capacity is almost five million
tonnes, and another 40 digestion plants are in the planning phase with an annual capacity of nearly
two million tonnes. More than 50 prime technology license holders have a proven system operating at
the pilot-or full-scale level.
Some information regarding the status of biomethanation in the following countries is available:
• Austria
• Belgium
• Canada
• Denmark
• Germany
• Greece
• India (Section 9.7.2)
• Italy
• The Netherlands
• Norway
• Portugal
• Sweden
• Switzerland
• The United Kingdom
A brief status report for each of the above countries is given in Appendix 9-B.
Worldwide Representative Projects and Technologies

The use of anaerobic digestion for treating industrial wastewaters has grown tremendously during
the past decade, to the point where there are now more than 1,000 vendor-supplied systems in
operation or under construction throughout the world. Over 30 types of industries have been
identified, which have wastewater suitable for anaerobic digestion treatment, including
processors of beverages, chemicals, food, meat, milk, pulp and paper, and pharmaceuticals.
Many of these industries use anaerobic digestion as a pre-treatment step to lower sludge disposal
costs, control odours, and to reduce final treatment costs at a municipal wastewater treatment
facility. However, the most common use of anaerobic digestion is in farm-based manure and gas
facilities. A list of some of the biomethanation projects operating or constructed worldwide are
summarized in Appendix 9-C.
Case Studies
A brief description of some of the biomethanation plants is given in Appendix 9–D.
MWH Chapter 9-12

Various methods of Power Generation from biogas and other applications of biogas are given in
Appendix 9 E. Appendix 9 F provides a overview and cost appraisal of 10 operating plants in
northern Europe and recent UK. .
9.6.2 National Scenario

Several case studies of biomethanation installations in India are given in Appendix 9 G and Table
9.6. A list of these case studies low:
Waste to Energy Projects
Distillery
1. Waste-To-Energy Project at Kanoria Chemicals Ltd. Ankleshwar
2. SMAT Process for Treatment of Distillery Effluent at the Brihan Maharashtra Sugar Syndicate
Ltd., Shreepur, Maharashtra.
3. Power Generation based on Biogas at M/s Ugar Sugar Works Ltd., Belgaum, Karnataka
Starch and Sago

4. Varalakshmi Company, Namakkal, Tamil Nadu.
MSW
5. Municipal Solid Waste based Power Generation Programme in Uttar Pradesh
6. MSW to Energy – Nagpur Project
7. Wabio Anaerobic Digestion Process To Produce Energy From Garbage
Waste to Biogas Projects
Distillery
8. BACARDI’S Anaerobic Treatment of Distillery Spentwash at Andhra Sugars Limited, Tanuku,
Andhra Pradesh
9. Thermophillic Process for Treatment of Distillery Effluent at Rampur Distillery and Chemicals,
Rampur, Uttar Pradesh
10. M/s. Som Distilleries, Dist. Raisen, Madhya Pradesh Power Generation Utilising Biogas at K.M.
Sugar Mills Ltd., (Distillery Unit, Faizabad, U.P.)
Pulp and Paper

Biomethanation of Waste Liquor from Rayon Grade Pulp Mill
Starch and Sago

11. Biogas Generation Plant based on Industrial Wastes from Starch and Glucose Manufacturing at
Vensa Bioteck, Samalkot, AP.
12. UASB Process for Treatment of Starch Effluent at M/s. Universal Starch-Chem Allied Ltd.,
(USA) Dondaicha, Dhule, Maharashtra.
13. Biogas Generation plant based on Industrial effluent from starch Industry, Ahmedabad, Gujarat
Dairy
14. Biogas Generation Plant based on Industrial Wastes from Vasudhara Dairy at Alipur, Gujarat,
India
Slaughter House
15. Biogas Generation Plant based on Industrial Wastes from Abattoir Unit, Alkabeer, Medak, A.P.
Poultry
MWH Chapter 9-13

16. Biogas From Poultry Waste at Western Hatcheries
Sewage
17. Installation and Performance Evaluation of a Fixed Film Sewage Treatment Plant
MSW
18. GENL’S Pilot Plant for Biogas from Municipal Solid Waste
Fruit and Vegetable Market Waste

19. CFTRI Initiatives For Energy Generation From Fruit And Vegetable Processing Waste
20. Biomethanation of Vegetable Market Waste
9.7 Summary and Recommendations

) Biomethanation and Gasification have emerged as two major competing options for energy
recovery from MSW in developed countries.
) High rate biomethanation processes at mesophilic and thermophilic temperatures can yield a
higher biogas production rate, and also provide a higher rate of waste stabilization for secondary
use as manure. High rate biomethanation of municipal sludge, municipal solid waste, industrial
waste, and animal waste has a similar value for energy recovery and environmental pollution
control. This process has multiple benefits to the community, and eventually to the country, for
solving its substantial energy shortfall and controlling its very significant environmental pollution
problems.
) High rate biomethanation processes must be considered for waste-to-energy and waste
stabilization projects in India, for the following principal reasons:
• It is a proven and established technology.
• India has excellent in-house expertise in high rate biomethanation processes and is therefore
less dependent on foreign expertise.
• There is an established network of equipment suppliers and services during construction,
maintenance and operation of high rate biomethanation systems.
• Stabilization of municipal waste (sewage, sludge and MSW), currently a major source of
environmental pollution and human health problems, will bring significant benefits to the
environment and human health.
• Municipal sludge and MSW can be cost-effectively combined for high rate co-digestion
processes.
• It allows for wide variations in size and capacity.
MWH Chapter 9-14

Table 9-1. Salient Features of Suspended and Attached Growth Anaerobic Bioreactors
Sr. Feature Suspended Growth Attached Growth

No. Bioreactor Bioreactor
1. Biomass concentration (g/L) Low (5 – 10) High (15 – 50)
2. SRT (d) Low (15 – 25) High (20 – 50)
3 Wastewater
a) Suspended Solid (mg/L) < 5000 < 100
b) High BOD (COD) Suitable Suitable
c) Low BOD (COD) Suitable if the Suitable
quantity is more
4. Removal efficiency Low High
5. Resistance to toxics Low High
6. Hydraulic Integrity Simple with Flow channelling (biomass
mechanical mixing accumulation)
7. Captive power Low Fluidised bed (very high)
Filter (Low)
MWH Chapter 9-15

Table 9-2. Advantages/ Disadvantages of Anaerobic Bio-reactors for Wastewaters
S. No. Reactor Advantages Disadvantages

Configuration
A. Suspended Growth Reactors
1 Contact reactor Suitable for wastes with high Biomass settlability is critical
concentration of soluble organics
Vacuum degasification to
Uniform substrate concentration, promote settlability
temperature and pH
Limited equalisation capacity
Higher degree of treatment for shock inputs
Post-treatment sludge can also be
stabilised
Can handle wastes with low to medium
concentration of suspended solids
2 Lagoon (covered) Simple design of reactor Plug Flow conditions lead to
inefficient internal mixing and
Suitable for wastes with high
feed distribution
concentrations of organic and
suspended solids Large land requirement
Toxicants and shocks can be equalized
in large reactor volume
Significance of sludge settlability is
less
Relatively high quality effluent
Very long SRT reduces waste sludge
production
3 UASB Higher sludge concentration (granules) Slow process start-up
Low energy requirements Requires skills to maintain
granular sludge blanket or
Less stabilised sludge with good
zone
dewatering characteristics
Production of biogas with higher
methane content
High rate process with high volumetric
loading
Low land requirement
High COD (BOD) removal efficiency
MWH Chapter 9-16

S. No. Reactor Advantages Disadvantages

Configuration
B. Attached Growth Reactors
4 Upflow Filter/ High biomass concentrations and long Suspended solids
Downflow Filter SRT accumulation may adversely
affect reactor hydraulics and
Smaller reactor volumes due to high
internal mass transfer
organic loading rates
characteristics
Relatively stable operation under
Relatively short hydraulic
variable feed conditions or toxic
retention time (HRT) results in
shocks
reduced equalisation capacity
Suitable for wastes with low for shock inputs
suspended solids concentrations
High costs of packing material
No mechanical mixing required and support.
Effluent recycle gives uniform
temperature, pH and substrate
concentrations in reactor
Land area required is less
5 Fluidised Bed High biomass concentrations and long Prolonged start-up duration
Bioreactor SRT
High power requirement for
Excellent mass transfer characteristics bed expansion or fluidisation
Compact reactor volumes due to high Control of media and biomass
organic loading rates inventories can be difficult
High degree of treatment Accidental washout of media
can damage downstream
Relatively stable operation under
components
variable feed conditions or toxic
shocks Relatively short HRT results in
reduced equalization capacity
Suitable for wastes with low
for shock inputs
concentration of suspended solids
Hydraulic design of the system
No mechanical mixing
is relatively complex
Effluent recycle gives uniform
High cost of carrier medium
concentration, temperature and pH
Small land area required.
MWH Chapter 9-17

Table 9-3. Process Design Criteria for Bioreactors*
Type of Process Organic HRT BOD COD

Loading (d) Removal Removal
Kg COD/m3 Efficiency Efficiency
day % %
A. Suspended Growth Systems
Covered Lagoon 1–2 30 – 50 85 – 90 75 – 80
Contact Reactor 3–5 15 – 20 70 – 75 60 –65
UASB 12 – 15 10 – 12 85 – 90 70 – 75
B. Attached Growth Systems
Downflow/ Upflow Filter 8 – 10 10 – 12 80 – 85 70 – 75
Fluidised Bed 15 – 20 10 - 12 85 - 90 75 - 80
* Based on feedback from operating distillery installations in India.
MWH Chapter 9-18

Table 9-4. Waste Characteristics Suitable for Anaerobic Treatment
Parameter Range
0
Temperature ( C) 35 – 40 (Mesophilic)
55 – 60 (Thermophilic)
pH 7-8
BOD 250 – 50,000
COD 500 – 100,000
SS 100 – 5000
+
NH4 - N < 1700
SO42- < 5000
Ca2+ < 2000
Cations < 4000
Formaldehyde < 50
Note: Except pH all other units are in mg/L, unless otherwise it is mentioned next to the parameter
MWH Chapter 9-19

Table 9-5. Comparative Analysis of Medium and High Solids Anaerobic Digesters
Waste Feature Medium Solids High Solids

A. Process Characteristics
Size of material Shredded for efficient Shredded for efficient feeding
pumping and mixing and discharging mechanisms
operations
Mixing Mechanical Plug flow
Hydraulic Retention Time, days 10 - 20 20 - 30
3
Loading rate kg/m .d 0.6 - 1.6 5-7
Solids concentration % 10 - 15 25 – 35
Temperature o-C (mesosphilic) 35 - 40 35 - 40
(thermophilic) 55-60 55-60
VS Destruction % 60 - 80 90 – 95
TS destroyed % 40 – 50 50 - 60
Gas production, 0.6 - 0.75 0.8 - 1.0
3
m /kg VS destroyed
Biogas % CH4 50 – 60 55 – 60
B. Design and Operational Parameters
Reactor Design Complete-mix reactors Plug-flow reactors
Water addition High Low
Mass removal rate Low High
Feed/ discharge arrangement Pumps Screw pumps and conveyors.
Toxicity Less severe Salts and heavy metal toxicity
Ammonia toxicity for C/N <15
Sludge dewatering Expensive Less expensive
Technology status Proven (several installations) Proven (several installations)
MWH Chapter 9-20

Table 9-6. Highlights of Some Waste-to-Energy Industrial Projects
Sr. No. Description Kanoria Chemicals The Brihan Sugar K. M. Sugar Mills
Syndicate
1. Type of Waste Spent wash Spent wash Spent wash
2. Location Ankaleshwar, Gujarat Shreepur, Maharashtra Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh
3. Project Objective Waste to energy Waste to energy Waste to energy

4. Project Description Biomethanation of Biomethanation of spent Power generation plant of
effluent producing biogas wash producing biogas to 1MW capacity using
to be utilised for be utilized for generating biogas produced in the
generating electricity (2 electricity (1 MW) anaerobic treatment of
MW) effluent
5. Technology Anaerobic digesters UASB UASB
(Degremont and
Bacardi)
6. Capacity (Cum/day) NA 525 500
7. Hydraulic Retention Time NA NA NA
(days)
8. Organic Loading (kg COD/day) NA NA NA
9. COD Removal Efficiency NA NA NA
10. Biogas Production (cum/day) 21,000 10,800 12000
11. Specific Biogas Production 0.5 0.5 0.5
(Cum/kg COD removed)
12. Mode of Energy Utilisation Produced biogas is Produced biogas is Generation of Electricity
utilised for generating utilised for generating using DFG engine
electricity using pure gas electricity using pure gas
engines engines
13. Energy Produced (kWh/month) 10,32,375 720,000 400,000
14. Project Capital cost (Rs. In 890 505.61 382
lakhs)
15. Revenue Generation (@Rs.3.87 3995291.25 2786400 1548000
kWh/month)
16. Operation and Maintenance NA NA NA

Cost (Rs./ Year)
17. Present Status Commissioned in 1998 Commissioned in Commissioned in May
November 2000 1997, Working
Satisfactorily
18. Remarks The industry has also Plant is working Produced energy is
installed hydrogen satisfactorily. utilised in-house in the
sulphide removal plant and residential
biological process. colony
19. Funding Assistance from NBB Assistance from NBB Assistance from NBB
MWH Chapter 9-21

Sr. No. Description Varalakshmi Company Andhra Sugars Rampur Distillery and
Chemicals
1. Type of Waste Sago waste Spent wash Spent wash
2. Location Namakkal, Tamil Nadu Tanuku, Andhra Pradesh Rampur, Uttar Pradesh
3. Project Objective Waste to energy Waste to energy (biogas) Waste to energy (biogas)
4. Project Description Power generation of 0.2 Biomethanation of spent Biomethanation of spent
MW capacity from 40 wash producing biogas to wash producing biogas
TPD sago plant effluent be utilized as fuel in the to be utilized as fuel in
boiler. the boiler.
5. Technology UASB Bacardi Thermophilic
6. Capacity (Cum/day) 500 225 1000
7. Hydraulic Retention Time NA 14 9

(days)
8. Organic Loading (Kg 3000 6750 100,000
COD/day)
9. COD Removal Efficiency 80% 70% 50%
10. Biogas Production (cum/day) 4700 6,800 20,000
(Cum/Kg COD removed)
12. Mode of Energy Utilisation Generation of electricity Produced biogas is Produced biogas is
using DFG engine utilised directly as fuel utilised directly as fuel
for generating steam in for generating steam in
the boiler. the boiler.
13. Energy Produced 111166 NA NA
(kWh/month)
14. Project Capital Cost (Rs. in 360 NA 200
lakhs)
15. Revenue Generation 430215 1,200,000 NA
(@Rs.3.87 kWh/month)
16. Operation and Maintenance NA NA 4

Cost (Rs./ Year)
17. Present Status Commissioned in 2002, Commissioned in 1989 Commissioned in 1987
Results awaited
18. Remarks All the performance Plant is working Payback period of the
parameters are based on satisfactorily plant is calculated as 3.3
the Feasibility Report years.
19. Funding Assistance from NBB Self funding Self funding
MWH Chapter 9-22

Sr. No. Description Vasundhara Dairy Universal Starch The Anil Starch
Products Ltd.
1. Type of Waste Dairy waste Maize starch waste Maize starch waste
2. Location Alipur, Gujarat Dhule, Maharashtra Ahmedabad, Gujarat
3. Project Objective Waste to energy (biogas) Waste to energy (biogas) Waste to energy (biogas)
4. Project Description Vasundhara Dairy Biogas is fed to the boiler Produced biogas is fed to
processes 200,000 litres to save boiler fuel the boiler to save boiler
of milk per day to consumption fuel consumption
manufacture processed
milk, buttermilk and
ghee. Wastewater
treatment
5. Technology UASB UASB UASB
6. Capacity (Cum/day) 400 1700 1600
7. Hydraulic Retention Time (days) NA NA NA

8. Organic Loading (kg COD/day) NA 28679 6816
9. COD Removal Efficiency 80% 70% 80%
10. Biogas Production (cum/day) 40 10000 4800
12. Mode of Energy Utilisation Produced biogas is flared Biogas is burned in the Biogas is burned in boiler
in to the atmosphere. boiler to save costs of to save costs of boiler
boiler fuel used for gluten fuel
drying
13. Energy Produced (kWh/month) NA NA- NA
14. Project Capital cost (Rs. in lakhs) 45 200.58 301.64
15. Revenue Generation (@Rs.3.87 NA NA NA
kWh/month)
16. Operation and Maintenance Cost NA NA NA

(Rs./ Year)
17. Present Status Commissioned in 1993, Commissioned in March Commissioned in April
the plant is functioning 2002 2001, Results awaited
satisfactorily.
18. Remarks Biogas produced is not Plant is working Plant is working
utilised for any purpose. satisfactory. All the satisfactory
performance parameters
are based on the
Feasibility Report
19. Funding Assistance from NDDB Assistance from NBB Assistance from NBB
MWH Chapter 9-23

Sr. No. Description Vensa Bioteck Al Kabeer Exports Al Kabeer Exports

1. Type of Waste Starch and glucose Sheep + Goat + Buffalo Effluent from Abattoir
manufacturing fleshings unit
2. Location Samalkot, Andhra Pradesh Medak, Andhra Pradesh Medak, Andhra Pradesh
3. Project Objective Waste to energy (biogas) Waste to energy (biogas) Waste to energy (biogas)
4. Project Description Industry processes 40,000 Biomethanation of The slaughterhouse has
MT of maize starch and fleshings and then after a processing capacity to
25,000MT of Tapioca producing power. slaughter 600 buffaloes
starch to manufacture and 1500-2,000 sheep
glucose and starch. per day. To reduce
Biomethanation of effluent operation and
producing biogas to be maintenance costs of the
utilized as fuel in the boiler. wastewater treatment
plant
5. Technology Adopted UASB BIMA UASB
6. Capacity (Cum/day) 1600 60 TPD 2,000
7. Hydraulic Retention Time (days) NA NA NA

8. Organic Loading (Kg COD/day) 19,200 9,000 14,000
9. COD Removal Efficiency 70% NA 80%
10. Biogas Production (cum/day) 8,000 2,500 4,000
11. Specific Biogas Production 0.6 0.59 (cum/Kg VS) 0.36
12. Mode of Energy Utilisation Produced biogas is utilised NA Produced biogas is used
directly as fuel for as fuel in the boiler.
generating steam in the
boiler.
13. Energy Produced (kWh/month) NA NA NA
14. Project Capital cost (Rs. in lakhs) 180 397.44 NA
15. Revenue Generation (@Rs.3.87 48 lakhs by savings in fuel NA Rs. 30 lakhs worth of
kWh/month) fuel to boiler is saved
per year
16. Operation and Maintenance Cost NA NA NA
(Rs./ Year)
17. Present Status Commissioned in 1999 Commissioned in 1999, Commissioned in 1999,
Working satisfactorily. Working satisfactorily.
18. Remarks Payback period is estimated Biogas produced is flared Along with utilisation of
to be 4 years in the atmosphere. biogas, the benefits are
also derived from saving
of power consumption in
wastewater treatment
plant, and produced
sludge is used as soil
conditioner.
19. Funding Assistance from NBB Assistance from NBB Assistance from NBB
MWH Chapter 9-24

Figure 9-1. Anaerobic Pathways for Industrial, Agricultural, Municipal Wastes
ORGANIC PARTICULATE
Carbohydrates
Proteins, Fats
Hydrolysis
(Extracellular
Enzymes)
SOLUBLE ORGANICS
Sugars
Fatty acids
Amino acids
Acid-forming
Bacteria
Butyric acid
Propionic acid
Acetic
acid Acetogenic H2, CO2
Bacteria
Acetoclastic H2 – Utilizing
Methanogens Methanogens
BIOGAS
(CH4, CO2)
MWH Chapter 9-25

Figure 9-2. Anaerobic Bio-reactor Configurations
ANAEROBIC PROCESSES
SUSPENDED SYSTEMS HYBRID ATTACHED GROWTH

SYSTEMS SYSTEMS
UPFLOW ANAEROBIC CONTACT

SLUDGE BLANKET ANAEROBIC FLUIDIZED
REACTOR BED
(UASB) FILTER
UPFLOW DOWNFLOW
COVERED
LAGOONS
MWH Chapter 9-26

Figure 9-3. Completely Mixed Suspended Growth Anaerobic Digester
BIOGAS
EFFLUENT
INFLUENT
Figure 9-4. Anaerobic Contact Reactor System
BIOGAS
EFFLUENT
INFLUENT
ANAEROBIC VACUUM SECONDARY

REACTOR DEGASIFIER/ GAS CLARIFIER
STRIPPER (OPTIONAL)
SLUDGE RECYCLE
MWH Chapter 9-27

Figure 9-5. Covered Anaerobic Lagoon (Bulk Volume Fermenter)

FLOATING INSULATED MEMBRANE COVER
BIOGAS
EFFLUENT
SCUM LAYER
PRIMARY SECONDARY CLARIFICATION

REACTION REACTION ZONE
ZONE ZONE
BAFFLE
SLUDGE
MIXER
SLUDGE
FEED
SLUDGE RECYCLE
WASTE
MWH Chapter 9-28

Figure 9-6. Typical Cross-Section of a UASB Reactor
MWH Chapter 9-29

Figure 9-7. Upflow Anaerobic Filter
GAS
EFFLUENT
INFLUENT
RECYCLE
MWH Chapter 9-30

Figure 9-8. Downflow Anaerobic Filter
GAS
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
RECYCLE
MWH Chapter 9-31

Figure 9-9. Schematic Anaerobic Fluidised Bed Bio-Reactor
Biogas Gas/Solid/Liquid
Separation
Fluidized
bed
reactor
Treated
Wastewater
Untreated
Wastewater
MWH Chapter 9-32

Figure 9-10. Two-Stage High-Rate Anaerobic Sludge Digester System
MWH Chapter 9-33

Figure 9-11. Single-Stage High-Rate Biomethanation
MWH Chapter 9-34

Figure 9-12. Commercial Installations with Different Feed Stock (1999)
50
40
No. of Installations
30
20
10
0
SS MSW SS MSW, SS MSW, manure, mixed waste oiw
Manure, oiw oiw oiw
Source:www.biogasworks.com
oiw: Organic Industrial Waste
MWH Chapter 9-35

Figure 9-13. Technology-Wise Number of Commercial Installations (1999)
16
14
12
No. of Installations
10
8
6
4
2
0
Ci C
R
s
ga
om es
e- r
se
om os
A
CA
D C
Pr KV
Ec co
K s
c
V R
e
ga
-O r
S
ga
te
N
Te
Li rug
ro ktro
BT
TE
ik qu
aa
K ikl
PU
or
n
BW
io
En
N
po
/H
ra
o-
al
P r Pa
K
eB
e
oj
nd
m
rg
A
Source::www.biogasworks.com
MWH Chapter 9-36

10 Incineration Processes
10.1 Introduction
Incineration, also known as combustion, has been a traditional technology for treating waste and
recovering energy. Organic wastes can be directly incinerated in waste-to-energy facilities with
minimal pre-processing. Incineration has been successfully used for the disposal of various wastes
such as:
• Municipal solid waste (MSW)

• Sludge
• Liquid waste (organics/ solvents)
• Agricultural waste (biomass)
• Hospital waste
• Various industrial wastes (sugarcane bagasse, black liquor solids, distillery spentwash, etc.)
• Waste tyres
10.2 Principles of Incineration
Incineration is a series of oxidative chemical reactions in which carbon, hydrogen, and other elements
in the waste combine with oxygen in the air in an exothermic reaction and liberate heat. Usually,
excess air is supplied to the incinerator in order to ensure efficient mixing and achieve maximum
combustion efficiency in terms of complete oxidation. The principal products of combustion include
carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, water, and oxides of nitrogen, oxides of sulphur, airborne
particulates and ash. Figure 10-1 shows typical inputs and resulting products of incineration of waste
material.
10.3 Incineration Systems
A typical incineration system consists of the following four steps:
Drying
This is the first step, where heat is used to evaporate a substantial proportion of the moisture in the
substrate to be combusted.
Volatilisation
After moisture has been evaporated, the combustible volatiles are released between 175º C and 525º C
Ignition
Combustion begins as the volatiles reach ignition temperature in the presence of oxygen.
Combustion of Fixed Carbon

Combustion of the volatile matter is completed with the fixed carbon being oxidized to carbon
dioxide.
A schematic flow diagram of the incineration process is shown in Figure 10-2.
MWH Chapter 10-1

Two approaches are currently available for waste incineration - Mass Burning Systems and Refuse
Derived Fuel (RDF) systems.
10.3.1 Mass Burning Systems
Mass burning can be further classified into
• Field-Erected Mass burning Systems (FEMBS), and

• Factory-Fabricated Modular Mass Burning Systems (FFMMBS).
Mass-burning incinerators burn raw waste in the physical form as it is fed. Incombustible materials
such as metals are normally removed before or after combustion, by the use of various mechanical
equipments.
10.3.1.1 Field-Erected Mass-Burning Systems (FEMBS)
Field-Erected Mass-Burning systems (FEMBS) are available in various capacities ranging from 200
to 3,000 tonnes/day. FEMBS include either waterwall furnaces with integral boilers or refractory-
lined furnaces with waste-heat boilers. In waterwall incinerators, the furnace or combustion chamber
and boiler are integral components, whereas refractory-lined furnaces consist of a convection-type
waste heat boiler located downstream from the furnace.
In most of the systems, combustion occurs in single-chamber furnaces, usually equipped with grates
that move the MSW through the furnace and help control burning. Some systems use a refractory-
lined or waterwall rotary kiln. A schematic of a typical field-erected mass burning system waterwall
arrangement is given in Figure 10-3.
The steam generated in FEMBS is passed through turbine generator to produce electricity or through
an extraction turbine to generate electricity and provide process steam for heating or other purposes.
Field-erected mass burning systems are usually equipped with a feed hopper and chute arrangement
that continuously feed waste onto the first furnace grate by gravity. Most systems include a horizontal
hydraulic ram at the bottom of the chute to push waste onto the grates, allowing more control over
waste feeding and firing.
The method of moving waste through the furnace and mixing it with air is the key element of the
incineration process to achieve good combustion. In field-erected mass burning units, this process is
usually accomplished by burning the waste on a grate system that slopes from the front to the rear of
the furnace. The grates are also designed to agitate the waste and mix it with air. The action of the
grates combined with gravity cause the waste to tumble slowly downward as it burns. Combustion air
is supplied from below (underfire air) and above (overfire air) the grates. Underfire air is mixed with
the refuse by the action of the grates, initiating combustion and supplying oxygen to the refuse
burning on the grates. Overfire air is induced in to the furnace and gets mixed with the combustible
gases released during volatilisation, ensuring proper combustion. A number of grate designs,
including several patented designs, are used in mass burning facilities.
A refractory-lined or waterwall rotary-kiln can be used for combustion instead of a grate system. In a
refractory-lined furnace, the temperature of combustion is controlled by the amount of excess air
provided. Refractory-lined combustion typically uses excess air in the range of 50% to 150%.
Increasing the excess air inflow cools the furnace and reduces the energy recovery efficiency.
The energy is recovered as steam, by either a waterwall or waste-heat boiler. The radiant or waterwall
section is the combustion chamber lined with water-filled tubes that absorb the radiant energy
released during combustion. In the convection section, the hot gases from combustion pass through
banks of water tubes, and heat is transferred to the water in the tubes by convection.
MWH Chapter 10-2

In refractory-lined systems, all heat transfer occur downstream of the furnace in a water-tube waste-
heat boiler that is identical to the convection section of waterwall. In both waterwall and refractory-
lined systems, additional convection sections can be included to superheat the steam (super-heater)
and to preheat boiler feed-water. In both types of systems, the temperature of the gases leaving the
boiler section is not permitted to fall below 230°C to 260°C to ensure that condensation of corrosive
acids does not occur.
The gas leaving the combustion chamber contains various air pollutants such as particulates, SO2,
NOx, CO, HCl, metals, and various organics such as dioxins, furans, and polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons. These emissions must be controlled before discharging into the atmosphere.
(Environmental aspects of incineration systems are discussed later in Section 10.4.)
Advantages of Mass-Burn Systems
• Mass-burn systems have larger capacities and higher thermal efficiencies

• Mass-burn systems, as compared to modular systems, generate a higher-quality steam,
allowing for higher revenues per tonne of waste
• These facilities can accept refuse that has undergone little pre-processing other than the
removal of oversized items
• Mass-burning avoids many of the refuse handling problems caused by the extreme
heterogeneity and variability of MSW
• The net energy conversion can be equal to or better than that for RDF systems, since minimal
energy is used for front-end processing and no burnable material is removed
• Since most of the burning occurs on the grate, less particulate matter is entrained in the gas
stream and air pollution control costs are thus reduced
• The units are compact and therefore land requirements are less than for RDF
Limitations of Mass-Burn Systems
• Higher costs than modular systems

• Controlling combustion is difficult where MSW is not processed prior to burning
• Requires more field erection time and costs as compared to modular systems
10.3.1.2 Factory-Fabricated Modular Mass Burn Systems (FFMMBS)
Factory-Fabricated Modular Mass Burn Systems (FFMMBS), also known as Modular Combustion
Systems, are small mass burn facilities. Modular combustion systems consist of individual modules
for waste feeding, primary and secondary combustion chambers, energy recovery, and ash handling.
The modules are usually prefabricated and shipped fully assembled to the construction site, where
they can be mounted on footings. The installation is housed usually in an inexpensive prefabricated
building with sufficient additional space for waste storage and handling, usually in the form of a
concrete tipping floor.
The system configuration depends on the requirements of the particular installation. However,
modular systems capacity ranges between 5 to 120 tonne/day and typically in the 15 to 100 tonne/day
capacity range. The capacity of a existing plants can be increased by adding modules. Because of their
small capacity, modular combustors are generally used in smaller communities or for commercial and
industrial operations. A majority of modular units produce steam as the sole energy product. A typical
schematic of a Factory-Fabricated Modular Mass Burn System is given in Figure 10-4.
MWH Chapter 10-3

In modular systems, refuse vehicles deposit their loads onto a tipping floor. A front-end loader is used
to segregate the combustible material from the unsorted waste. The segregated combustible material is
then stored in a convenient area. This method is less effective than a pit in controlling odours and
pests and in containing fires. Consequently, some of the larger modular systems are equipped with a
pit and crane for storage and retrieval of MSW.
In many modular systems, waste is charged to the furnace intermittently, using a horizontal hydraulic
ram. A front-end loader fills a hopper, with the load size depending on the furnace temperature. The
operator manually activates the feed cycle. However, some modular systems continuously feed waste
using a chute similar to field-erected systems.
Combustion in a modular system is typically achieved in two stages. The primary stage may be
operated in “starved air”; i.e. with less than the theoretical amount of air necessary for complete
combustion. The controlled air condition creates volatile gases, which are fed into the second
chamber, mixed with additional combustion air, and burnt under controlled conditions. Combustion
temperatures in the secondary chamber are regulated by controlling the air supply, and when
necessary, through the use of an auxiliary fuel.
In modular systems, the flow of combustion air in the primary chamber is limited to reduce
turbulence, and thus reduce the amount of particulate matter that gets mixed with the gas stream. As a
result, modular systems may not require extensive air pollution control system beyond the secondary
chamber, which represents a major capital and operating cost savings compared to the FEMBS. The
principal disadvantage of the two-stage combustor is that waste burnout is not as complete as with
excess air field-erected systems, thereby reducing the efficiency of energy recovery and slightly
increasing the quantity of residue to be landfilled.
The majority of existing modular systems employ a step-hearth design in the primary chamber and
use water-cooled hydraulic transfer rams to move waste through the chamber. The transfer rams are
housed in the riser of the previous step, and when activated, push the waste down onto the next step.
A few modular installations employ grate systems similar to those used in field-erected installations.
Grates agitate the waste more thoroughly and allow more under fire air to reach it, thus promoting
better burnout. Other primary combustion chamber designs, including rotary-kiln and rotary-hearth
systems, are also used in modular systems.
In modular systems, energy is usually recovered as steam in waste-heat boilers, although some
manufacturers use a waterwall primary chamber to enhance energy recovery. Waste-heat boilers can
be either fire-tube or water-tube systems, depending on the requirements of the energy user. In fire-
tube boilers the hot combustion gases flow through tubes encased in a water-filled vessel, and heat is
transferred to the water. Such boilers are generally used to produce low-pressure saturated steam in
small-scale systems of 20 kg/cm2 and 50 tonne/day capacities. Where large boiler modules and/ or
high-pressure steam is required, water-tube waste-heat boilers, similar to those used in field-erected
systems, are generally more applicable.
Most of the earlier modular systems required no additional emission control devices beyond the
secondary chamber or afterburner, where combustion of volatile gases is completed. However
emission standards are continually tightening, and this requires further and more expensive pollution
control equipment.
Advantages of FFMMBS
• Capital costs per tonne of capacity are lower – more cost-effective than other combustor
alternatives
MWH Chapter 10-4

• Modular combustors and waste heat boilers can be factory-assembled or fabricated and
delivered, minimizing field erection time and cost
• Available for smaller capacities.
• Flexibility in addressing various potential energy markets with system sizing
Limitations of FFMMBS
• Energy production is generally lower than for other incineration technologies.
10.3.2 Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) Systems

Refuse-Derived Fuel commonly refers to solid waste that has been mechanically processed to produce
a storable, transportable, and more homogeneous fuel for combustion. RDF can be co-fired with fossil
fuels in existing large industrial or utility boilers, or it can be used as the sole or primary fuel in
specially designed “dedicated” boilers. Co-firing of RDF has the obvious advantage of capital cost
savings since a new boiler is not required. However, RDF as the primary fuel burning in a dedicated
boiler has become more common, since the dedicated boiler can be designed to accommodate some of
the characteristics of RDF that can otherwise cause operating problems in existing boilers designed
for conventional fuels.
When RDF plants were originally developed in the United States, the plan was to produce a fuel that
could be co-fired in the existing boilers of electric utility power plants. However, operational and
maintenance problems from some components of the RDF led to a change in strategy towards the
creation of power plants designed specifically for the combustion of RDF alone. In the United States,
these facilities tend to be quite large, with the capacity to process 2,000-3,000 tonnes per day and with
electrical generation capacity of 50-75 MW. These plants typically employ water-tube boilers or
fluidised-bed combustors to produce steam for power production.
The waste is pre-processed to remove incombustible materials, thus increasing the calorific value of
the fuel. The incombustible materials are removed using various mechanical methods for example,
ferrous metals are removed using magnetic separators, glass, grit, and sand are be removed through
screening. Some systems utilize air classifiers, trommel screens, or rotary drums to further refine the
waste. This processing requires a substantial amount of electrical energy. The World Bank estimates
that 70-90 kWh of electricity is required to process one tonne of MSW into RDF, with another 100-
120 kWh required for the drying of the incoming fuel.
RDF is characterized by a wide range of material densities, particle sizes, variable moisture contents,
a high proportion of flake shape particles and the presence of heavy inert materials such as glass,
sand, dirt, metals, etc.
A typical RDF incinerator schematic is given in Figure 10-5.
Generally three type of RDF combustors are in practice:
• Grate Burning Systems

• Suspension-Fired Boilers
• Fluidised Bed Combustors
In RDF systems, the heat energy generated may be recovered in a similar manner to mass-burn and
modular systems. Emission control is also similar to other combustion technologies discussed.
MWH Chapter 10-5

10.3.2.1 Energy recovery from RDF Pellets

Refuse Devised Fuels (RDF) can be considered as one of the WTE options to obtain a valuable fuel
by the up gradation of MSW. A RDF based power plant consist of two major stages, which are
discussed below:
RDF Pellets
Over two years of development work has resulted in the establishment of a viable technology for
pelletising the combustibles separated from MSW. The process of converting MSW to RDF pellets
involves the following steps:
• Solar drying
• Size reduction
• Screening
• Pneumatic separation for the removal of non-combustibles
• Mixing with additives
• Pelletisation
Various grades of fuel pellets have been test marketed at different industries for establishing
marketability. The characteristics of fuel pellets are summarised below:
A. Physical
Size (mm): dia 8/20/30, length 8-40

Calorific value (Kcal/kg - minimum): 4,000
Bulk density (MT per cu.m): 0.7
Density (gm per cc - minimum): 1.3
Ash content (%): < 15
Moisture (%): 10 (approx.)
B. Proximate Analysis (%)
Moisture: 3-8
Ash content: 12 - 20
Volatile matter: 50 - 65
Fixed carbon: 12 - 18
C. Ultimate Analysis (%)
Moisture: 3-8
Mineral matter: 15 - 25
Carbon: 35 - 40
Hydrogen: 5-8
Nitrogen: 1 - 1.5
Sulphur: 0.2 - 0.5
Oxygen: 25 - 30
MWH Chapter 10-6

D. Gross Calorific value (Kcal/kg)
With binder: 4,000 – 45,000

Without binder: 3,500 – 3,700
RDF is a very useful substitute for coal because it is clean, energy efficient and eco-friendly. The
RDF pellets produced from MSW combustibles are of cylindrical shape varying in diameters (up to
30 mm) as required by the end users. Pellets are hard enough to be transported and stored. Their
several distinct advantages over coal are:
• Clean fuel, free from stones

• Lower ash content
• Uniform size (no size reduction required at the user end)
• Regular trouble free supply
RDF pellets are economical and have tremendous market potential in non-coal producing zones. The
problem of coal in respect of availability, quality, higher prices etc. can be overcome by using the fuel
pellets. RDF pellets can be used efficiently in a variety of boiler configurations-fixed or travelling
grate, multiple fuel and fluidised bed incinerators.
A study done at a testing and analytical laboratory in Mumbai, confirms the fact that thermal energy
costs are reduced by 35% and boiler efficiency increased by 3.3% for plants employing RDF pellets
instead of coal as shown below:
Factors RDF Coal
Boiler Efficiency (%) 52.6 49.3

Evaporation Ratio (kg/kg) 3.68 3.30
Steam Cost (Rs./tonne) 326.00 500.00
Test analyses have further shown that there is a marginal drop in CO2 emission with the burning of
RDF pellets as compared to coal, as indicated below:
Fuel Average kg. CO2 / kg. steam

CO2 (%) Produced
Coal 8.30 0.40

RDF pellets 7.40 0.38
The Department of Science and Technology, Government of India had sponsored a Demonstration
Pilot Plant Facility for producing 50 TPD RDF pellets using 150 – 160 TPD of MSW at Mumbai. A
simple schematic of the plant for obtaining RDF pellets from unsorted MSW is shown in Figure 10.6.
A pelletisation plant to convert 700 TPD MSW to 210 TPD of pellets was planned for Hyderabad in
2001 by a private entrepreneur in association with Hyderabad Municipal Corporation1, based on
technology developed by the Department of Science and Technology. The pellets would be used as
industrial fuel initially and for 6 MW power generation ultimately.
1
Source: Financial Resources and Private Sector Participation in Solid Waste Management in India, (FIRE Project Report
May 2001).
MWH Chapter 10-7

Power Generation
Combustion systems for RDF with higher energy content can be smaller and more efficient than
mass-fired incineration systems. Comparative data for the generation of 20 MW power using steam
turbo generators showed MSW requirements of 800 and 600 TPD with mass-fired and RDF-fired
arrangements respectively.
Hot flue gases from the combustion of MSW can be converted to high-pressure steam and used for
power generation using a steam turbine. A simplified schematic of an energy recovery system using a
steam turbine with RDF combustion is shown in Figure 10.7.
A typical RDF based power generation facility from MSW consists of the following steps:
• Drying
• Magnetic Separation
• Pneumatic Separation – Removal of non-combustibles
• Pelletisation of Combustibles
• RDF Pellets
• RDF Combustion/ Boiler/ HP steam
• Steam Turbine
• Power
The most common method for the production of electricity is the steam turbine system. Steam is
produced in a boiler by combusting RDF. The steam is used to drive a steam turbine and then
condensed back into boiler feed water. The steam turbine drives an electricity generator, which
supplies onsite power and excess power for export. The system is essentially a scaled – down version
of a coal-or gas-fired electricity utility plant.
RDF pellets derived from MSW have the potential to generate up to 3 MW electricity per 100 Tonnes
of RDF.
RDF Power Projects Limited is in the process of establishing a power plant, based on municipal solid
waste at Hyderabad, at a cost of Rs. 40 crores to process 700 metric tonnes of MSW per day and
produce 9 MW of power. RDF Power Projects Limited has a technical and financial tie-up with M/s
Power Therm Limited and M/s Lohning International Pvt. Ltd., Australia. (Source: Bio Energy News,
December 1997)
10.3.2.2 Issues
In the United States, RDF commonly has a caloric value of 14 – 17 MJ/kg. As a comparison, sub-
bituminous coal typically contains 19 – 26 MJ/kg. However, the production of RDF with a high
calorific value is more problematic in locations where there is already fairly effective source
separation of combustible, such as in India. In such circumstances, much of the volatile portions of the
MSW with high-energy value are collected and recycled separately and never enter the MSW stream.
One option can be to mix a lower energy value RDF with other waste streams, such as agricultural
residues, and then combust the resulting mixture to produce process heat and possibly electricity. A
large-scale experimental RDF based gasification plant has been successfully operated in Chianti,
MWH Chapter 10-8

Italy, using sorghum bagasse and/ or RDF to provide low-calorific value gas to a large cement kiln. It
is planned to reach the ultimate capacity of 40 MW thermal and 6.7 MW of electric power.
10.3.2.3 Advantages and Limitations of RDF Systems
Advantages
• One of the benefits of RDF is that it can be shredded into uniformly sized particles or
densified into "briquets". Both of these possibilities facilitate handling, transportation and
combustion. RDF can often be combusted or "co-fired" with another fuel such as wood or
coal in an existing facility. RDF is thus valuable as a low cost additive that can reduce costs
of generating heat or electricity in a variety of applications.
• Another benefit of burning RDF rather than raw MSW is that fewer non-combustibles such as
heavy metals are incinerated. Although metals are inert and give off no energy when they are
incinerated, the high temperature of a furnace causes metals to be partially volatised, resulting
in the release of toxic fumes and fly ash. The composition of RDF is more uniform and well
understood than that of MSW; therefore fewer combustion controls are required for RDF
combustion facilities than for facilities combusting unsorted MSW.
• RDF boilers can be smaller than those for mass burning, since a considerable amount of
incombustible material is removed from raw MSW.
• RDF can be burned in existing fossil fuel boilers, which can greatly reduce capital costs.
• RDF can be produced at a remote site and transported to the conversion facility - an important
advantage if land is scare or expensive, if truck traffic is undesirable near the intended energy
user, or if the energy user is far from the source of MSW.
• The recovery and sale of reusable materials from MSW can reduce landfill requirements.
Limitations
• High combustible dust concentrations increase the risk of dust explosions within the enclosed
RDF processing equipment.
• Storage/ retrieval problems may exist for the RDF fuels since they have to be prepared in the
required physical form and in sufficient quantity to ensure a continuous fuel supply for the
combustion equipment.
• Material handling problems can accompany the preparation, storage, transportation and usage
steps of RDF.
• Higher capital costs are associated with the considerable pre-processing required.
10.3.3 Fluidised Bed Combustion

Fluidised bed combustion (FBC) is an alternative design to conventional combustion systems. In its
simplest form, an FBC system consists of a vertical steel cylinder, usually refractory-lined, with a
sand bed, a supporting grid plate and injection nozzles known as ‘tuyeres’ (Figure 10-8).
When air is forced up through the tuyeres, the bed fluidises and expands up to twice its static volume.
Solid fuels can be injected into the reactor below or above the level of the fluidised bed. The “boiling”
action of the fluidised bed promotes turbulence and mixing, and transfers heat to the fuel. In
operation, auxiliary fuel (natural gas or fuel oil) is used to bring the bed up to operating temperature
(8000C to 9500C). After start-up, the auxiliary fuel is usually not needed, and the bed will remain hot
up to 24 hours, allowing rapid restart without any auxiliary fuel.
MWH Chapter 10-9

Fluid bed combustion systems are quite versatile and can be operated on a wide variety of fuels,
including MSW, sludge, coal, and numerous chemical wastes. The bed material can be plain sand or
limestone (CaCO3). When limestone is used, it reacts with oxygen and the sulphur dioxide (SO2)
(formed by the combustion of organic-containing wastes) to release carbon dioxide, and calcium
sulphate (CaSO4), a solid that can be removed with the ash. The use of limestone as the bed material
allows the combustion of sulphur containing wastes with minimum emissions of sulphur dioxide.
Several FBC systems are being used for solid waste combustion throughout the world. One of the first
installations was a small (150 TPD ) fluidised bed unit in Lausanne, Switzerland. This unit was
utilised for the disposal of MSW and sludge, produced in sewage treatment plant. A boiler is used to
generate steam, which was further utilised for heating and electricity generation. A larger scale plant
(700 TPD), was built in Duluth, Minnesota, to dispose 300 TPD of dewatered sludge and 400 TPD of
MSW processed in a front-end system prior to combustion (Figure 10-9).
10.4 Environmental and Regulatory Aspects
10.4.1 Major Environmental Issues
There is growing worldwide public concern about the environmental aspects of the incineration
process. Public health and environmental concerns (mainly failure to meet emission standards) have
led to the closure of various incineration facilities worldwide, banning new incineration projects in
some parts of the world, significant and costly retrofitting exercises at many others. The major
environmental issues associated with incineration are as follows:
• Emissions of contaminants to air

• Hazardous constituents present in the ash pose challenges in terms of their safe and proper
disposal
• Possible land use conflicts with adjacent land owners
• Use of large amounts of water for cooling purposes, and release of blow-downs
• Likely public opposition because of uncertainties over health, safety, odour, visual and traffic
impacts, and emissions
• Possible conflict with waste reduction and recycling programmes
Environmental issues are recognised as critical to the viability of an incineration facility. While air
emissions often dominate the public and political assessments of a given process, problems with all
effluents, and the related environmental consequences, must be resolved as part of the permitting
process.
The major air pollutant released by incineration facilities is particulate matter, and the same is
effectively controlled by the use of devices such as electrostatic precipitators or fabric filters within
bag-houses.
Other pollutants include sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO),
hydrogen chloride (HCl), metals, and lesser quantities of dioxins, furans, and polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons, depending upon feedstock composition and combustion conditions. The concentrations
of these contaminants in the exhaust air from an incineration facility depend on various factors,
including waste composition, temperatures and residence time.
10.4.2 Prevailing International Standards
A compilation of International Standards for atmospheric emissions from municipal solid waste
incinerators is given in Table 10-1, which includes the recent Indian Municipal Solid Wastes
(Management & Handling) Rules 2000.
MWH Chapter 10-10

Amongst the regulatory standards prevailing in various countries, the 1986 German TA Luft standard
and the revised 1990 standard (17BIM Sch V90) are the most stringent norms for stack emissions
from MSW incineration facilities. The latter specifies suspended particulate emission limit of 10
mg/Nm3 compared to the EC directive (76/2000 EEC) of 30 mg/ Nm3 and US EPA (1999) regulatory
limit of 70 mg/ Nm3 versus 150 mg/ Nm3 stipulated by CPCB, India. Developed countries like UK,
US, Sweden, etc. have specified a limit of 0.1 ng/ Nm3 for dioxin. Recent research seems to indicate
that dioxin and furan production will not be a significant risk with an operating temperature of 8500C
and 6% excess air in the freeboard at the top of the incinerator.
The new EC Directive 2000/76/EC on the incineration of waste published on 28 December 2000 in
the official journal of the European Communities covers the incineration of hazardous (formerly
Directive 94/67/EC) and non-hazardous (89/369/EEC AND 89/429/EEC) wastes. Article 7 specifies
that incineration plants shall be designed, equipped, built and operated in such a way that the emission
limit values set out in Table 10.2 are not exceeded in the exhaust gas. (Annex V of the Directive has
been reproduced as Table 10-2).
USEPA 40 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) PART 60, amended on August 25 1997, gives
emission guidelines for Municipal Waste Combustors. The same are summarised in Table 10-3.
10.4.3 MSW Rules India
The Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules 2000, Ministry of Environment and
Forests Notification dated 25th September 2000 Schedule IV specifies the operation and emission
standards for Composting, Treating Leachates and Incineration. The rule also states that the waste
processing or disposal facilities shall include composting, incineration, pelletisation, energy recovery
or any other facility based on state-of-the-art technology, duly approved by the Central Pollution
Control Board. The incinerators shall meet the following operating and emission standards:
A. Operating Standards
1. The combustion efficiency (CE) shall be at least 99.00%.

2. The combustion efficiency shall be computed as follows:
% CO2
C.E. = --------------------- X 100
%CO2 + %CO
B. Emission Standards
Parameters Concentration mg/ Nm3 at (12% CO2 correction)

1. Particulate matter 150
2. Nitrogen Oxides 450
3. HCl 50
4. Minimum stack height shall be 30 meters above ground.
5. Volatile organic compounds in ash shall not be more than 0.01%.
Note:
(i) Suitably designed pollution control devices shall be installed or retrofitted with the incinerator
to achieve the above emission limits, if necessary.
MWH Chapter 10-11

(ii) Wastes to be incinerated shall not be chemically treated with any chlorinated disinfectants.
(iii) Chlorinated plastics shall not be incinerated.
(iv) Toxic metals in incineration ash shall be limited within the regulatory quantities, as specified
in the Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989 as amended from time to
time.
(v) Only low sulphur fuels like LDO, LSHS Diesel shall be used as fuel in the incinerator.
10.4.3.1 Cost Implications Due to Environmental Standards
The control of air emissions involves a considerable cost, and as individual country standards for the
control of contaminants emitted to air becoming stringent, there is a immediate need for sophisticated
emission control equipment, and inevitably, the costs will also increase. The costs of air emissions
control are in fact dictating the European countries to move away from retrofitting of existing plants
with control equipment. Even new incineration facilities with state-of-the-art pollution abatement
hardware are receiving limited uptake in Europe.
10.5 Overview of Incineration Technology
Various companies and agencies worldwide have built waste-to-energy facilities based on the
incineration process. Several companies and developers have extensive experience in constructing
mass burning and RDF facilities, as well as in fabricating modular incineration systems. Some of
these patented incineration technologies are discussed in Appendix 10-A.
Appendix 10-B presents a partial list of municipal waste combustion and tyres-to-energy facilities in
the U.S.
Even with all its negative connotations, incineration is still a traditional technology for treating waste
and for recovering energy. Hundreds of incineration plants have been built in many countries, but
many of these plants have since been shut down due to various environmental, economic, political and
social reasons. However, incineration is likely to continue as a waste disposal and energy generation
option, particularly where there is a lack of landfill sites.
Appendix 10-C gives a general over view and status of incineration technology in representative
regions of the world; namely, Africa, Asia - East /Pacific, Asia -South and West, Latin America and
the Caribbean. However, it will be prudent to be aware of the current status of incineration technology
in Europe and North America because these regions are at the forefront of technological development
and have more stringent environmental standards. A specific discussion on these specific regions is
therefore included below.
Europe
European countries vary widely in their reliance on incineration. Northern European countries are
highly reliant on mass-burn incineration, coupled with energy generation. In Western European
countries, around 35%, and in some cases as much as 80%, of the residential waste is disposed of
through incineration. Until recently, these countries relied on mass-burn technology, but there is
increasing interest in and growing positive experience with fluidised-bed technologies.
Among other factors, the relative paucity of open land has resulted in a social consensus that
incineration is necessary, as compared to North America, for example. At the same time this
consensus has in general also extended to a strong commitment to pollution control, a commitment
which is strengthened by the proximity of European nations to each other and by their awareness that
they are all at risk from pollution.
MWH Chapter 10-12

Another factor underlying the acceptance of incineration in Europe is that the energy generated by
European waste-to-energy plants goes to supply steam for district heating loops. The heavy reliance
on district heating, and the ready market for steam that this reliance provides, is part of what makes
incineration so attractive in European cities. Producing steam is more energy-efficient and more
profitable than generating electricity, and contributes to the robustness of the European waste-to-
energy sector. The coupling of incineration with electricity generation, which contributes substantially
to the capital costs of incineration, is quite rare in Europe, in part because most of the European
countries do not, have utility rate structures that allow non-utility-generated electricity to be sold to
the grid.
Waste incineration is nevertheless often the subject of controversy in Europe, usually because of its
air pollution potential. The emission of acid gases, including SOx and NOx, together with heavy
metals, dioxins and mercury are the principal matters of concern. Pollution control equipment on
more modern incinerators includes, in most cases, flue gas cleaners in the form of acid gas scrubbers,
together with either electrostatic precipitators or bag house filters. Acid gases such as SOx and NOx
are removed in the flue gas cleaning systems, which usually consist of either wet or dry scrubbers. In
Sweden, a combination of the two is more often used. Heavy metals are more likely to be removed in
post-scrubbing filters, or via the injection of sodium sulphate in an electrostatic precipitator. This type
of pollution control equipment can also remove dioxins and furans. The cost of these pollution control
devices is high. The European Union is moving to enforce severe emissions standards for all types of
incinerators, along with rules for protecting the health and safety of workers.
While accepting their long-term dependence on waste incineration as a disposal and energy recovery
strategy, many European governments are phasing out the non-energy-generating incinerators. In
some cases, these older incinerators are being upgraded and retrofitted with pollution control
equipment.
European countries tend to be well advanced in the utilization of by-products of incineration. Fly ash
is often used in bonded asphalt and other road products. The use of bottom ash and slag as aggregates
in road construction or in the production of brick materials is more common in some countries like
The Netherlands than in others, but has had some setbacks, as awareness has grown of the presence
and the leachability of the toxic constituents of these materials. In countries where these materials
cannot be used, they are generally sent to the landfill. These byproducts are considered as a hazardous
waste in North America.
The production of RDF is another type of energy recovery system practised in Europe. The mixed
waste sorting system started during early 1970s produced a number of recycling and RDF-producing
installations, mostly of German or Italian design. Many of these facilities were initially designed to
feed the wet and biodegradable wastes into composting systems.
North America
Most of the MSW combustion currently practised in North America incorporate energy recovery in
the form of steam, which is used either to drive a turbine to generate electricity or directly for heating.
In the process, the volume of solid waste is reduced by up to 90% and its weight by up to 75%. In past
years it was common to simply burn MSW in incinerators to reduce its volume and weight, but energy
recovery has become more prevalent since the 1980s. While about 30% of the MSW stream was
incinerated without energy recovery in 1960, this has decreased to about 1% in 2000. Currently,
waste-to-energy incineration systems are used to manage about 10%-15% of the MSW stream in
North America. A partial list of existing waste and tyres-to-energy facilities in the United States is
given in Appendix 10-B.
MWH Chapter 10-13

It should be noted, however, that the recent development of regional landfills providing relatively
inexpensive disposal options has made it more difficult for capital-intensive WTE plants to compete.
The amount of solid waste processed in WTE facilities varies significantly by region. The north-
eastern US currently incinerates and recovers energy from over 40% of its solid waste, while many
states incinerate less than 2% of the solid waste they generate. There are currently about 160 WTE
facilities in the US. In Canada, the number is lower. In fact, the province of Ontario was operating
only three incinerator facilities in 1991 and has since placed a ban on any new facilities being
constructed.
The three most widely used and technically proven WTE technologies in North America are (a) mass-
burn combustion, (b) modular combustion, and (c) RDF production and combustion. Over the last
several years, local governments have largely favoured mass-burn systems that recover electricity,
over other WTE technologies, such as modular units and steam-only processes. Several other
emerging WTE technologies have been pilot-tested, but are not yet commercially proven.
Mass-burn systems are the predominant form of WTE in North America. Operating mass-burn
facilities process about 60% by weight of the solid waste from which energy is recovered. Mass-burn
systems generally consist of either two or three combustion units ranging in capacity from 50 to 1,000
tonnes per day; thus, facility capacities range from about 100 to 3,000 tonnes per day. About 90% of
operating mass-burn facilities generates electricity. These facilities can accept refuse that has
undergone little pre-processing other than the removal of oversized items. Although this versatility
makes mass-burn facilities convenient and flexible, local programmes to separate household
hazardous wastes (e.g., cleaners and pesticides) and recover certain recyclables are necessary to help
ensure environmentally responsible incineration and resource conservation.
Modular combustors are usually prefabricated units with relatively small capacities of between 5 and
120 tonnes of solid waste per day. Typical facilities have between one to four modular units for a total
plant capacity of about 15 to 400 tonnes per day. Because of their small size, only about 7% of solid
waste that undergoes energy recovery in North America is processed through modular WTE facilities.
The majority of modular units produce steam as the sole energy product. Because of their small
capacity, modular combustors are generally used in smaller communities or for commercial and
industrial operations. Their prefabricated design gives modular facilities the advantage of shorter
construction time frames. On an average, capital costs per tonne of waste processed are lesser for
modular units than for mass- burn and RDF plants.
As of 1998, 22 facilities in the US processed RDF for off-site combustion; 17 facilities combusted
RDF in dedicated boilers on-site; and 9 facilities combusted RDF with other fuel (i.e., co-fire RDF).
The vast majority of RDF combustion facilities generate electricity. On an average, capital costs per
tonne of waste processed are higher for RDF combustion units than for mass-burn and modular WTE
units.
In a fluidised-bed combustor, instead of a grate supporting a layer of solid fuel, the furnace contains a
bed of sand or limestone supported by an air distribution system. Several facilities in the US use
fluidised beds to co-fire RDF with other fuels (e.g., sewage sludge) and at least two facilities
dedicated to fluidised-bed solid waste combustion are under development. They are large-scale plants
that incorporate front-end processing with materials recovery.
In North America, the major public concerns about the environmental risks of incineration facilities
are the potential emission of contaminants into the air through exhaust stacks (i.e. particulates,
nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, metals, acid gases, and dioxins) and into water
through ash leachate. US federal and most state and provincial air pollution control laws and
regulations, however, have been strengthened in recent years to specifically address potential impacts
MWH Chapter 10-14

from WTE air emissions. To meet these standards, modern pollution control equipment has been
developed which effectively removes most of the emissions that are of concern. The major air
emission control technologies employed in North American WTE facilities are fabric filters or bag
houses, electrostatic precipitators, and scrubbers. However, these emission control technologies are
expensive. Integration of WTE with the other elements of the solid waste management system, such
as recycling and landfilling, is another important issue in North America.
10.5.2 Indian Scenario
Appendix 10-D gives an overview of the current status of incineration technology and systems in
India. A list of some of the significant developments relevant to WTE in U&I sector is given below.
• The Delhi Incineration Experience

• MSW to RDF, UCAL RDF Limited, Chennai
• Hazardous Waste Incinerator, Sandoz (India) Limited
• MSW to RDF plant, SELCO International, Hyderabad
• Fluidised Bed Combustion of Municipal Solid Waste, RDF Power Projects Limited,
Hyderabad
• DIEG Process, Vasantdada Sugar Institute, Pune
• Fluidised Bed Soda Recovery System at Shreyans Paper, Ahmedgarh, Punjab
• Energy Recovery from Bagasse by Co-generation
Incineration of MSW has been widely adopted in industrialised countries having limited space for
landfill and high land costs. However, it has found only limited application in the developing world to
date, because of the composition of urban wastes.
For example, most WTE combustion systems are optimised for U.S. and European wastes, with their
high fractions of paper, cardboard and plastic and their consequently relatively high-energy value. In
contrast, much of these waste constituents are picked out of Indian MSW streams.
Indian MSW contains a high fraction of inert matter - rocks, dust, ashes, and dirt. This material further
reduces overall energy content of the waste; causes excessive wear on moving parts of WTE
combustion systems, and still have to be disposed of with the incineration ashes. The inert matter can
be screened out prior to combustion, but this is an additional processing step, requiring considerable
labour and equipment.
The typical low calorific value MSW streams in India are generally outside the design parameters of
most commercially available MSW combustion technologies, which means that the waste stream
would probably have to be "upgraded" by the removal of inert fractions, and incombustible material.
Also, the high-moisture content of Indian urban MSW requires considerable drying prior to the
combustion process, also the low-energy content of the MSW do not provide sufficient heat for
substantial electric power generation.
Environmental issues associated with incineration system mean that expensive exhaust gas cleaning
systems are required. Ash disposal may also be a significant environmental issue. Major international
bilateral and multilateral donors now require the inclusion of such pollution abatement systems, if a
proposal is to qualify for either power sector or urban waste treatment loans.
MWH Chapter 10-15

All of these factors have negative effect on the uptake of incineration technologies for waste-to-
energy applications in India. However, it may be added that a particular MSW stream can overcome at
least some of these constraints, and thus an approach of individual case assessment is warranted in the
consideration of incineration as a waste-to-energy technological option in India.
MWH Chapter 10-16

Table 10-1. International Standards for Atmospheric Emissions from MSW Incinerators
Country Switzerland Germany France Sweden Norway Denmark Netherl India USA EC
ands * (EPA) Directiv
** e
76/2000
EEC
***
Date of 1986 TA BIMSch VH90 1986 1986 2000 1999 2000
Issue Luft Germany (1990),
1986 V90 Half-
(1990), hour
Daily max
mean
Gas 11% O2 dry 11% 11% O2 11% O2 7% CO2 10% O2 10% CO 10% CO2 11% O2 12% 7% O2 11% O2
Correction O2 dry dry wet dry STP dry STP dry STP dry CO2 dry dry
dry dry
Particulate 50 30 10 60 50 20 30 40 5 150 70 30
(mg/Nm3)
HCl 30 50 10 60 100 100 100 100 10 50 62 10
HF 5 2 1 4 1 1
SO2 500 100 50 200 300 300 40 20 50
NOx (Calc 500 500 100 400 70 450 388 200
as NO)
CO 100 50 80 1250 100 50 157 50
Total C 20 10 40 10 20
Dioxin 0.1 0.1toxic 0.1 toxic 0.41 0.1 toxic
(ng/Nm3) NATCO equival equivale toxic equivale
equivalent ent nt equivale nt
nt
Heavy metals (mg/Nm3)
Total Class I 0.2 0.2 2 0.3 0.05
Cd 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.004 (Cd + TI)
Hg 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.08 0.1 0.1 0.47 0.05
Total 1 1 1 1 1
Class II
As
Ni
Total Class III 5 5 5 5 0.5
Pb Pb + Zn = 5 1.4 5 (Pb + 0.04 (Pb+Cr+
Zn) Mn+Cu+
Sb+As+C
o+Ni +
V)
Cr
Source: Sewage and Industrial Effluent Treatment, J. Arundel (Blackwell Science, 1995)
* MSW (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000

** www.epa.gw/ttn/oarpg/t1/fr_notices/ciswi_fr.pdf
*** http://europa.cu.int
MWH Chapter 10-17

Table 10-2. EC Directive 2000 on Incineration of Waste: Air Emission Limit Values
(a) Daily Average Values
Total dust 10 mg/m3

Gaseous and vaporous organic substances expressed as total 10 mg/m3
organic carbon
Hydrogen chloride (HCl) 10 mg/m3
Hydrogen fluoride (HF) 1 mg/m3
Sulphur dioxide (SO2) 50 mg/m3
Nitrogen monoxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 200 mg/m3 (*)
expressed as nitrogen dioxide for existing incineration
plants with a nominal capacity exceeding 6 tonnes per hour
for new incineration plants
Nitrogen monoxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 400 mg/m3 (*)
expressed as nitrogen dioxide for existing incineration
plants with a nominal capacity of 6 tonnes per hour or less
(*) Until 1 January 2007 and without prejudice to relevant (Community) legislation the emission limit value for NOx does
not apply to plants only incinerating hazardous waste.
Exemptions for NOx may be authorised by the competent authority for existing incineration plants:
• with a nominal capacity of 6 tonnes per hour, provided that the permit foresees the daily average values do not exceed
500 mg/m 3 and this until 1 January 2008,
• with a nominal capacity of >6 tonnes per hour but equal or less than 16 tonnes per hour, provided the permit foresees
the daily average values do not exceed 400 mg/m 3 and this until 1 January 2010,
• with a nominal capacity of >16 tonnes per hour but <25 tonnes per hour and which do not produce water discharges,
provided that the permit foresees the daily average values do not exceed 400 mg/m3 and this until 1 January 2008.
Until 1 January 2008, exemptions for dust may be authorised by the competent authority for existing incinerating plants,
provided that the permit foresees the daily average values do not exceed 20 mg/m3.
(b) Half- hourly Average Values
Total dust 30 mg/m3 10 mg/m3

Gaseous and vaporous organic substances 20 mg/m3 10 mg/m3
expressed as total organic carbon
Hydrogen chloride (HCl) 60 mg/m3 10 mg/m3
Hydrogen fluoride (HF) 4 mg/m3 2 mg/m3
Sulphur dioxide (SO2) 200 mg/m3 50 mg/m3
Nitrogen monoxide (NO) and nitrogen 400 mg/m3 (*) 200 mg/m3 (*)
dioxide (NO2) expressed as nitrogen
dioxide for existing incineration plants
with a nominal capacity exceeding 6
tonnes per hour for new incineration
plants
(*) Until 1 January 2007 and without prejudice to relevant Community legislation the emission limit value for NOx does not
apply to plants only incinerating hazardous waste.
MWH Chapter 10-18

Table 10-3. Summary of EPA Emission Guidelines for Municipal Waste Combustors2
Applicability
According to section 60.32b of US EPA 40 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) PART 60, the
designated facility to which these guidelines apply is each municipal waste combustor unit with a
combustion capacity greater than 250 tonnes per day of municipal solid waste for which construction
was commenced on or before September 20, 1994.
Any municipal waste combustion unit that is capable of combusting more than 250 tonnes per day of
municipal solid waste and is subject to a federally enforceable permit limiting the maximum amount
of municipal solid waste that may be combusted in the unit to less than or equal to 11 tonnes per day
is not subject to this subpart if the owner or operator satisfies the conditions mentioned in section
60.32
Emission guidelines for Municipal Waste Combustor operating practices.
Table A provides emission limits for the carbon monoxide concentration level for each type of
designated facility.
Table A.--Municipal Waste Combustor Operating Guidelines
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon monoxide emissions
Municipal waste combustor technology level (parts per Averaging

million by volume)a time b
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mass burn waterwall 100 4
Mass burn refractory 100 4
Mass burn rotary refractory 100 24
Mass burn rotary waterwall 250 24
Modular starved air 50 4
Modular excess air 50 4
Refuse-derived fuel stoker 200 24
Buddling fluidised bed combustor 100 4
Circulating fluidised bed combustor 100 4
Pulverized coal/refuse-derived fuel mixed
fuel- fired combustor 150 4
Spreader stoker coal/refuse-derived
mixed fuel-fired combustor 200 24
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Measured at the combustor outlet in conjunction with a measurement of
oxygen concentration, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, dry basis.
Calculated as an arithmetic average.
b Averaging times are 4-hour or 24-hour block averages.
MWC organic emissions (measured as total dioxins/furans)
Emission limits for dioxins/furans contained in the gases discharged to the atmosphere from a
designated facility at least as protective as the emission limit for dioxins/furans specified below:
2
US EPA 40 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) PART 60 Amended on August 25 1997
MWH Chapter 10-19

1. The emission limit for designated facilities that employ an electrostatic precipitator-based
emission control system is 60 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (total mass), corrected to
7% oxygen
2. The emission limit for designated facilities that do not employ an electrostatic precipitator based
emission control system is 30 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (total mass), corrected to
7% oxygen
MWC metal emissions
The emission limits for municipal waste combustor metals are specified as follows:
1. The emission limit for particulate matter contained in the gases discharged to the atmosphere from
a designated facility is 27 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
2. The emission limit for opacity exhibited by the gases discharged to the atmosphere from a
designated facility is 10 percent (6-minute average).
3. The emission limit for cadmium contained in the gases discharged to the atmosphere from a
designated facility is 0.040 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter, corrected to 7 percent
oxygen.
4. The emission limit for lead contained in the gases discharged to the atmosphere from a designated
facility is 0.49 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
5. The emission limit for mercury contained in the gases discharged to the atmosphere from a
designated facility is 0.080 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter or 15 percent of the potential
mercury emission concentration (85-percent reduction by weight), corrected to 7 percent oxygen,
whichever is less stringent.
MWC acid gas emissions (measured as SO2 and HCl)
1. The emission limit for sulphur dioxide contained in the gases discharged to the atmosphere from a
designated facility is 31 parts per million by volume or 25 percent of the potential sulphur dioxide
emission concentration (75-percent reduction by weight or volume), corrected to 7 percent oxygen
(dry basis), whichever is less stringent. Compliance with this emission limit is based on a 24-hour
daily geometric mean.
2. The emission limit for hydrogen chloride contained in the gases discharged to the atmosphere
from a designated facility is 31 parts per million by volume or 5 percent of the potential hydrogen
chloride emission concentration (95-percent reduction by weight or volume), corrected to 7
percent oxygen (dry basis), whichever is less stringent.
Nitrogen oxides emissions
Table B provides emission limits for the nitrogen oxides concentration level for each type of
designated facility.
Table B--Nitrogen Oxides Guidelines for Designated Facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nitrogen oxides emission
Municipal waste combustor technology limit (parts per million by volume)a
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mass burn waterwall 205
Mass burn rotary waterwall 250
Refuse-derived fuel combustor 250
Fluidised bed combustor 240
Mass burn refractory combustors no limit
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Corrected to 7 percent oxygen, dry basis.
MWH Chapter 10-20

Figure 10-1. The Incineration Process
WASTE
MWH Chapter 10-21

Figure 10-2. Incineration Process Flow Diagram
MWH Chapter 10-22

Figure 10-3. Schematic of a Field Erected Mass Burning System with Waterwall
Arrangement
MWH Chapter 10-23

Figure 10-4. Typical Factory Fabricated (Modular) Incineration System
MWH Chapter 10-24

Figure 10-5. Typical RDF Combustion Facility
MWH Chapter 10-25

Figure 10-6. Schematic of RDF Pelletisation Plant
Unsorted MSW
Solar Drying
(Dump-Yard)
Size Reduction
Rejects,
Screening (Inerts, Stones, etc.)
Fines
Cyclones Heavies
Binders
Homogenisation
Pelletisation
RDF Pellets
MWH Chapter 10-26

Figure 10-7. Energy Recovery System for RDF Plant
HP Steam
~ Power
Condenser
AIR
MSW/RDF
Boiler Feed Pump
INCINERATOR/BOILER
MWH Chapter 10-27

Figure 10-8. Typical Fluidised Bed Combustion System for Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF)
Source: Integrated solid waste management Tchobanoglous G, Theisen H and Vigil S.A.
MWH Chapter 10-28

Figure 10-9. Schematic of Fluidised Bed System
MWH Chapter 10-29

Technical Memorandum Waste-to-Energy Technologies
11 Advanced Thermal Conversion (ATC) Processes –

Gasification and Pyrolysis
11.1 Introduction
Advanced Thermal Conversion (ATC) technologies, exemplified in particular by similar processes of
gasification and pyrolysis, have undergone extensive development, refinement and commercialisation
in recent years. While considered novel and “fringe” in nature until recently, there is now widespread
and growing acceptance of these processes as legitimate and important choices as waste-to-energy
technologies.
11.2 Principles of ATC

Pyrolysis (also known as thermolysis) and gasification have been used as process concepts for many
years. Major development activity for gasification processes, mainly applied to coal, occurred in the
1970s and 1980s in response to the two oil shocks, in order to produce strategic fuel and energy
alternatives to crude oil. The impetus to apply gasification technology to MSW grew out of concern
for the mounting MSW problem, including diminishing landfill volumes, lack of suitable landfill
sites, groundwater contamination by landfill leachates, and the technical problems associated with the
early combustion technologies applied to the incineration of MSW.
Conventional incineration uses air for combustion and oxidation reactions whereas pyrolysis and
gasification operate either in absence of air (pyrolysis) or in a partial oxidation mode (gasification).
The consequence of this is that flue gas streams from incinerators are at a high volume, requiring
major investment for gas cleaning equipment, whereas pyrolysis and gasification produce more
concentrated syngas streams which can be cleaned in significantly lower volume (and lower cost)
equipment. Figure 11-1 shows four types of gasification and pyrolysis processes and their products.
Pyrolysis and/or gasification can give rise to the following general outcomes:
• Produce syngas that is combusted. Steam is produced from the hot flue gases in a heat
exchanger and then used in a turbine to generate electricity.
• Produce syngas that is cooled and cleaned prior to the direct generation of electricity via gas
engines.
• Produce a transportable fuel, either as a solid char that is subsequently combusted to generate
energy via a conventional steam cycle at some other location (or occasionally at the same
site), or clean methanol/hydrogen for use as fuel, or bio-oil that can be used as a low-grade
fuel.
Within the gasification process the majority of the carbon is converted into simple gaseous products,
leaving the inert as residue. This process takes place via partial combustion of a portion of the fuel in
the reactor with air (or oxygen), or with steam. Relatively high temperatures are employed, 900 –
1100 °C with air and 1000 – 1400 °C with oxygen. Air gasification is the most widely used
technology, giving rise to a low heating value gas, containing up to 60% nitrogen, and with a heating
value of 6 – 8 MJ/Nm3. Oxygen gasification gives a better quality gas, with a heating value of 11 – 18
MJ/Nm3. But, of course, oxygen supply is required with associated issues of cost and safety.
Conventional pyrolysis is the thermal degradation of carbonaceous materials at temperatures between

400 and 800 °C, either in the complete absence of air or oxygen, or with such a limited supply that
gasification does not occur to any appreciable extent. Such processes devolatilize and decompose
solid organic materials by heat (Greek – thermos) and a number of developers refer to this pyrolysis
MWH Chapter 11-1

processes as thermolysis. The products of pyrolysis always include gas, liquid and solid char, with the
relative proportions of each depending on the precise method of pyrolysis and the specific reaction
parameters.
Slow pyrolysis (carbonisation) requires a slow reaction at low temperatures to maximise the yield of
solid char. Fast or flash pyrolysis is used to maximise the yield of either gas or liquid products. The
gas produced through pyrolysis is of medium heating value (13 – 21 MJ/Nm3) and the liquids are
complex mixtures of hydrocarbons that require refining and upgrading before they can be used as
conventional fuel oils.
Gasification and pyrolysis processes can use a wide variety of waste feedstocks. Sorted wastes or
wastes which are homogeneous in nature are generally preferred. Some of the more common feed
stocks include:
• Refuse-derived fuel (RDF) or sorted MSW

• Plastics, rubber, tyres
• Industrial wastes
• Wood waste, biomass
• Agricultural wastes
• Animal wastes
• Sewage sludge
Table 11-1summarises the products, energy content and uses of Thermal Conversion Processes.
11.3 System Description

In general these technologies offer both reduction in environmental emissions and high yield of
energy.
11.3.1 Gasification System

The Gasification Technology Council of the USA has proposed the following three-part definition of
“gasification”:
• A process technology that is designed and operated for the purpose of producing synthesis gas
(a commodity which can be used to produce fuels, chemicals, intermediate products, or
directly to produce power) through the chemical conversion of carbonaceous materials.
• A process that converts carbonaceous materials through a process involving partial oxidation
of the feedstock in a reducing atmosphere in the presence of steam at temperatures sufficient
to convert the feedstock to synthesis gas; to convert inorganic matter in the feedstock (when
the feedstock is solid or semi-solid) to a glassy solid material known as vitreous frit or slag;
and to convert halogens into the corresponding acid halides.
• A process that incorporates a modern, high temperature pressurised gasifier (which produces
raw synthesis gas) with auxiliary gas and water treatment systems to produce a refined
product synthesis gas which, when combusted, produces emissions in full compliance with
the Clean Air Act.
The gasification process described by this definition operates by feeding carbonaceous materials into
a preheated and pressurised chamber (the gasifier), along with a controlled and limited amount of
oxygen (air) and steam. At the high operating temperatures and pressures created by conditions in the
MWH Chapter 11-2

gasifier, chemical bonds are broken by thermal energy (and not by oxidation), and inorganic mineral
matter is fused or vitrified to form a molten glass-like substance called slag or vitreous frit. With
insufficient oxygen, oxidation is severely limited and the thermodynamics and chemical equilibria of
the system shift reactions and vapour species to a reduced rather than an oxidized state. Consequently
the elements commonly found in fuels and other organic materials (C, H, N, O, S, Cl) end up in the
syngas as CO, H2, H2O, CO2, N2, CH4, H2S, and HCl with trace amounts of other compounds such as
NH3, HCN, elemental carbon and other hydrocarbons.
Fuel can be fed to the gasifier in the form of aqueous slurry, as dry solids, or as a liquid. Slurry and
liquids are fed using high-pressure, positive displacement charge pumps in an enclosed system. Dry
solids are generally pneumatically conveyed with nitrogen and fed through an enclosed lock-hopper in
the form of ground or shredded solids, pellets or briquettes. Solid support fuels can be crushed to the
appropriate particle size before being gasified. For slurry-fed processes the ground solids are mixed
with water (typically recycled from the process) in a mill to form aqueous slurry. Primary fuel
handling systems such as storage piles, conveyors, crushing, grinding, etc are similar to systems used
in conventional CHP systems. They include unit operations for the control of fugitive dust emissions.
The chemical reactions of the gasification process take place in the presence of steam in an oxygen-
lean, reducing atmosphere, in contrast to combustion where reactions occur in an oxygen-rich, excess
air environment. In other words, the ratio of oxygen molecules to carbon molecules is significantly
less than one in the gasification reactor. The following simplified chemical conversion equations
describe the basic gasification process:
C (fuel) + O2 → CO2 + heat reaction 1 (exothermic)
C + H2O (steam) → CO + H2 reaction 2 (endothermic)
C + CO2 → 2CO reaction 3 (endothermic)
C + 2H2 → CH4 reaction 4 (exothermic)
CO + H2O → CO2 + H2 reaction 5 (exothermic)
CO + 3H2 → CH4 + H2O reaction 6 (exothermic)
A portion of the fuel undergoes partial oxidation by precise control of the amount of oxygen fed to the
gasifier (reaction 1). The heat released in the first reaction provides the necessary energy for the
primary gasification reaction (reaction 2) to proceed very rapidly. Gasification temperatures and
pressures within the refractory-lined reactor typically range from 1200 °C to 1950 °C and from near
atmospheric to 1200 psig, respectively. At higher temperatures the endothermic reactions are
favoured. A wide variety of carbonaceous feedstocks can be used in the gasification process.
Low heat content wastes may be blended with high heat content supplementary fuels such as coal or
petroleum coke to maintain the desired gasification temperatures in the reactor. However, unlike
incineration, these supplementary fuels contribute primarily to the production of more syngas within
the gasifier, and not to the production of carbon dioxide.
The reducing atmosphere within the gasification reactor prevents the formation of oxidized species
such as SO2 and NOx. Instead, sulphur and nitrogen (organic-derived) in the feedstocks are primarily
converted to H2S, ammonia and nitrogen (N2). Trace amounts of hydrogen cyanide may also be
present. Halogens in the feedstock are converted to inorganic acid halides (eg. HCl, HF, etc) in the
gasification process. Acid halides are easily removed from the syngas in downstream gas cleaning
operations.
MWH Chapter 11-3

The concentrations of H2S, HCl, N2 and NH3 in the raw syngas are almost entirely dependent on the
levels of sulphur, chlorine and nitrogen present in the feedstock, whereas the proportions of CO, H2,
CO2 and CH4 are indicators of gasifier temperatures and oxygen : carbon : hydrogen ratios. In fact, the
methane concentration in the syngas is often used as an operational, control monitoring parameter.
Glassy vitrified slag in the slag quench zone of the gasifier is discharged at the bottom of the gasifier
vessel into a collection system where the solids are dewatered and the water is recycled to the process.
The separated non-toxic slag can be stored on-site and subsequently sold or disposed of in a non-
hazardous landfill.
Syngas from gasification processes can be treated in a series of clean-up and by-product recovery
operations. However, unlike incineration where combustion gases are treated at atmospheric pressure,
the volume of syngas that must be treated in a gasification process is reduced significantly because of
the elevated pressure of the syngas. As for incineration systems, wet scrubbers and dry filtration
systems are typically used to remove particulate matter and acidic gases from the raw syngas stream.
The clean product, syngas, exiting the clean-up process may be combusted in a gas turbine or gas
turbine/combined cycle (i.e., gas turbine with a heat recovery steam generator) system to produce
electricity and steam.
There are two key reactor types in a gasification system.
• Entrained Bed Reactor, and

• Moving Bed Reactor
Entrained Bed Reactor

A number of entrained-bed gasification reactors, equipped with either water quench or waste heat
recovery systems, are currently in use. In entrained bed gasifiers, fuel and oxygen (air) enter the
reactor in concurrent flow arrangements and in an appropriate ratio such that the gasifier is operating
in a slagging mode (i.e., the operating temperature is above the melting point of the ash). In two-stage
entrained gasifiers, additional fuel (in slurry form) is added to a second gasification stage to cool and
enhance the heating value of the syngas from the first gasification stage. The molten ash flows into a
water bath or spray at the exit of the gasifier. This process serves to solidify the molten ash, creating
a glassy vitrified solid slag or frit material that is removed from the gasifier, either intermittently via a
lock-hopper system or through a continuous pressure let-down system. In quench gasifiers, the syngas
is extracted with the slag, and is cooled when it contacts the pool of water within the slag quench zone
of the gasifier. Gasification units produce only a small amount of slag if the feedstock contains small
amounts of inorganic mineral matter.
Moving Bed Reactor

In the moving bed gasifier, sized fuel (eg. shredded MSW, pellets or briquettes) is fed to the top of the
gasifier. At the bottom, oxygen (air) and steam enter and the slag is withdrawn. Liquid wastes can
also be introduced into the gasifier at the bottom of the reactor vessel. As the solid fuel moves down
through the bed, counter-current to the rising syngas, it proceeds through four zones drying,
devolatilization, gasification and combustion. Drying occurs when the hot syngas contacts the feed at
the top of the gasifier. Then after the fuel devolatilizes, forming tars and oils. These compounds exit
with the raw syngas, and are captured in downstream clean-up processes and recycled to the gasifier.
The devolatilized fuel then enters the higher temperature reaction zone where it reacts with steam and
carbon dioxide. Near the bottom of the gasifier the resulting char and ash react with oxygen, creating
temperatures high enough to melt the ash and form slag. The slag is then removed and quenched with
water.
MWH Chapter 11-4

11.3.2 Pyrolysis System

Pyrolysis is a process in, which thermal degradation of organic wastes takes place in the absence of
air or oxygen. The pyrolysis process takes place under low-pressure. However, it is extremely difficult
to create completely anaerobic conditions, and therefore some oxidation inevitably occurs in
pyrolysis. The pyrolysis process typically takes place in the 400 - 800 º C temperature range.
Pyrolysis is often a precursor to gasification, under both anaerobic and partially aerobic conditions.
Organic compounds have a tendency to dissociate when sufficient heat is applied and this process
follows a steady path towards a series of simple and more stable end products. The three essential
products of the pyrolysis process are gas, char and bio-oil.
The exact nature and end uses of the products of pyrolysis depend on the characteristics of the
feedstock, and precise conditions at which the process has occurred. Commercially, the pyrolysis
process is divided into two types – fast pyrolysis and slow pyrolysis; these are discussed further
below.
A typical (and general) pyrolysis process consists of the following key elements:
• fuel preparation
• pyrolysis
• condensation and separation
• products and their uses
In the fuel preparation step, the waste feedstock is sorted and homogenised, and the particle size is
reduced to, typically, around 5 cm x 0.6 cm, by grinding or shredding. Magnetic separators recover
residual ferrous matter. Any feedstock with moisture content of above 20 % requires drying. The
prepared waste is then fed into the pyrolysis reactor. The waste can be charged to the pyrolysis reactor
in various ways, such as by rotating screws, reciprocating rams, entrainment, or lock hoppers. The
hopper discharge and the feed systems must be designed and operated with an airlock mechanism in
place to prevent air or oxygen entering the reactor.
Pyrolysis reactors can either be heated directly or indirectly. In direct heating, a strictly limited supply
of oxygen or air is introduced to create a combustion zone inside the reactor. Supplementary fuel such
as oil may also be used. Indirect heating requires a heater system to heat the reactor from the outside.
This can take the form of a heater jacket, or heated tubes around the reactor. Some pyrolysis reactor
designs allow sufficient air infiltration to provide some burning within the reactor. This is done in
order to provide internal heat to sustain the process. A wide range of reactor types can be used in the
pyrolysis process, such as ablative reactors, entrained flow reactors, rotating cone reactors, vacuum
reactors and fluid-bed reactors.
Fluid-bed reactors such as bubbling fluid-bed, and circulating fluid-bed, are the most commonly used
reactor types. This is mainly because fluid-bed reactors can be readily scaled-up and they are also
relatively easy to operate.
On the basis of operating temperature and residence time, pyrolysis processes are typically
categorised as:
• Slow pyrolysis, and

• Fast pyrolysis
Slow Pyrolysis
MWH Chapter 11-5

In slow pyrolysis, relatively large particles are subjected to inherently slow heating rates and long
residence times in the reactor. This process usually takes place between 550 – 800° C. The process
produces gaseous products in high yields and with a high calorific value. This high calorific value is
due to the presence of higher hydrocarbons and methane.
Thermodynamic stability and heat of reaction are two very important factors in determining the
products of pyrolysis processes. The thermodynamic stability of hydrocarbons can be measured by
means of the free energy formation from the elements carbon and hydrogen. Above 500 °C, all
hydrocarbons become unstable. Under thermal treatment, these organic compounds are converted into
simpler compounds of increasing stability as shown in the order below.
paraffins → olefins → diolefins → aromatics → polycyclic aromatics (tar) → carbon +hydrogen.
At lower temperatures the olefins and diolefins tend to polymerise to tars with a highly complicated
structure.
The thermal decomposition of oxygenated compounds yields simpler and more stable compounds,
such as formaldehyde, acetone, acetic acid, etc. and generally proceeds to ultimately yield CO, CO2,
H2O, and CH4 as final products.
Fast Pyrolysis
In fast pyrolysis, finely divided waste is heated rapidly in the absence of air and the products are
rapidly cooled (quenched) after short residence times, to preserve high concentrations of non-
equilibrium pyrolysis products. Fast pyrolysis takes place below 550 º C and usually at around 500 º
C in the vapour phase. The main products of this process are oils or liquids, tars, and carbonised
residue. To obtain high yields of liquid, careful control of the process is required. Fast pyrolysis can
produce up to 80 % of oil from a dry feedstock. The char and gas produced is usually further utilised
within the system, thus making the process free of a waste stream. The process thermal yield is high
and heat losses are low.
Pyrolysis Products and Uses

Pyrolysis results in the formation of a solid char, a fuel gas and a condensable matter consisting of tar,
oil and so-called pyroligneous liquor (a mixture of a highly oxygenated aliphatic and aromatic
compound). The quality and yield of these products from a specific reactor design are dependent on
the chemical and physical characteristics of the feedstock, the heating rate, the reaction chamber
temperature, the solids retention time and the quantity of air introduced into the reaction chamber. In
slow pyrolysis, the main product is gas, whereas mainly liquid products result from the fast pyrolysis
processes.
Gas produced in the pyrolysis process mainly comprises methane, carbon monoxide, hydrogen and
ethylene. The gas contains an approximately 35 % non-combustible fraction (eg. CO2, N2, etc). The
product gas exiting the pyrolysis reactor is collected in a storage vessel, and condensation of organic
acids and other compounds takes place in this vessel. Approximately 30-40 % of the product gas is
utilised to heat the pyrolysis reactor and thus drive the process. The energy content of product gas
decreases upon cooling of the gas, as condensable products (with supplementary calorific value)
thereby leave the gas stream. Therefore the gas is kept in a heated state as long as possible (in fact,
often utilised directly) so that maximum energy recovery takes place. For the same reason, storage of
the product gas is minimised because the condensables will leave the gas stream relatively readily in
any quiescent area. A range of pyrolysis gas compositions, obtained under different pyrolytic
conditions, is given in Table 11-2.
MWH Chapter 11-6

Under optimised pyrolysis conditions in a generic reactor, more than 620 MJ/Nm³ of fuel gas with a
heating value of approximately 11 – 12 MJ per ton of biomass is produced.
The brown liquid produced in the fast pyrolysis process is known as bio-oil. Bio-oil also has several
other names including pyrolysis liquid, pyrolysis oil, pyroligneous liquor, and wood oil. Bio-oil is
typically dark brown in appearance, with a smoky acidic smell. It has a heating value nearly half that
of a conventional fuel oil, typically in the range of 16- 18 MJ/ kg. Bio -oil is immiscible with
hydrocarbons and is less stable than typical fossil fuels.
Bio-oil can be used as a substitute for fuel oil or diesel in many static combustion applications,
including boilers, furnaces, engines and turbines for electricity generation. Depending on the feed
material and process, there are also a range of chemicals that can be extracted or derived from bio-oil.
Char is one of the main by-products of pyrolysis. Char is generally low in volatility, sulphur and ash,
with heating values ranging between 5.8 and 11.6 MJ/kg. Considerable quantities of char may be
produced in a typical pyrolysis process. For example, approximately 150 to 300 kg of char per tonne
of RDF is generated, when RDF is the feedstock in a pyrolysis process. The available markets and/or
end-uses for char play an important role in the economics of pyrolysis of waste. Char can be used for
various purposes such as activated carbon material for water purification, as a high-carbon fuel for
boilers, etc. The specific use for char often depends on the composition of char and on the feedstock
from which it was derived.
11.4 Overview of ATC Processes

Any development requires considerable quantum of resources, the development of ATC process also
requires significant quantum of resources. Most of these technologies were developed during the mid
1980s. There are over sixty patented gasification technologies and processes in existence. These
technologies generally use the basic gasification or pyrolysis processes. They include their own
unique parameters of equipment elements and process variables, thereby existing as stand-alone
technologies worthy of scrutiny as viable waste-to-energy processes.

“IEA Bioenergy” and “CADDET Renewable Energy Programmes” (1998) have identified around
forty advanced thermal conversion plants for various waste feedstocks in their report, “Advanced
Thermal Conversion Technologies of Energy from Solid Waste”. Similarly, in “Pyrolysis &
Gasification of Waste - A Worldwide Technology & Business Review”, recently published by the
environmental consulting company Juniper, there is a detailed discussion of over sixty processes and
technologies.
In 1996 “National Renewable Energy Laboratory” (NREL) undertook a detailed technology

evaluation of thermal processes for the treatment of municipal solid waste. During the project over
forty firms were initially contacted and subjected to set screening criteria. Finally, seven processes
were investigated further, with two of these being novel thermal processes and five being gasification.
In Appendix 11-A, sixteen projects have been selected to demonstrate variations in gasification and
pyrolysis technologies.
Partial lists of various technologies and gasifier manufacturers are given in Appendix 11-B and
Appendix 11-C, respectively. Appendix 11-D gives a list of gasification related useful documents.
EC/UK Perspectives in Advanced Thermal Processes for MSW is given in Appendix 11 E
While Appendix 11-A provides an extensive summary of some sixteen different gasification and
pyrolysis technologies these have been selected to illustrate the very broad range of process types and
MWH Chapter 11-7

fundamental parameters within the complete spectrum of these technologies. Thus, some of these
sixteen examples have a very limited commercial history.
It is considered important to present detailed information on some established illustrative technologies

which show that gasification and pyrolysis have indeed passed from a classification of being novel
and commercially unproven to a state, at least for certain examples, where technological uptake and
commercial success are demonstrable. The three selected technologies are:
• The “GEM” Waste-to-Energy Gasification Converter,

• The Siemens Thermal Waste Recycling Process, and
• The Waste Gas Technology (WGT) Thermolysis Process
“GEM” Waste-to-Energy Converter
The GEM system has been developed and tested to convert standard Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
and selected commercial / industrial waste streams into useful energy.
The system is a positive ‘closed circuit’ one, with no emissions to atmosphere from the actual
conversion of waste to gas. The gas generated by the system is very clean in all respects and can be
compared to natural gas.
When the gas produced is used within a conventional steam boiler, the flue discharge to atmosphere is
at least as clean as any other conventional gas fired boiler and, therefore, it can be used in any
standard Combined Heat and Power (CHP) generator.
At the end of the process, there is no residue produced which requires disposal to landfill as the small
percentage of ash residue is inert and non-toxic. It can be utilised as a suitable material in the
manufacture of concrete blocks or for use as a road or building aggregate.
The overall energy conversion of the unit can be very high; up to 100% from dry feedstock to useful
gas, and the system has a very low parasitic energy demand from 5%-20%, depending upon the
particular feedstock and the front-end waste preparation process.
The overall system produces virtually 100% re-cycling or re-use of materials with very little
requirement for support from fossil fuel.
Feed Stock
The quality and quantity of energy within the produced gas is related to the energy and moisture
content of the feedstock. The moisture content of MSW is usually around 35% (depending on the
source). This moisture, being of no use, is removed prior to gasification by drying, using waste
process heat. Ferrous and non-ferrous metals are also removed for re-cycling.
Most of the glass bottles and ceramics, typically found within MSW, are removed via a ‘bottle bank’
or a similar process. A few bottle fragments are welcome as they pass straight through the gasifier,
helping to maintain a clean and polished surface in the reaction chamber, and with no detrimental
effect.
The fuel that is required for the gasifier needs to be reduced into very small crumbs or flakes in order
that it can be heat penetrated in about 100th of a second.
MWH Chapter 11-8

In order to achieve this GEM has developed an extremely powerful “flail” device. Raw MSW is fed
straight from the collection vehicles onto a conveyor system, which carries the material into a large
hopper mounted on the top of the main feed ram. The ram compresses the MSW in a way similar to
that of a conventional compactor, but instead of just compressing the material into a smaller volume,
it forces the bags into the path of two sets of knives which shred the waste into 100 mm wide strips.
These strips of waste material are then ejected into the paths of high-speed flails. The effect of this is
that the material is further reduced in size and is now of a satisfactory size to be fed into the gasifier.
All the necessary engineering mechanisms are in place to ensure that no large items such as blocks of
concrete, iron engine blocks, fence posts etc. are introduced into the main flail mechanism, thus
ensuring maximum efficiency and minimal maintenance of the hardware.
Before the shredded material is used in the gasifier, it is necessary to remove the metals.
Material trajectory is used to aid this separation process. The material leaves the last flail within a
chamber onto a flat conveyor at its base. The angle of discharge of the material is raised in order that
the light materials fall short and land on the conveyor bed but the heavy materials such as particles of
mild steel can ‘fly’ much further and land further along the conveyor.
The ejection length is 12 metres and results in the waste material layering itself along the conveyor,
the soft light plastic fragments lie on the bottom and the steel on the top. This allows the clean
removal of the steel by means of a magnetic overband conveyor, followed by an eddy-current ejector
at its end, for the next heaviest i.e. aluminium, and so on.
The remaining material is now clean and fine, and is ready for feeding into a vacuum dryer, which
indirectly uses the exhaust heat from the boilers and a vacuum pump to dry the material. This can
now be referred to as a totally dry, high CV fuel since, with the removal of inert materials and the
inclusion of a drying step, the original MSW feedstock has lost around 50% of its initial weight but
has retained all of its energy potential in the form of a totally dry organic fuel.
If, for example, the CV of the waste coming off the delivery truck was 9 MJ/kg, the CV of the
prepared fuel would have been lifted to 18 MJ/kg. This is now a very useful input fuel for the gasifier
to convert into so-called “green energy”.
The prepared fuel is now odourless and can be stored in a dry condition for extended periods without
any deterioration or degradation. The moisture content that is withdrawn from the material is removed
in a completely sealed environment using waste heat extracted from the exhaust of the power
generating equipment. A vacuum circuit which removes the generated steam or water vapour then
passes that steam or vapour through a condenser, resulting in the condensate being collected and
discharged to a foul sewer.
MWH Chapter 11-9

Conversion into High Calorific Value (CV) Gas
The gasifier chamber is where the actual manufacture of the gas takes place. The chamber runs at a
high temperature and is suspended inside an insulated oven, which is heated by conventional burners
running on any fuel that is found to be convenient, including produced gas. Inside the gasifier
chamber, a low pressure is maintained by the rapid expansion of the fuel material into gas.
After start-up, where everything is purged with nitrogen for safety, together with the clearing of any
air (oxygen), the fuel injection systems are started. Assuming that tractor or conveyor from the fuel
store is filling the fuel reception hopper, the fuel is metered from the hopper onto a feed-speed
controlled conveyor. The fuel is dropped onto an elevator, running at constant speed, which carries it
up to a level above the gasifier.
The fuel is discharged into a ‘roll feeder’, while the vibrating conveyor ensures a stable supply of
material. This ‘roll feeder’ is a piece of equipment, which accomplishes three tasks: -
i) It forms a seal to stop the possibility of the produced gas escaping from the gasifier to
the atmosphere.
ii) It ensures that all traces of free air (oxygen) are prevented from entering the gasifier.
iii) It transfers all of the new fuel from the vibro-conveyor into the mouth of the ‘finger-
feeder’ and then finally into the gasifier itself.
The ‘finger-feeder’ is a piece of equipment which receives the material from the ‘roller-feeder’ and,
by means of oscillating ratchet type plates, feeds the material into the gasifier at a uniform flow rate.
Inside the gasifier the material from the finger-feeder holds onto the inner surface of the reaction
chamber. The speed of conversion into gas depends upon the size of the fuel particles but generally,
with dry fine material feed; conversion times of 100th of a second are achievable. This material is
forced continually to the inner surface of the outer chamber while gradually dropping to the base of
the gasifier chamber by gravity. When the carbon/ash reaches the bottom channel, the ash etc. is
discharged via a rotary valve and augers, resulting in the production of very clean gas, totally free
from any solid particles.
In addition, liquid feedstocks such as waste oil can be introduced either singularly or as a mixture
with dry fuel stocks in order to increase the CV of the input fuel.
From the discharge ports, the gas is released out of the gasification chamber to the blast cooler.
Syngas Conditioning and Uses
The produced gas leaves the gasifier at a high temperature and in a large volume. The gas is
immediately piped to a ‘blast cooler’. This consists of a cylindrical shell into which is fitted a series of
manifolds which carry a considerable number of nozzle sprays. The fluid used is oil, which is
circulated through a chilling exchanger and enters the blast cooler at approximately 20 °C. Due to the
volume of oil in the spray and the fact that the oil is in direct contact with the gas, very rapid cooling
takes place.
The blast cooler is sized in order to allow the oil spray to continue “washing” the gas after it is cooled,
but before the gas leaves the blast cooler. The oil removes practically all of the chlorinated and
fluorinated compounds from the gas, with these compounds finishing up in the oil storage tank, which
is connected to the blast cooler.
MWH Chapter 11-10

The majority of these chemicals are extracted as a gel, which can easily be drawn off and disposed via
specialist disposal channels. The volume of gel to be discharged is very small and may only be equal
to a single tanker load in every six months, depending on the waste throughput.
The CV of the produced gas is related directly to the potential chemical energy within the original
feedstock. The average CV of the gas generated from MSW is around 32-38 MJ/m³, depending upon
characteristics.
Because of the relatively high percentage of hydrogen within the final product it is generally better to
use this gas as a prime fuel in a CHP unit.
Environmental Benefits
• No discharges to atmosphere during the gasification process

• No requirement for landfill at all
• 100% re-cycling (water to water company – metals to foundry – ashes to building)
• Gasification allows the potential replacement of a considerable proportion of energy needs,
thus saving fossil fuels.
Figure 11-2 presents a mass balance comparison of the GEM technology against incineration.
The Siemens Thermal Waste Recycling Process
The Thermal Waste Recycling Process is based on an original patented process invented by a German
engineer, Karl Keiner. The Keiner pyrolysis process was developed during the 1970s on a small batch
scale and has been further developed by Siemens to the commercial stage, starting in 1984. The
technology is now referred to as the TWR process.
In the further development of this system, Siemens sought to:
• Reduce the environmental impact of thermal waste disposal processes

• Emphasise recycling to maximise the recovery of useable by-products
• Maximise energy recovery from the process
• Combine certain technologies, already proven in industrial applications, to create a novel
overall technical concept
To achieve these environmental objectives the process aims to:
• Minimise emissions to air

• Treat the ash residues within the process, to produce a minimal volume of glassified slag
which can be reused as a construction material or landfill
• Minimise the quantity of residues requiring ultimate disposal to landfill
Because Siemens has used a combustor within the process, various observers consider that the TWR
process is really just incineration. However, although the process does employ a first pyrolysis stage,
followed by high temperature combustion, the overall process is very different from conventional
incineration in as much as the solid residues from the boiler and flue gas cleaning processes are sent
to a high temperature combustion chamber where energy from the waste is used to melt the inorganic
MWH Chapter 11-11

fraction to produce a single glass-like inert material, rather than producing bottom ash and fly ash as
in incineration.
Process Description
The process combines pyrolysis with high temperature combustion, as follows.
Ist stage: pyrolysis
Following pre-treatment of the solid waste to remove recyclable material and reduce the particle size
of the solid feedstock to less than 200 mm, the waste is fed via a screw conveyor to the thermal
conversion drum. There it is heated in an oxygen-deficient atmosphere to a temperature of 450 °C
and retained for a residence time of approximately one hour. The conversion drum axis is tilted at 1.5
degrees from the horizontal and rotates at approximately 3 rpm.
Internal heating tubes transfer heat to the waste material, which is thoroughly mixed in the pyrolysis
stage. The syngas produced is supplied directly to the combustion chamber. Solid residues are
removed, cooled to less than 150 °C and screened to separate fine and coarse recyclable fractions.
The coarse fraction chiefly comprises ferrous and non-ferrous metals, and inert material. The fine
fraction, which contains 99% of the solid carbon formed in the pyrolysis process, is mixed with
recycled dust fractions from the boiler and flue gas cleaning processes. This dust mixture has an
approximate carbon concentration of 30%, resulting in a minimum heating value of around 10 MJ/kg.
2nd stage: combustion
The syngas and fine residues (containing carbon) are burned at approximately 1300 °C in the
combustion chamber. This combustion temperature is 100 to 150 °C above the fusion point of ash
compounds; consequently, the unrecyclable ash residues, which are injected into the high temperature
combustion chamber, are converted into a molten slag, which flows downwards into the wet slag
removal unit. The slag granulates to form a vitreous substance, which can be utilised as, for example,
a road construction material without further treatment. The temperature, residence time and turbulence
in the combustion stage ensure that all organic compounds are destroyed. High burnout and low NOx
formation are ensured by uniform temperature distribution effected by flue gas recirculation.
3rd stage: steam production
The thermal energy contained in the resulting flue gases is used to generate steam in a heat recovery
boiler (400 °C and 40 bar), which is then used to generate electricity and/or heat. The flue gases are
cooled to around 250 °C before passing to the flue gas cleaning/by-product recovery section of the
plant. The flue gas is scrubbed to meet the requirements of air emissions legislation. Boiler ash, fly
ash and spent active carbon from the bag filter are fed back to the melting furnace, and the ultimate
residues requiring disposal are salts and sludges from the wastewater treatment plant.
Mass and Energy Balance
The process converts MSW to recyclable metals and inert inorganic substances, recyclable granular
slag and HCl. Heavy metal-contaminated materials from the flue gas cleaning process can be
produced (depending on the nature of the feedstock), and these will require careful disposal in a
hazardous waste landfill.
Scale-Up and Commercialisation
MWH Chapter 11-12

Since 1984 Siemens have developed the technology in various pilot plants and now in two full scale
commercial operations, in Japan and Germany. The combination of individual process components,
well proven in industrial and/or power generation applications, indicates good reliability and
maintainability in commercial scale plants.
The first commercial plant at Furth, Germany, converts MSW and sewage sludge, whereas the first
commercial unit in Japan processes MSW. The feed material handling is critical to proving the
required flexibility and operability of the TWR process. The Furth facility is designed for 150,000
tonnes per year and is constructed in two parallel process lines, each with a capacity of 5 tonne/hour.
The Waste Gas Technology (WGT) Thermolysis Process
Waste Gas Technology UK Ltd (WGT) was established in 1992 to conduct research for a waste-to-
energy process, employing an advanced thermal treatment technique. The objective was to develop a
simple low cost industrial process suitable for installation on a small scale, and with the flexibility to
accept varied feedstocks such as those encountered in municipal solid waste. A pilot plant with the
capacity to receive up to 80 kg/hour of waste feed was constructed by WGT in Hampshire, United
Kingdom, to provide the focus for the research and development work.
The WGT process utilises a novel thermal conversion technique for production of a clean, high
calorific value, fuel gas stream from organic-based solid waste materials. The quality of the produced
gas is suitable for direct supply to a prime mover for generation of electrical power. Alternatively the
gas can provide a source of clean fuel for firing of heaters or boilers.
The process, referred to as thermolysis, cannot be precisely described as pure pyrolysis nor
gasification. The waste feed material is subjected to elevated temperatures within an oxygen-free
environment. Application of a high temperature causes the carbonaceous waste material to gasify,
with the resulting gas being cracked into lower molecular weight hydrocarbons and hydrogen. A solid
residue is formed comprising ash and carbon.
Prior to introduction into the thermolysis reactor the waste feedstock is purged with an inert gas such
as nitrogen to displace entrained air and therefore eliminate gaseous oxygen from the process. Waste
is delivered into a horizontal cylindrical rotary reactor, which is indirectly heated to a temperature
between 750 and 800 °C. The reactor operating conditions are carefully controlled to ensure optimum
gas production. The produced gas and solid char residue are separated in a hot cyclonic vessel
mounted at the reactor outlet. The hot produced gas is cooled in a direct contact liquid quench, prior
to treatment in a gas clean-up system. This downstream clean-up system employs conventional gas
treatment technology to ensure efficient removal of contaminants such as acid gas species and
particulates.
Status of the Technology
Over a seven year period the WGT pilot plant has demonstrated the successful performance of the
process for a diverse range of wastes. In fact, the pilot facility has proven sufficiently robust to accept
all organic-based solid waste materials encountered to date, provided that the material is prepared in a
form that can be conveyed by a screw auger. In the case of MSW a degree of feed pre-preparation is
required, involving size reduction and segregation to remove large inert objects.
The main categories of wastes successfully treated in the pilot plant include:
• Dried sewage sludge

• Sewage screenings
MWH Chapter 11-13

• Wood wastes
• Straw
• Copier material
• Commercial waste
• Plastics
• Segregated MSW
• Poultry litter
• Meat and bone meal
• Tannery wastes
• Shredded tyres
• Drilling muds
• RDF
An important feature of the pilot plant has been its capability to demonstrate the generation of
electrical power in a gas engine, which is supplied directly by gas produced in the process. The
flexibility of the equipment to process a variety of materials has been clearly determined and the pilot
plant now serves as a useful tool to acquire operating data on specific wastes, as well as
demonstrating the technology.
The first industrial scale application of the WGT process is now in progress. OSC process
Engineering, under licence from WGT, have constructed a plant for gasification of dried sewage
sludge and sewage screenings for Welsh water. Data obtained from the WGT pilot plant provided the
design basis. The plant, with a nominal feed rate capacity of 500 kg/hour, is installed at the Nash
Water Treatment Works in South Wales. Centrifuged sewage sludge is dried in a thermal fluid heater
to provide the plant feedstock. The function of the gasification plant is to provide a sustainable route
for disposal of sewage sludge by supplying the upstream drier with a high calorific value fuel gas
stream.
Potential Application
The application of the WGT process for disposal of sewage sludge is currently driven by EU
legislation. Cessation of sludge disposal into the sea has generated an immediate requirement to seek
alternative disposal methods including on-site treatment. The combination of sludge drying with
thermal treatment offers a sustainable solution suited to the small-scale throughput required at many
works.
To date legislation has not, however, provided the same driving force for application of advanced
thermal treatment technology to small-scale treatment of MSW. A number of authorities and waste
operating companies have been endeavoring to develop such projects in advance of legislative
constraints. However successful implementation is subject to current economic viability and can be
considered to be opportunity-led.
In the case of MSW, the feed preparation facility required for a small-scale plant can contribute
significantly to the project cost. Another factor affecting project economics is the selection of
electrical generating equipment. For example, with limited field experience on gas produced from
gasification/thermolysis, engine suppliers are currently offering conservative performance guarantees
MWH Chapter 11-14

leading to the selection of de-rated equipment entailing higher cost of installation. It is anticipated
that improved guarantees will be available after experience is gained on initial installations.
Potential to process MSW using WGT technology on a relatively small scale has been well proven. A
key factor in this application is the economic viability of preparing a suitable plant feedstock. The
process itself has been proven at the pilot scale for prepared MSW and is currently undergoing
commercialisation at the industrial scale for sewage sludge, sewage screenings and copping. The
capability of the WGT pilot plant to process diverse materials provides confidence that the industrial
scale experience can be translated successfully to MSW.
11.4.2 Indian Scenario

Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy Sources is the nodal agency in India, which is effective in the
development of waste to energy sector. Gasification is one of the core areas promoted by the Ministry.
The Programme on Biomass Gasification is being implemented with the main objective of
development and promotion of conversion and utilisation technologies, such as biomass briquetting
and gasification, for various end-use applications in rural and urban sectors and R&D on biomass
production and gasification. Appendix 11-F gives an overview of application of gasification &
pyrolysis techniques in India. Some major developments included in this compilation include the
following applications
• National Programme on Biomass Gasification

• Proposed Power Plant from MSW in Chennai by EDL
• Indirect Gasification Process (Esvin Advanced Technologies Ltd., Chennai, Tamil Nadu)
• Power From Solid Wastes Using Cyclone Gasifier

Gasification or pyrolysis of MSW and other organic waste produces a gaseous product stream with
substantial heat content. This gas can be readily cleaned of particulates, trace metals, acidic gases,
ammonia, hydrogen sulphide, and other contaminants and burnt in a gas engine or gas turbine to
generate electricity.
A much more efficient combustion process takes place in gasification or pyrolysis involving
molecularly simple, high quality gaseous fuels, for which complete and efficient combustion is
inherent. In comparison, incineration involves combustion of partially sorted MSW or other organic
feedstock. These materials generally contain some combustion-resistant constituents and produce a
large number of highly undesirable by-products such as dioxins, acid gases, etc. in significant
concentrations. These by-products require very costly flue gas clean-up processes.
Moreover, the gas clean-up efforts in gasification or pyrolysis focus on a relatively low volume gas
stream compared to the substantial volume of flue gases from incineration systems. Environmental
emissions control is therefore significantly inexpensive in gasification or pyrolysis systems than in
incineration system.
According to a study conducted by NREL in 1996, the capital costs of many gasification and
pyrolysis processes are comparable to typical contemporary mass-burn incineration systems.
However some gasification and pyrolysis technologies have significantly higher capital costs, with
royalty issues being a major factor. Most operating costs are quite comparable or slightly lower than
those for incineration facilities. It is highly likely, according to a Juniper Consultancy Services report
(1997), that capital costs will decrease in relative terms for gasification and pyrolysis technologies
over time, with the growing implementation of these processes.
MWH Chapter 11-15

Comparisons between advanced thermal conversion technologies and mass-burn incineration

technologies made by the IEA Bioenergy programme and the CADDET renewable energy
programme, indicate that the advanced thermal conversion technologies typified by gasification and
pyrolysis have:
• Similar costs to incineration,

• Lower environmental emissions and
• Higher levels of energy recovery.
Gasification and pyrolysis technologies are moving swiftly from the developmental stage to a general
accumulation of commercialised operating experience. While the initial history of scale-up and
commercial application of various technologies was not particularly encouraging the lessons learnt
have been valuable to succeeding commercialisation ventures.
As a result, a chronicle of successes in gasification and pyrolysis technological applications is

building up. There are now good examples of credible technologies that have the right parameters for
adoption in India. Constraints exist in terms of issues such as royalties but these are certainly not
serious enough to disqualify the careful selection and introduction of key technologies.
MWH Chapter 11-16

Table 11-1. Advanced Thermal Conversion Processes, Products and Uses
ATC Process Sub- Gas/ Main Energy Typical Use

Classification Product Content
Characteristics MJ/Nm3
Gasification
Air Low Energy Gas 6-8 Close couple to
Gasification (Generator Gas) gas/oil boilers,
operation of diesel
and spark engines,
crops drying
Oxygen Medium Energy Gas 11 - 18 Suitable for limited
Gasification (Town Gas, Syngas) piped transportation
Pyrolysis
Pyrolysis Medium Energy Gas, 11 - 20 Suitable for limited
fuel oil, and charcoal piped transportation,
synthesis of fuels,
Pyrolysis Medium Energy Gas 13 - 21
resins, fertilisers and
Gasification (known as Town Gas
ammonia
or Syngas)
MWH Chapter 11-17

Table 11-2. Pyrolysis Processes – Range of Fuel Gas Characteristics
Gas composition, Pyrolysis temperature, °C

Vol. %
480 650 815 925
Carbon monoxide 33.6 30.5 34.1 35.3
Carbon dioxide 44.8 31.8 20.6 18.3
Hydrogen 5.6 16.5 28.6 32.4
Methane 12.5 15.9 13.7 10.5
Ethane 3.0 3.1 0.8 1.1
Ethylene 0.5 2.2 2.2 2.4
Heating Value,MJ/m3 11.6 15.0 14.6 14.4
Source: Handbook of Incineration Systems 1991.
MWH Chapter 11-18

Figure 11-1. Advanced Thermal Conversion Processes
MWH Chapter 11-19

Figure 11-2. Mass Balance Comparison of the GEM Technology Against Incineration.
MWH Chapter 11-20

12 Options for Beneficial Waste Utilisation

Successful implementation of the waste-to-energy projects requires adequate and assured supply of
waste, generally with a predominantly organic matter. However, in India, a waste-to-energy proposal
as a beneficial disposal process is still a new concept for wastes such as MSW. Therefore, in order to
facilitate its implementation on a national scale, it is essential that any waste-to-energy proposal
compete successfully with other beneficial waste utilisation options that are feasible for India’s waste
streams. Further, from this point of view, it becomes necessary to understand the pros and cons of
these competing options properly so that waste-to-energy technologies can be put in the proper
context, in terms of their perceived advantages and viability against the other waste utilisation
strategies. This chapter reviews the following technological options: landfill with gas recovery,
composting and fermentation to liquid fuels.
12.1 Landfill with Gas Recovery
12.1.1 Introduction
Historically, landfills have been the most economical and environmentally acceptable means for
disposal of solid wastes throughout the world. Even with the initiation of concepts like waste
reduction, recycling and transformation technologies, disposal of residual solid wastes in landfills
remains an important component of an integrated solid waste management system.
Over the past two-three decades, engineering features have been added to address the numerous
environmental concerns of atmospheric contamination by landfill gases (LFG) and contamination of
ground/ surface water resources by leachates and surface run-off. A schematic of a modern engineered
landfill is shown in Figure 12-1.
12.1.2 Landfill Operations and Design
The salient features of all the major stages of landfill such as operation, processes, engineering design,
leachate, LFG management as well as environmental monitoring are listed below:
• Landfill Design
Foundation, liner, leachate collection, LFG collection, drainage and filling design, run-off
collection and closure design
• Landfill Operations
Waste inventory (load, type, etc.), cell layouts
• Biochemical transformations
Biodegradation of MSW organics, LFG generation
• Leachate Management
Monitoring, collection, treatment, reuse
• LFG Management
Monitoring, collection, quantity, quality and energy recovery (power)
MWH Chapter 12-1

• Environmental Monitoring
Atmospheric air quality (CH4, H2S, VOC, etc.) ground water quality, pests, etc.
Landfill Gas
LFG is primarily generated as a consequence of anaerobic decomposition of MSW, and can be

expressed by the following reaction:
Organic matter + H20 = CH4 + CO2 + Other gases + Biodegradable organic matter
The quantum of LFG generated from a landfill depends on the characteristics of the waste deposited.
The amount of degradable materials in MSW is determined by the composition of waste and its
exposure to moisture in the landfill.
The rate of landfill gas generation is influenced by several environmental factors. These factors
determine the decomposition rate, which, in turn, affects the volatility and productive life of a landfill.
Figure 12-2 illustrates the various factors that influence the gas production process.
An adequate prediction of landfill volume requirements can be made by projecting records of past
quantum of waste landfilled, waste weight. Knowledge of the composition of waste contained in the
landfill is very important for a preliminary assessment of the LFG generation potential. However,
waste disposal records are often incomplete or non-existent, and specific studies may have to be
conducted at a site to assess the waste composition and LFG production patterns.
The organic fraction of MSW is assumed to have an empirical formula - CaHbOcNd (carbon, hydrogen,
oxygen and nitrogen). Rapidly decomposable organic material is represented by C68H111O50N. The
decomposed chemicals combine with water molecules (H2O) to produce LFG, which comprises of
methane, carbon dioxide and traces of other gases. Water is essential to provide the hydrogen (H)
needed to combine with carbon (C) to form methane.
MWH Chapter 12-2

The transition from solid matter to gases that occurs through anaerobic digestion is illustrated below:
Particulars Degradable + Water -> Methane + Carbon dioxide + Other gases

matter
Organic C68H111O50N 16H20 -> 35 CH4 33 CO2 NH3
compounds
Weight 791 kg 131 kg -> 255 kg (27.6%) 660 kg (71.6%) 8 kg (0.8%)
Gas volume* 354 m3 (50.8%) 333 m3 (47.8%) 10 m3 (1.4%)
* At standard temperature and pressure (STP).
In this example, the LFG generated by anaerobic decomposition contains 51% of methane and 48% of
carbon dioxide by volume. The total yield of landfill gas is 0.88 m3 per kg of decomposable material.
The US EPA issued final regulations for control of LFG at new and existing landfills in March 1996.
The regulations specify a default value of 0.17 m3 LFG yield per kilogram of MSW, which landfill
operators can assume in the absence of site-specific data. While the volume of LFG assumed in US
EPA models is very close to the amount calculated in the example, the LFG yield can vary between
landfills, and between different sections of one landfill. The composition of waste, filling practices
and exposure of waste to water are the major causes of varying LFG yields. The total yield of LFG is
not released as soon as decomposition commences. LFG is generated over time, and the degradation
rate depends of the type of waste landfilled.
The time taken for the decomposition of half of the degradable content of MSW also varies, for
example, food waste takes 1 year, garden trimmings takes 5 years whereas card board takes almost 15
years.
Generally, it takes almost two years, from the beginning of landfill, to generate maximum quantity of
LFG . During this time, anaerobic digestion of most of the organic content of food wastes occurs.
LFG generation continues after this time but at slowly decreasing rates. While gas generation can
extend for periods of up to fifty years, in most cases, LFG release occurs within five years, because
food and garden waste typically comprise a large proportion of all organic materials in MSW.
The total yield of LFG and the annual rate of generation are key factors in the annual flow of LFG
from a landfill. There are several other important factors such as the age of the materials in the
landfill. The annual flow comprises of LFG generated from waste of all ages.
MWH Chapter 12-3

The following are the five factors that influence the annual flow of LFG:
Sr Factor Units Label

3
1 Total LFG yield per kg of MSW m /kg Lo
2 Filling rate kg/yr R
3 Time since landfill opened (years) number of years t
4 Time since landfill closure (years) number of years c*
5 Annual rate of LFG generation 1/years k
(* Note that if the landfill is still accepting waste, then the value of c is 0.)
The US EPA model (First-order decay model) to estimate the total amount of LFG generated in a
particular year (LFGt) is given by the equation: LFGt = LoR(e-kc - e-kt). According the final regulations
for control of LFG at new and existing landfills, March 1996 published by USEPA, the maximum
value for Lo is 0.17, therefore for a given value of R, t and c the annual rate of LFG generation (k) can
be calculated.
The annual rate of LFG generation (k) is expressed as an inverse proportion of the assumed number of
years that LFG is released. For example, if LFG release is expected to occur over twenty years, then k
is (1/20) = 0.05. The US EPA has set 0.05 as the default value for k in their model of LFG generation.
Although the gas is produced once anaerobic conditions are established within the landfill, it may take
several years to produce sufficient quantity of LFG, which intrun can be used o produce power. LFG
production (and also the quality of the gas) declines along with the time to the extent at which power
generation is no longer economical. Generally, for a typical well-engineered and well-operated
landfill, the expected period of LFG production may be as long as 50 to 100 years. However, power
generation may be economically feasible only for 15 to 20 years.
Composition of Landfill Gas
The microbial process and the reactions that take place within the landfill influence the composition
of landfill gas. For a landfill with gas recovery, proportion of methane present in the LFG is the
concern. The methane content typically ranges between 40 to 60 %. Other compounds that are
produced include carbon-di-oxide and traces of some gases. The typical composition of landfill gas is
given Table 12.1. The oxygen and nitrogen produced in the LFG are due to the intrusion of air during
gas sampling or analysis. The annual rate of methane generation is higher if more of the MSW is food
waste or exposed to optimal amounts of water. If a landfill comprises of a relatively high proportion
of paperboard, or is located in a dry climate, then the annual rate of methane generation will tend to be
lower.
Table 12.2 Typical composition of landfill gas
Component Content (%)

Methane (CH4) 40-60
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 35-50
Nitrogen (N2) 2-5
Oxygen (O2) <1
MWH Chapter 12-4

Hydrogen Sulphide (H2S) 40-100 ppm

Heavier Hydrocarbons <1 ppm
Complex Organics 1,000-2,000 ppm
12.1.3 Landfill with Gas Recovery System and Usage

A typical landfill gas collection system has three critical components:
• Collection wells
• Condensate collection and treatment system, and
• Compressor
In addition, most landfills with energy recovery systems have a flare for the combustion of excess gas
and for use during times when the equipment is under maintenance.
Gas collection typically begins after a portion of a landfill (called a cell) is closed. There are two
collection system configurations - vertical wells and horizontal trenches. Vertical wells are the most
common type of well used for gas collection. Trenches are generally appropriate for deeper landfills
and are used in areas of active filling. The wells are normally of perforated HDPE or uPVC and
bedded in 30 mm gravel rounds, which allow gas migration while preventing fine materials from
clogging the perforations. The wells are interconnected by horizontal pipes, and the gas is pumped out
under negative pressure from a blower to a main collection header. Ideally, the collection system is
designed in such a manner that the operator can monitor and adjust the gas flow, if necessary.
An important part of any LFG collection system is the condensate collection and treatment system.
Condensate forms when warm gas from the landfill cools as it travels through the collection system. If
condensate is not removed, it can block the collection system and disrupt the energy recovery process.
Condensate control typically begins in the field collection system, where sloping pipes and headers
are used to allow drainage into collecting tanks or traps. This system is typically augmented by post-
collection condensate removal. Some of the methods for disposal of condensate are - discharge to the
sewer system, on-site treatment, and recirculation onto the landfill.
A blower is necessary to draw the gas from the collection wells into the collection header, and a
compressor may be required to compress the gas before it can enter the energy recovery system. The
size, type and number of blowers and compressors needed depend on the gas flow rate and the desired
level of compression, which is typically determined by the energy conversion equipment.
A flare is simply a device for igniting and burning the landfill gas. Flares are considered as a
component of each energy recovery option because they may be needed during system start-up and
downtime. In addition, it may be cost-effective to gradually increase the size of the energy recovery
system, and flares are thus used to flare excess gas between system upgrades (e.g. before the addition
of another engine).
A series of purification steps are necessary, including moisture removal and the removal of
undesirable gaseous contaminants using molecular sieves. With a properly designed collection system
it is possible to recover up to 80% of the LFG.
The cost of the collection and treatment system varies widely, based on a number of site-specific
factors. If the landfill is deep, collection costs tend to be higher due to the fact that well depths need to
be increased. Collection costs also increase with the number of wells installed.
MWH Chapter 12-5

The calorific value of a representative landfill gas is around 4500 -5000 Kcal/m3 and depends
fundamentally on the methane content of the LFG. The high calorific value means that landfill gas has
significant energy generation potential. This can be achieved by:
• Direct use of the gas on-site or at a neighbouring site, for electricity generation and/or as a
heating fuel
• Blending with an existing gas distribution system
• Generation of electricity for general distribution and sale via the power grid
Direct use of LFG is the cheapest and simplest option. Costs can be substantially reduced if a single
pipeline to supply a single end user is possible. Typical applications include firing of boilers and
internal combustion engines.
Injection of purified LFG into an existing gas reticulation system may also often be viable, especially
if no direct usage is possible. Pipeline injection requires that the gas be compressed to the pipeline
pressure before introduction.
Electricity generation from LFG is normally accomplished by the use of internal combustion engines
or gas turbines. In cases where extremely large gas flows are available, steam turbines can be used for
power generation.
Of particular current interest worldwide is the development of fuel cell technology, where these cells
are powered by LFG. Such units can produce energy in the range of 1 to 2 MW, and are highly
efficient. They operate by converting chemical energy into useable electrical and thermal energy.
12.1.4 Environmental and Regulatory Aspects
If released directly into the atmosphere, methane is a potent greenhouse gas, with a global warming
potential that is about 21 times higher than carbon dioxide. Landfill gas can be flared but using it to
generate energy encourages more efficient collection and thereby reduces atmospheric emissions.
Control of LFG by flaring or, preferably, by use for energy generation also removes the significant
explosion risk posed by uncontrolled release of methane.
Thus, where it is economically viable, energy recovery from LFG offers significant environmental
benefits. Such use may also reduce the reliance on conventional fuels for power generation, and this
offers a further environmental advantage by reducing contaminant emissions.
Soil degradation from poorly managed landfill sites results in vegetation die off when LFG percolates
through the soil substrate to the surface, thus displacing oxygen within the plant root zone. The
presence of LFG in the soil also prevents revegetation of landfill sites, and dispersion may take as
long as 70 years in some climates.
Further environmental problems posed by organic waste disposal at dumping sites (i.e. not at
engineered landfills) comprise of:
• Groundwater contamination through leachate

• Surface water contamination through runoff
• Air contamination due to gases, litter, dust, bad odour
• Other problems including rodents, other pests, fire, bird menace, slope failure, erosion etc.
MWH Chapter 12-6

With respect to regulatory issues surrounding landfilling, many countries are seriously short of
suitable space for new landfills. The EU Commission has proposed to mandate that raw MSW should
undergo treatment prior to landfilling, and this initiative has already been accepted in several EU
countries. Under the EU proposition, waste with a total organic content greater than 10% may not be
landfilled and co-disposal of wastes will be eliminated in five to ten years. Waste management in
countries with a high dependency on landfilling, such as the UK, will be forced to shift towards
greater recycling and greater use of thermal processing. Thermal treatment of waste, as discussed in
Chapters 10 and 11, is an alternative disposal solution that can deal adequately with the large
quantities of variable composition waste such as MSW. In recent years, regulators have focussed on
stricter control of atmospheric emissions from thermal treatment processes, cumulating in the German
17 BimschV and EU Waste Incineration Directive. A great amount of effort and cost has been
incurred by a number of EU countries to upgrade their incineration facilities such that, after December
1996, only state-of-the art facilities will be operating. With Germany, Denmark and Holland leading
the way, the environmental focus has now shifted to reducing the impact of solid ash residues from
incinerators on environment, the goal being to increase the beneficial recycling of residues. Some
highlights of the landfill regulatory stipulations around the globe are discussed below:
EC Directive
The EC Directive 1999/31/EEC on the landfill of wastes was published on 26th April 1999 in the
official journal of the European Communities. The directive covers various operational and technical
requirements of the waste and landfills. It also covers procedures to prevent or reduce the possible
negative effects on environment, in particular on surface water, groundwater, soil, and air and also on
the global environment, including the greenhouse effect. It also covers resulting risks from landfilling
of waste to human health during the whole life cycle of the landfill. Highlights of this directive are
given in Appendix 12 A.
EPA Standards
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle D approach uses a combination of
design and performance standards for regulating MSW landfills. USEPA’s Subtitle D rule, published
October 9, 1991, also establishes facility design and operating standards, groundwater monitoring,
corrective action measures, and conditions (including financial requirements) for closing municipal
landfills and providing post-closure care for them. A phased implementation of the regulations began
on October 9, 1993. A current version of 40 CFR Parts 257 and 258 should be consulted to determine
the applicable deadline dates for each type and size of municipal landfill. Appendix 12 B gives details
about the USEPA – Landfill Regulation.
MSW Rules in India
The Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules 2000, Ministry of Environment and
Forests Notification dated 25th September, 2000 Schedule III gives the specification for Land-filling.
It covers the various aspects of Landfill from site selection to monitoring. The salient features of the
Indian Landfill regulation are given in Appendix 12 C.
12.1.5 Summary and Recommendations

Landfill of MSW relies on methanogenic bacterial activity under anaerobic conditions in a precisely
analogous way as conventional biomethanation. The difference lies in the relative efficiencies of the
two processes and the fact that biomethanation of MSW has the primary purpose of producing biogas
at maximum yields in a short time frame, and with an enhanced methane content. In contrast,
landfilling of MSW is principally a waste disposal method, with incidental advantage of LFG
production, recovery and use.
MWH Chapter 12-7

One would not therefore tend to place MSW in a landfill for the sole purpose of generating LFG,
since the same can be much more efficiently and rapidly accomplished using biomethanation
technologies. However landfills do exist and this method of waste disposal would continue to be used
in the future also, especially in developing countries. Thus, while MSW can be purposely diverted to
waste-to-energy end uses, both existing and future landfills can also be utilised for energy extraction
as a subsidiary element of their prime waste disposal purpose. In other words, LFG recovery and use
can co-exist alongside waste-to-energy utilisation of MSW, and essentially, the two options are not in
significant competition with each other, since the available MSW stream is large enough for both
technologies.
Maximising the success of LFG exploitation in India will, however, require development of properly
engineered landfills that receive a regular supply of waste with a considerable organic content. If, for
example, the landfill is not properly capped or laterally confined, LFG will be lost by diffusion to the
atmosphere, and concurrent ingress of atmospheric oxygen in the landfill cell will destroy the
necessary anaerobic conditions for methanogenesis. Another significant requirement in landfill
management is the regular compaction of the waste as it is interred. This removes trapped air within
the waste and hastens the development of the requisite anaerobic conditions. This, of course,
presupposes that an effective waste collection system is in place to maintain a constant supply of
waste in an appropriate volume.
Neverthelessthese constraints, it is feasible for India to develop an LFG recovery and use programme
from its existing and proposed landfills. It is also possible to increase its efficiency and output with
time and by paying proper attention to its engineering details. Such a programme will be
complementary to the other waste-to-energy technologies and will not be in competition with these
waste-to-energy technologies that rely on MSW.
12.2 Composting
12.2.1 Introduction
Composting is the controlled biological degradation of organic material. The presence of moisture and
oxygen is essential to assist the aerobic bacterial decomposition process, which results in the
evolution of carbon dioxide, and the generation of compost as a end product.
Compost has potential uses in a wide variety of contexts - as a soil additive and/or conditioner, and as
a soil surface covering to stifle weed growth and aid moisture retention in soils. Compost can be
beneficially tilled into the soil to aid drainage and to assist the uptake of nutrients by plants. Root
growth is also enhanced and less fertiliser application is generally required. Compost can also prevent
topsoil loss and thus reduce soil erosion. The use of compost can encompass both commercial
agricultural use and in domestic gardens, as well as in municipal contexts such as parks, golf courses,
gardens and the like.
On a national scale, the typical organic waste stream contains contributions from backyard domestic
sources (grass, tree clippings, paper, etc) together with the more general municipal solid waste
(MSW) stream that encompasses food waste, plastics, paper and packaging material, rubber wastes,
metallic materials, and an inert component (e.g. soil, concrete, etc).
The analysis of a typical national MSW make-up is relevant to an assessment of the true extent of that
stream which can be diverted for composting. In the following discussion, MSW composting is
considered, since this gives the most appropriate comparison with a waste-to-energy competing
application for the same waste resource.
MWH Chapter 12-8

Other types of composting that may be relevant and which could be usefully compared with waste-to-
energy utilisation of the same waste include on-site institutional composting and residential source-
separated composting. On-site institutional composting generally includes sewage sludge as a
component. Residential source-segregated composting requires an intensive educational and physical
resourcing programme so that households separate recyclable non-compostable materials from
compostables prior to collection.
12.2.2 Composting System and Usage
Composting systems range from relatively simple windrows to capital-intensive digester drums.
These technologies are necessary to provide more process control (particularly on odour), better-
finished product quality and reduced composting time to maximise throughput in a facility.
Mixed waste MSW composting facilities separate MSW into component streams for composting,
recycling and landfill disposal of intractables. Odour problems have been a major issue at MSW
composting facilities and the necessary odour mitigation initiatives (e.g. construction of biofilters)
have raised composting costs. Emissions of harmful fungi during the composting process have also
been reported. The compost produced by these facilities is often contaminated by metals and glass
(even with pre-sorting of wastes), and this reduces the range of application of the compost, its value,
and its acceptability in the marketplace.
Mixed waste MSW composting facilities in the United States once appeared to be the panacea for
solid waste disposal problems. The promise was that MSW could be transformed into high quality
products with no modification to waste collection systems while greatly decreasing the dependence on
landfilling. In practical terms, mixed waste MSW composting facilities require relatively high cost
preprocessing equipment such as trommels, shredders and other size reduction equipment.
A significant prerequisite is to establish markets for the finished product compost. Education is
needed on a significant scale to encourage uptake of compost, both by domestic and commercial
users. There may be negative connotations associated with the presence of foreign matter in the
product and a view that the material harbours biological health hazards.
In theory, a fully and properly implemented MSW composting programme could utilise the entire
organic waste component of MSW, given that it is appropriately and efficiently collected in a
centralised manner via an existing (or latterly established) collection system. This assumes that ready
markets exist for such a large volume of product compost.
Composting programme costs that have been alluded to include a surprisingly high capital cost for
equipment necessary for the composting process, land requirements to establish an economically
viable composting facility, and a single product stream where the final value is rather uncertain and
the market uptake is difficult to predict in advance.
Environmental issues associated with composting are very significant. While odour is an obvious
primary problem, there are several health issues that are important, including generation of harmful
fungi and implications of infrequent collection of compostable materials that needs to be stored in the
meantime. Direct environmental issues relevant for composting include the important realisation that
composting does not remove heavy metals and chlorinated compounds during the process, negating
the use of the product in commercial agriculture.
Net greenhouse gas emissions for composting are lower than landfilling, since composting avoids
methane emissions, but higher for green wastes where the CO2 emissions in composting are greater
than the carbon storage credits which are ascribed because of the imperfect degradation of cellulosic
materials under landfill conditions.
MWH Chapter 12-9

Mixed waste MSW composting, even allowing for pre-composting treatment to remove recyclables
and inert non-compostables, still produces a compost containing contaminants such as heavy metals,
chlorinated compounds and dioxins (the latter arise from bleached paper). In the United States this
realisation has resulted in the withdrawal of support for MSW composting by key environmental
lobby groups, such as the Environmental Defense Fund, which were previously vigorous supporters of
MSW composting.
The contaminants inevitably present in MSW compost may, depending on the precise make-up of the
original wastes, make the product unsuitable for agricultural uses where crops are grown. This is
likely to significantly limit the applications and marketability of MSW compost.
12.2.4 Composting vis-à-vis Energy Recovery from MSW

The composting process can be applied as a waste disposal option for MSW, and the biodegradable
organic material can be converted into compost as an end product that has a potential use as a soil
additive/ conditioner and as bio fertiliser. Both compost and WTE options of waste utilisation are
beneficial, given that desirable (and saleable) products are the end result, and there are also other
benefits in each case in terms of waste volume reductions, pollution control, and other environmental
benefits such as greenhouse gas reductions.
A detailed numerical cost/ benefit analysis cannot be readily applied in a general sense to compare
composting and waste-to-energy applications as competing MSW disposal options because there are
simply too many regional and/or city-specific variables for virtually all the applicable process/ design
parameters and considerations.
Compost is also valuable as a covering (“mulching”) agent to negate the growth of weeds and aid soil
moisture retention. Compost use can be widespread in terms of domestic and municipal garden and
park applications, and in commercial agricultural use if transport costs are not a significant
impediment to such use.
The most difficult task is to establish reliable, consistent and long-term markets for the finished
product compost. Major public education programmes are necessary (and can be expensive), and the
negative associations of foreign matter and biological health hazards with compost are difficult to
overcome in the public mind.
There are direct economic benefits from composting in terms of the avoided costs of disposal of
MSW to landfill (for example). Composting greatly reduces volumes of MSW going to landfill and
this prolongs landfill life. Also, the negative environmental issues associated with landfills such as
odour, leachate production, greenhouse gas emissions and vermin are all greatly overcome by the
diversion of the biodegradable components of MSW to composting.
Thermal methods of MSW destruction in waste-to-energy facilities like incineration; gasification and
pyrolysis have various practical and environmental problems as highlighted earlier. Costs are
substantial and the sophistication of the technologies is also a significant impediment. However
substantial and valuable energy outputs ensue from each of these technologies.
Biomethanation has much lower associated costs, a reduced degree of sophistication of equipment and
is a well-understood technology that requires relatively simple training for operators. The solid
residues have application as compost and the biogas product stream has substantial value for energy
production. Environmental effects are mostly positive, and in fact, the technology is often applied in
the first instance for pollution control, with utilisation of the product biogas for energy generation
being a secondary consideration in developed countries.
MWH Chapter 12-10

Table 12-1 presents a summary of the comparable features of sanitary landfilling, composting and
anaerobic digestion.
Advantages in using compost are in terms of commercial, municipal and domestic applications. As far
as composting itself is concerned, there are direct economic benefits in cases where landfilling or
other disposal costs are high. These so-called “avoided costs" of disposal represent a significant
comparative reduction in the case of composting against landfilling or, say, incineration where tipping
fees may exceed US$100 per tonne.
A composting programme also extends current landfill life and avoids the environmental costs of
landfilling such as for leachate control and methane recovery. In the case of residential source-
reduction programmes, where compostables are separately collected, there is a further cost saving by
eliminating the need to sort MSW at the composting facility.
Large scale composting of MSW, however, requires significant capital expenditure on equipment,
considerable land area requirements and the development of a pre-sorting regime, either at source or
at the facility. Operation and maintenance costs are also significant and are not usually comprehended
at first glance.
The saleable value of MSW compost is low. The utilisation possibilities are generally limited on the
extent of product contamination. In general, the development of market for compost has proved
difficult in practice, even though pre-implementation surveys have suggested otherwise.
Today, MSW composting has fallen from favour to a very considerable extent in the United States,
after a promising start two decades ago. In fact, a wide variety of economic, environmental and
marketability issues, which were largely not understood in the early years of MSW composting
development, have subsequently come to light and have tipped the balance very much away from this
method of MSW disposal and utilization. This is an important observation and is of great significance
to any future considerations of composting as a waste resource use in India.
12.3 Fermentation to Liquid Fuels
12.3.1 Introduction
The conversion of biomass to various alcohols via fermentation is a well-known process that has been
extensively researched and developed over many decades. The most widely produced alcohol is
ethanol. The predominant use of the product alcohols has been as a transport fuel (Henry Ford’s
original version of the “Model T” motor car was initially powered by ethanol), although use as a
chemical feedstock is also important.
The conversion of organic substrates to ethanol and other alcohols requires, firstly, that the cellulosic
components be converted to sugars by a suitable process, most usually hydrolysis. The resulting
sugars are then fermented by yeasts or fermentative bacteria, to produce ethanol (and sometimes other
alcohols).
The history of the development of fermentation processes to derive ethanol for transport fuel use has
focussed on agricultural residues, woody wastes and specific crops as feedstocks with the requisite
cellulosic content for primary conversion to fermentable sugars.
The fermentation process is now well defined and yields have been optimised in various primary
processes. However research and development activities, particularly in the United States, are
focussed on improved bioreactor development, better methods for processing lignin residues from
MWH Chapter 12-11

cellulosic feedstocks, advanced pre-treatments to enhance sugar yields, and product diversification to
co-produce non-fuel products such as organic chemicals, as well as ethanol as the principal product.
12.3.2 Fermentation Systems
Recently, there has been increasing interest in the use of MSW (sometimes augmented by the addition
of biosolids) as a feedstock for ethanol generation via fermentation. The first commercial facility to
utilise this technology has recently been commissioned in Middletown, New York. The facility firstly
recovers recyclables from the MSW input stream and then mixes the residual organic portion of the
MSW with biosolids from the adjacent wastewater treatment plant as a combined feedstock in a
fermentation process to produce ethanol. The processing capacity is 230,000 tonnes/year of MSW
together with 49,000 tonnes/year of dry biosolids. The process utilises a proprietary fermentation
technology to convert the cellulose present in the MSW/ biosolids mixture into sugars and then to
ethanol.
Development of the project has eliminated the need to design and construct a new landfill for the
county. The $52 million cost of this has thus been saved, and, although the ethanol facility will cost an
estimated $150 million, the project is economically feasible, given the current market price and
demand for ethanol. The plant will have a capacity to produce 7.1 million gallons of ethanol per
annum. The primary use of the product ethanol will be as a component of reformulated petrol.
Besides MSW, other non-agricultural feedstocks for ethanol production are under investigation on a
worldwide basis. For example, the conversion of whey to ethanol is now well established as an
effective method for treating this difficult cheese production waste, whose BOD poses a major and
expensive disposal problem. The high lactose content of whey makes it a suitable substrate for
fermentation to ethanol, or to a fuel alcohol blend of isopropanol, butanol and ethanol.
Synthesis gas fermentation technology is another new process, involving the gasification of waste to
form CO/CO2/H2 as “synthesis gas”, and the anaerobic biological conversion of this gas by
fermentative bacteria to ethanol. The process shows distinct promise but is currently in the
development stage and is well short of commercial application.
Fuel alcohols produced in waste fermentation processes can be used as petrol extenders or substitutes;
they allow a reduction in vehicle emissions of carbon monoxide and NOx and also enhance the octane
rating of the resulting fuel blend.
A further positive potential environmental benefit from alcohol substitution in transport fuels is that
they remove the need to add methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) as a so-called oxygenate to
conventional petroleum-based fuels. MTBE is a suspected carcinogen and is also not readily
biodegraded in the event of leakage or spillage of fuel.
It should be noted, however, that the use of alcohols, particularly methanol or ethanol, as vehicle fuels
requires a concerted national or at least regional strategy involving the conversion of vehicle engines,
and an upgrading of various aspects of the fuel distribution system. There are very significant costs
and infrastructural requirements, and the decision to move in this direction is fundamentally a political
one. Currently the Government of India has not shown a readiness to contemplate such a step.
A further regulatory consideration is that bulk alcohol production facilities require a high level of
security (often imposed via a licensing regime which places strict security demands on the facility
management) because of the possibility of theft of the product.
MWH Chapter 12-12


Applications of fermentation technologies to waste treatment are in various stages of commercial
uptake but these innovative technologies merit a careful and continuing overview to assess their
relevance and possible application to the treatment of certain waste types under Indian conditions.
MWH Chapter 12-13

Table 12-1. Comparable Features of Sanitary landfill, Composting and Anaerobic digestion
Sr. No. Particulars Sanitary Aerobic Anaerobic

Landfill Composting Digestion
1 2 3
1) Capacity (TPD) 500 500 500

Area (Acres) 100 13.5 10
(for landfill
height of 10m)
Power Requirement (kW) 500 55000 750
2) Process, Whether open to Atmosphere Yes Yes No
3) Segregation of Organic and Inorganic No No Yes
Matters Prior to Treatment
4) Process Susceptibility
a) Moisture Yes Yes No
b) Rainy Season Yes Yes No
5) Products
a) Biogas Yes (Up to 8 - No Yes
10 years)
b) Compost No Yes Yes
6) Quality of Product
a) Biogas Quality NA NA 50 - 60%
methane
b) Compost Inferior Quality Inferior Quality with Pathogens and
pathogens and metal free
metals
7) By-products and wastes
a) Recyclables No Yes Yes
b) Rejects No Yes Yes
c) Ashes No No No
d) Pyrolytic Oils No No No
8) Environmental Pollution
a) Green House Gas Emission to Maximum Moderate Minimum
Atmosphere
b) Dioxin and Furan to Atmosphere No No No
c) Odour Nuisance Maximum Moderate Minimal
d) Ground Water Pollution Maximum Moderate No
MWH Chapter 12-14

Sr. No. Particulars Sanitary Aerobic Anaerobic

Landfill Composting Digestion
1 2 3
e) Leachate Generation Yes Yes No
f) Liquid Waste Treatment Requirements Yes Yes Yes
g) Ash with heavy metals No No No
9) Energy Requirements Very low Low Moderate
10) Gas Collection System Complicated Not Required Easy
11) Operation Cost Low Moderate Moderate
12) Commercially Operating Plants on Mixed Yes (Only Yes No ( Few Plants
MSW (Indian Types) dump yards are under
without proper execution)
gas and leachate
collection
facilities)
13) Compliance with Solid Handling Rules No Yes Yes
2000 of MoEF, GOI dated 25/09/2000
14) Environmental Friendliness No No Yes
15) Suitability of Technology for Indian Yes Yes Yes
MSW
16) Choice for Indian Environment in Present Yes Yes Yes
Scenario
(With all necessary precautions)
MWH Chapter 12-15

Figure 12-1. Schematic of a Modern Engineered Landfill
MWH Chapter 12-16

Figure 12-2. Factors Influencing Landfill Gas Production
Precipitation Atmospheric Pressure

Air Topography Hydrogeology Site Cover
INFILTRATION
Temperature Moisture Content Aeration

Trace Elements
Ammonium
METHANOGENS
Concentrated Organic Acids Chlorinated Carbons
Sulphide
Sulphate Reducers
Acidic Nitrate Reducers
Electron Donors
MWH Chapter 12-17

13 Emerging Technologies
13.1 Potential Technologies

There are mainly three emerging potential technologies for waste destruction. Each of these
technologies has an accompanying energy recovery capability. These technologies are:
• Plasma pyrolysis,
• Microwave waste destruction, and
• Laser waste destruction.
13.2 Plasma Pyrolysis

13.2.1 Process Description
Plasma pyrolysis (also known as plasma arc pyrolysis) is a variation on conventional pyrolysis. It is
also a feasible technology for converting waste in to energy.
While the application of plasma pyrolysis technology for an environmental purpose such as waste
destruction is a relatively new process, the technology itself has been used for decades in the metals
refining industry. It is thus well proven and has a significant track record. For example, in the United
States, plasma pyrolysis technology has been used for some time as the final step in the destruction of
certain “special” wastes, including radioactive and hazardous wastes.
This process is distinctly different from combustion (incineration) in that it uses energy from the
plasma to thermally convert organic waste from a solid (or liquid) to a gas through a process called
controlled pyrolysis or controlled gasification. The constant high operating temperature ensures the
destruction of all complex organic compounds, and the proprietary process controls minimizes the
possibility of reformation of complex pollutants. The escape of volatile metals and acid gases can
also be minimized to levels that can meet the most stringent air emission standards. In cases where
the organic content of the waste stream is reasonably high, the pyrolysis product gas, composed
mainly of hydrogen and carbon monoxide, can be used to safely recover much of the energy in the
waste.
Along with controlled pyrolysis of organic materials, the Plasma system can melt inorganic materials
such as glass, soil, metals, and ash. These components, common in many waste streams, are melted
and typically recovered as a glassy slag. The glass layer serves as a medium for chemically binding
many metals in a non-leachable manner through vitrification.
In this technology, the processing chamber is heated to the desired temperature (900 to 2,500 °C)
before feeding the waste in to the processing chamber. A feed system is selected based on the waste
form and type, and the waste is fed into the processing chamber on a continuous basis. The plasma arc
torch heat source produces a very high temperature plasma gas, with a temperature profile between
3,000 and 8,000 °C. At these temperatures the organic materials within the waste rapidly dissociate
into simple molecular constituents, mainly hydrogen, carbon monoxide and hydrogen chloride. The
remaining carbon (a solid) continues in that state until a limited supply of oxygen (usually as steam) is
introduced, at this time it reacts to form carbon monoxide.
The result is a pyrolysis product gas composed of hydrogen, carbon monoxide and some acid gas such
as HCl from the halogen constituents of the waste. Small amounts of other gases are also present,
including nitrogen, if air or nitrogen is being used as the plasma “carrier” gas. Some NOx is
Chapter 13-1
MWH
consequently formed in the plasma arc of the torch but in the strongly reducing environment of the
pyrolysis chamber, most of this NOx is rapidly reduced to gaseous elemental nitrogen.
The pyrolysis product gas formed from the organic waste is transferred to a quench and gas scrubbing
system where the acid gas is neutralised, and the entrained particulate is removed. The resulting clean
fuel gas (comprising mostly hydrogen and carbon monoxide, with traces of methane, ethylene and
acetylene) is available for use as a fuel for steam or electricity generation.
Inorganic constituents in the input waste melt in the processing chamber to form a glassy molten
liquid that also comprises any metals present in the input waste. This molten slag accumulates in the
bottom of the processing chamber. It can be recovered, as a vitreous solid that is essentially doesn’t
produce leachate.
Different types of waste will generate different product gas and slag characteristics. Input wastes with
a high carbon content and a high percentage of non-volatile material will produce gaseous and solid
product streams, very similar to those from municipal solid waste. Other waste materials, such as
biomass, liquid wastes and organic wastes will produce hardly any slag since virtually all of the waste
is gasifiable.
Pyrolysis versus Incineration
The Plasma Thermal Conversion of Waste process achieves almost a total destruction of simple and
complex organic materials in an eco-friendly manner. The comparison between the incineration and
plasma process system is given in Table 13.1.
The waste is destroyed by the molecular dissociation of the feedstock through a reduced oxygen
environment (i.e. pyrolysis), and the heat that causes the pyrolysis is provided by an electric arc.
Within the processing chamber, where the waste is fed and destroyed, thermal oxidation (i.e.
combustion) will not occur. The process is essentially endothermic. By comparison, "starved-air"
incinerators, which some may claim to be similar “pyrolysis systems, require combustion of a
feedstock and/or supplementary fossil fuel from which to derive the energy to drive the process.
The combustion process is an oxidizing process and thus there is a significant potential for free
Chlorine to form dioxins and furans, while the pyrolysis process is chemically reducing, converting
virtually all of the liberated chlorine to hydrogen chloride (HCl). The Plasma (chemical dissociation -
pyrolysis) process achieves destruction and removal efficiencies that are far better than incineration,
without the typical by-products of incineration (see Appendix for comparison of Plasma Thermal
Conversion emissions with other technologies). The Plasma system is also typically much smaller
and generates a much smaller volume of process gases (that require cleaning) than a comparable
incinerator.
Project Economics
The possible cost that can be incurred and revenue that can be generated while implementing a typical
500 TPD plasma based combined cycle power plant is given in Table 13.2. This plant will produce
approximately 500 MM BTU/hr (126 million kcal/hr) of syn gas energy (when used in a combined
cycle power plant, this could generate approximately 55 MW).
13.2.2 Applications
The following are examples of pilot-scale or commercial applications of plasma pyrolysis technology
for waste-to-energy.
MWH Chapter 13-2

Plasma based MSW to Energy Plant, UP, India

M/s Terrasafe Technologies Private Limited has proposed to implement of projects under Non-
Conventional Energy development Agency (NEDA) of UP, a state body under the Ministry of Non-
conventional Energy Sources (MNES), to dispose MSW at Agra and Allahabad.
MSW Destruction, Lumpkin County, Georgia, USA
A 50 tonnes/day plasma pyrolysis waste destruction system is now in operation. The operating
temperature is 3,900 °C and the unit achieves a 98% reduction in waste volume. By-products are
claimed to be simple gaseous hydrocarbons (principally methane), steam and a vitreous slag. No pre-
treatment or segregation of waste is required. Economic data are unavailable but this plasma
pyrolysis option was selected as environmentally preferable to landfilling or conventional
incineration.
Source: www.solidwaste.com
Startech Waste-to-Methanol Plants

The Startech plasma pyrolysis converter produces a vitreous solid slag and a synthesis gas which is
converted to methanol. The yield of methanol is claimed to be 600 litres per tonne of processed waste
tyres. Other kinds of waste have also been disposed, including MSW. No cost information is
available.
Source: www.startech.net
Plasma Pyrolysis with Vitrification (PPV), Lubsko, Poland

Plasma pyrolysis with vitrification is applied to MSW at 2,000 °C, with the addition of steam to
accelerate the process. A highly energetic synthesis gas is formed, comprising 80% hydrogen/carbon
monoxide. The Lubsko facility treats 50,000 tonnes/year of MSW and produces 12 MW of
electricity, 4 MW of heat and 45 tonnes/year of ethanol. No other details are available.
Source: www.is.pw.edu.pl
Global Plasma Systems Group, Washington DC, USA

GPSG utilise plasma pyrolysis technology to treat a wide variety of wastes. The primary purpose is
destruction of special, particularly hazardous wastes.Of late emphasis has also been placed on energy
recovery via the synthesis gas produced in the pyrolysis process. The reactor size is claimed to be 30
times smaller than for a similar through-put incineration system. No pre-processing or sorting is
required.
Source: www.globalplasmasystems.com
13.3 Microwave Waste Destruction

Microwave destruction of certain wastes is emerging as a novel waste-to-energy technology. The
patented “Reverse Polymerization” process reduces organic waste to carbon residues in a combustion-
free environment, along with the production of hydrocarbon gases and oils as useable by-products
with energy generating potential. “Reverse Polymerization”, conducted in the relatively low
temperature range of 150 – 350 °C.
The general process involves the following stages:
• Oxygen purging via nitrogen flushing

• Microwave reduction
MWH Chapter 13-3

• Environmental control of gaseous emissions

• Handling of discharged residue materials
In the “Reverse Polymerization” process oxygen is purged and the organic waste enters the
microwave reduction chamber. Microwave energy causes molecular excitation, which ultimately
breaks chemical bonds to depolymerise long-chain hydrocarbons.
13.3.2 Applications
The process has been applied to medical waste and waste tyres, as these are difficult-to-treat
Microwave treatment of tyres yields hydrocarbons as simple gaseous molecules and oils, high quality
carbon black (amorphous carbon) and steel (from tyre reinforcing wire). The tyres are moved on a
conveyor through the microwave reduction chamber where microwave energy is applied.
Hydrocarbon gases are drawn off and passed through a condenser to remove the oil components. The
remaining hydrocarbons are directed to a scrubber to remove hydrogen sulphide, before being
recovered as a gaseous fuel. The gas and oil can be used for power production via a steam or gas
turbine, or by direct feed as a supplemental fuel into other combustion equipment.
A commercial system in operation in Canada processes 6,000 tyres per day and is capable of 5.5 MW
of gross power generation. Approximately 50% of this power is used to run the plant, with the other
50% available for sale.
In the case of microwave destruction of tyres there are up to five revenue components, which may
offset the capital, operating, and maintenance costs of the technology. These are:
• Fees for landfill disposal of scrap tyres

• Generation of electric power from the simple gaseous hydrocarbons produced in the
microwave destruction process
• Sale of carbon black for use in printing ink or rubber manufacture
• Sale of scrap steel wire
• (Possibly) carbon credits because of the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions via this
disposal method
13.4 Laser Waste Destruction

Laser waste destruction (LWD) technology is an emerging technology, which can be used for treating
both liquid and solid wastes. This technology causes the destruction of solid and liquid waste matter
and converts the by-products into a pyroclastic material without discharging pollutants into the
atmosphere. A CO2 laser is usually used and this emits coherent electromagnetic radiation, which
breaks down the components of the waste at a molecular level. In this process energy and additional
coherent electromagnetic radiation are derived. The resulting pyroclastic by-product material contains
sufficient hardness and inert, which can be used in the manufacture of bricks and bedding material for
roads. The LWD system is usually coupled with Thermal Energy Production (TEP) System for co-
generation technology. Thus, leading to generation of electric power on an environmentally friendly
basis.
When laser rays of sufficient intensity irradiates waste material, a highly ionized gas or plasma is
formed by vaporization of the material. Any toxic compounds, which are released into the plasma
field, are completely destroyed at the typical operating temperature range of 4,000-5,500°C. The
MWH Chapter 13-4

reactor is a fully sealed unit and does not vent to the atmosphere, thus eliminating the risk of any
undesirable NOx, sulfide or any other emissions.
The LWD system uses CO2 laser to break down the components of the waste to a molecular level in
the reaction chamber. The highly ionised plasma passes into a secondary chamber in the reactor where
it is subjected to the same energy beam emitted from the laser, by means of a beam splitter. The
further reactions that occur raise the temperature in the secondary chamber to levels, which exceed
3,500°C. Silica is then added to the reaction chamber where it becomes molten. The remaining solids
and silica mix form a glass-like binding material. This vitreous slag produces a solid inert mass from
which any bound contaminants cannot be leached.
The gas that passes from the primary reaction chamber into the secondary chamber is ionized by
means of an ion generator. Sufficient space charge is produced in this reaction to capture solid
particles that may have escaped the cyclic process. Thus, any particulates from the reactor chambers
are effectively removed at this stage. After the completion of ionization the plasma field, formed due
to the combination of laser and electromagnetic radiation and the product material, is sustained by
recycling of sensitized air back to the primary chamber. The end result is a 98% solid waste with
minimal measurable emissions. Figure 13-2 gives a process description of the technology.
13.4.2 Applications
The LWD system breaks down complex organics into simple compounds with the evolution of heat,
which in turn can be captured, recycled or converted into steam. The steam can either be sold to
industry for heating or for electrical generation. Electricity generation can be done using a steam
turbine generator system. Most units can produce at least as much electricity as is required to run the
LWD system, and the addition of a TEP system is specifically designed to produce power for sale.
Co-generation of electricity and steam production are the saleable by-products of the system and
provide excellent profit potential.
13.5 Potential of Emerging Technologies

The three emerging technologies of Plasma pyrolysis, Microwave waste destruction, and Laser waste
destruction could be described as “fringe” technologies at present. However, they are promising in
concept and application and warrant close scrutiny in the next few years in terms of their uptake in the
waste-to-energy arena worldwide.
This is another area where India can allow other countries to implement, develop and “debug” new
technologies until they reach a point where the risks are reduced and technological difficulties are
ironed out. On the other hand, it may be that the impediments prove insurmountable, and the
technology is no longer worth pursuing and cannot be considered for Indian applications. However a
close watch must be maintained on these (and other) technology types and sub-types. India should be
ready to apply those technologies, which are finally proven in economic, environmental and technical
terms.

Plasma Pyrolysis
The plasma pyrolysis process for waste destruction creates harmful byproducts or emissions. Both the
syn gas and the inert solid slag can be beneficially used. The process is thus a totally enclosed waste
treatment system.
MWH Chapter 13-5

Treatment of mixed wastes using plasma pyrolysis process is efficient and versatile and achieves
waste volume reductions to the order of 200 to 1. In contrast, incineration can achieve, at best, a 10 to
1 waste volume reduction.
Moreover, the reducing conditions within the plasma pyrolysis process do not lead to the production
of dioxins, unlike incineration (which is an oxidising process).
Earlier applications of plasma pyrolysis concentrated on using the technique for special wastes
destruction with high efficiencies and minimum emissions. More emphasis is now being given to
product synthesis gas utilisation. It is now expected that a greater commercial uptake of the Plasma
pyrolysis process will take place and significant experience about it will be gained in the next few
years.
Currently, capital cost of the plasma pyrolysis is high but O & M cost is relatively low since the
system has only a limited number of moving parts. Over time and with increasing uptake of the
technology, capital cost per unit is expected to reduce significantly.
Microwave Waste Destruction

No definitive information is available about economic considerations relevant to the process of
microwave waste destruction. However, it is clear that this technology has positive benefits for the
treatment of two difficult waste types, namely medical wastes and tyres. The net energy that can be
exported to the grid and the less emissions are the attractive factors.
There are now patented processes in which microwave energy is used for the destruction of
hazardous, infectious or otherwise intractable wastes, but without energy recovery. It is also likely
that the process will become applicable to a wider range of wastes. However, these applications may
in turn refine the technology in terms of its potential future waste-to-energy applications. Thus a close
watch needs to be kept on the further development of this technology.
Laser Waste Destruction

The cost of installation, maintenance and operation of the Laser Waste Destruction and Thermal
Energy Production is claimed to be well below that for incinerator facilities of similar capacity.
Heterogeneous wastes or wastes with low combustion energy cannot be efficiently burnt in an
incinerator to generate energy, but they can be utilized as a fuel source for these LWD systems.
Control of off-gas and air pollution is also different in the LWD system. In an incinerator, excessive
air is used to increase the mixing and thus improve combustion efficiency, decreasing thermal
efficiency. In an LWD system, the off gas is ionized in the photon reaction chamber, thus reducing
emissions to oxygen and carbon dioxide at concentrations, which are below EPA standards.
The laser waste destruction technology is new and has not yet been widely adopted. However it shows
enough promise to merit continued monitoring of its future commercial success.
MWH Chapter 13-6

Table 13-1. Comparison between Incinerator and Plasma Thermal Conversion.
Common Incinerator Plasma Thermal Conversion System

Flame Temperatures 1650oC – 1930oC Torch Plume Temperatures at centerline:
5500oC – 9,000 C
Thermal Chamber Temps – 980oC to 1370°C Thermal Chamber Temps – 900°C to 2,500°C
Outputs: Outputs:
- Residual bottom ash and fly ash - Benign Silicate – glass Aggregate or
- Nitrogen Oxides - Recoverable metals
- Particulates and other air emissions - Syn Gas (i.e. CO and H2)
Significant Oxygen required – virtually No Oxygen required, synthesis gas production

eliminating the ability to generate synthesis gas efficiency of 80 to 90%
Burns large amounts of fossil fuel No fuels of chemicals – can generate its own
electricity effectively
Requires large land area for infrastructure and Compact system
gas scrubbing
Table 13-2. Typical Project Costs for 500 TPD Plasma based Combined Cycle Power
Plant
Project Item Cost in INR Crores

Waste handling/plasma gasification and syn gas processing 113.57
Buildings/site infrastructure and power generation plant 220.59
Preoperative Expenses 66.1
Contingency (15%) 19.45
Total project cost 419.70
MWH Chapter 13-7

Figure 13-1. Tyre Reduction System-Single Microwave Destruction Line
Inclined Tyre
Feed
MWH Chapter 13-8

Figure 13-2. Schematic of Laser Waste Destruction Process
Waste Fuel
Caustic Soda
Plasma Field
Scrubber
Solids Produced -
Primarily Carbon
Gas Broken down Electrostatic

to Lighter Precipitator
Silica Added Elements
Liquification
Occurs
Water bath
Elements Recombine
Silica combines with
Carbon to form
Silicon Carbide
Gas Air Mixer
Ionization
COOL WASTE
Gas Flow to 2nd Chamber
Co-Generation Steam
Particulate Recycle
Turbine Plant
MWH Chapter 13-9

14 Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste -to-Energy

Technologies
14.1 Introduction
An overview of major Waste-to-Energy technologies was presented earlier in chapters 8 to 13. These
chapters covered biomethanation, incineration, gasification, pyrolysis, and some novel technologies at
various stages of development besides a review of some alternative waste disposal practices such as
composting. The latter could be in competition with or may simply be complementary to waste-to-
energy options.
Technologies for viable WTE processes are based either on thermal or biological methods for
recovering the energy potential of various urban and industrial wastes. Many proprietary systems are
available for energy recovery – incineration processes for wastes with adequate calorific value to
sustain combustion reactions, gasification and pyrolysis technologies for MSW and other specific
industrial waste types, and anaerobic digestion processes for recovering the biochemical energy
potential in the form of biogas. Energy recovery as electric power or as a fuel is a feature of all waste-
to-energy systems. All these systems generally involve significant capital and recurring costs.
Matching the quality and amount of waste to be processed with an appropriate technology package
requires diverse expertise and skills in materials management, engineering, finance, judiciary,
statutory regulations, besides ecological and socio-economic aspects.
Any one or all the technologies: biomethanation, gasification/ pyrolysis or incineration may be
applicable for a solid waste stream such as MSW with a significant organic content and energy
potential. A checklist of physical, chemical and biological properties of MSW generally considered
for preliminary process selection is given in Appendix 14 A.
All the properties listed in Appendix 14-A are useful in the selection of a process technology
(biological or thermal) and for the specification of equipment and accessories for material separation
and recovery during pre-treatment of MSW. Chemical properties such as proximate and ultimate
analysis and calorific value are required for a detailed mass and energy balance calculations of all
thermal (incineration and gasification/ pyrolysis) processes besides specification of down stream air
pollution control system. The calorific value and biodegradable fraction of MSW are relevant for
estimating the energy recovery potential of that particular waste.
It is also important to recognize the differences in the quantity, physico-chemical characteristics and
several other attributes associated with urban and industrial wastes while estimating the energy
potential. The industrial wastes (solid or liquid) tend to be more uniform in characteristics (even-
though no two plants in general produce identical wastes) and readily available at the site itself for a
proposed WTE project. Urban wastes are generated across the city, requiring an elaborate
infrastructure for the collection and transportation of wastes to the proposed WTE facility. The scale
of operations in case of urban waste is also large when compared to industrial waste. Consequently,
the urban and industrial WTE opportunities must be considered separately to evolve an appropriate set
of evaluation criteria in the two cases.
Among the technologies for energy recovery from urban solid waste (MSW), thermal incineration and
landfill have a long track record of more than two decades. The nineties have also witnessed the
superior techno-commercial features of gasification processes and a gradual shift away from
incineration systems. A wealth of information is available for the different technology options. This is
used as the basis for a technical review of the salient features and an assessment of their relative
ranking in the global context.
MWH Chapter 14-1

Several viable WTE technologies have been implemented during the past two decades with full scale
operating installations for various industrial process wastewaters. Detailed process information/ data
are not readily available owing to the proprietary nature of many of these applications.
Significant progress has also been achieved during the nineties for exploiting the biochemical energy
potential of domestic sewage (MLW) through biomethanation processes with several full-scale plants
are operating successfully worldwide. Since MLW is a dilute waste, no other technology would be
relevant as a WTE option.
14.2 Evaluation Criteria
A list of criteria useful for a preliminary evaluation and selection of WTE technologies was presented
in Chapter 8 (section 8.4). This section carries these themes through for developing a set of
technology evaluation criteria, with both qualitative and quantitative comments on various factors.
This involves a numerical ranking system by assigning individual numerical ratings, based on the
relative importance of the various factors that can be appropriately incorporated in the analysis
process.
A list of criteria and ratings form the basic framework of the evaluation checklist has been developed
from a fully factual basis to the extent possible. (Nevertheless it is possible that some readers will
have a different view on some of the evaluation criteria and on the rankings and weightings given to
specific criteria in this analysis. It is also equally important to recognize that arbitrary rankings have
no place in this evaluation process). The evaluation criteria must be regarded as a convenient
screening tool to enable an assessment of the appropriateness of the technologies. In any one case
there may be less tangible factors that may tend to disqualify or to intervene to make a particular
technology relevant. Each criterion has been assessed based on both the tangible and intangible
aspects to reflect the individual merits.
All the four promising Waste-to-Energy technology options are considered together with the
individual range of values for quantifying the relative contribution of each factor. The technologies
included in this WTE evaluation consist of biomethanation, landfill with gas recovery, gasification/
pyrolysis and incineration. This assessment also includes composting for the purpose of comparison
as a waste disposal option for MSW. This analysis will allow an assessment of the suitability of a
technology for treating MSW.
WTE technology options have been analysed using a set of five main evaluation criteria: System
Configuration, System auxiliaries, Environmental Aspects, Resource Recovery and Commercial
Aspects. A uniform and unbiased numerical ranking (0-30 points) is assigned to each of these criteria
for the initial analysis. A maximum of 150 points can be scored by any technology in terms of a
judicious rating of the various input criteria as follows:
MWH Chapter 14-2

Points %
System 30 20
Configuration
System 30 20
Auxiliaries
Environmental 30 20
Aspects
Resource 30 20
Recovery
Commercial 30 20
Aspects
Total 150 100
Each of the above main criteria is also analysed using a set of sub-criteria. The relative significance of
the latter is represented by an appropriate relative numerical assessment as enumerated below for each
major criterion. Table 14.1 gives the complete list of all the main criteria and sub-criteria used in
technology evaluation.
System Configuration (0-30)

This criteria comprises of simplicity and operability, process flexibility and scale-up potential as sub-
criteria and these are assigned a numerical rating of 0-12, 0-12 and 0-6 respectively.
Simplicity & Operability: A general rating of total system and accessories has been done, , besides
operational aspects such as manpower, skill levels, automation versus manual inputs, resources used,
etc.
Process Flexibility: Represents the ability to cope with fluctuations in waste composition, waste load,
interrupted supplies, process upsets and turn down capability.
Scale-up potential : Represents the modular nature of process equipment and system.
System auxiliaries (0-30)
This criterion comprises of the relevant pre-treatment and post treatment components of the WTE
facility and assigned a numerical rating of 0-20 and 0-10 respectively.
Pre-treatment: Recovery of valuables - plastics, iron (metals), etc. from the wastes and to obtain the
desired proportion of organics in the feedstock for energy recovery.
Post treatment: It involves downstream cleaning of LFG/ biogas/ incineration/ gasification process
gases. Product upgrading viz saleable compost, dewatering/ stabilization of sludge from
biomethanation plants, landfill leachate treatment and ash residues from thermal processes.
Environmental Aspects (0-30)
Environmental impacts are considered in terms of air emissions, ground water and surface water
contamination, Green House Gas emissions (GHG), health/ welfare considerations and residual waste
MWH Chapter 14-3

disposal. Each of these sub-criteria is assigned a maximum score of 6 points for a cumulative score of
30 points.
Resource Recovery (0-30)
This is an important criterion in evaluating the relative energy potentials and the recovery of by-
products i.e. compost and valuables. These are given a numerical score of 20 and 10 points
respectively.
Commercial Aspects (0-30)
This criterion comprises of capital cost, O&M cost and track record, this criterion is assigned a
maximum score of 12, 12 and 6 points respectively.
Capital cost: It includes cost of the following:

i) all equipment used for material recovery during pretreatment and post treatment (products/ by
products);
ii) main process equipment (Bioreactor/ Incinerator/ Gasifier and all accessories (up-stream /down-
stream));
iii) turbine/ engine for power generation; and
iv) all infrastructure facilities (onsite/ offsite)
Operational cost: It will include various components for successful and sustained operation of the
facility such as manpower, material, spares and supplies, utilities, financing, working margin,
overheads and other related expenses during break downs and shut downs.
Track Record: This refers to technology status and operating installations through out the globe.
The relative weightages of technical and environmental factors together represent 60% of the total
assessment points. The cumulative assessment of all the sub-elements of the commercial aspects
represent 40% of the total score (150 points) and highlights the significance as a prospective WTE
technology.
14.3 Technology Assessment
An evaluation checklist with the ratings for the different main and sub-criteria for the competitive
Waste-to-Energy technology options of biological processes (biomethanation, landfill, composting)
and thermal processes (incineration, gasification/ pyrolysis) is given in Table 14.2. This table includes
composting primarily as a waste disposal option for MSW. Several evaluation criteria are relevant
individually for each technology as a WTE option and the scores assigned for each of these influences
are shown in Table 14.2. The logistics in assigning a particular rating for each sub-criteria is discussed
in the following section:
A. System Configuration (0-30)
1. Simplicity and Operability (0-12)
Simple systems such as landfill with gas recovery and composting with less skill requirements, low
man-power needs and requiring mainly manual operation and low resource inputs will score high
(12). Others like incineration and gasification processes with elaborate accessories (downstream/
upstream) and process instrumentation/ process control and significant operability issues (e.g. high
MWH Chapter 14-4

energy and skill requirements, considerable automation, etc) will score low (4). Moderately complex
technologies such as biomethanation is assigned an intermediate score (8).
Facilities for biomethanation are generally simple in design, with relatively few moving parts and a
well-established range of standard equipment. Man-power requirements are not very demanding and
semi-skilled personnel are adequate for routine operation and maintenance. However, it is imperative
that the operators undergo necessary training to recognize the onset of adverse conditions leading to
process upsets and a sour reactor condition, ultimately leading to failure of the bioreactor. The
evaluation rating for this parameter is set at a high score of 12.
Facilities for landfilling are generally simple in design and consist of sanitary lining, LFG collection
system, gasholders, LFG utilization unit, Leachate collection and treatment systems. The requirements
are relatively “low tech” have a positive influence on cost structure. Landfilling will not require high
skill levels for the simple operations such as unloading, spreading, rolling and covering. The
evaluation rating for this parameter is set at a high with a score of 12.
Facilities for composting are relatively very simple with windrows or with digester drums. This aspect
has accordingly been assigned a high score of 12.
Incineration systems are generally elaborate with complex equipment and associated pollution control
system. Successful operation of the total system will also require a sophisticated instrumentation and
process control system and skilled manpower. A score of 4 is considered appropriate for this option.
Gasification/ pyrolysis technologies are also highly complex in technical features requiring skilled
manpower and assigned a low score of 4.
2. Process Flexibility (0-12)
Technologies such as landfill with gas recovery that can cope with load, waste type, process
disruptions, etc score high (10). Technologies such as incineration and gasification/ pyrolysis with
strict operational parameters (such as design constraints, physical operating requirements, etc) will
score low (4); those susceptible to at least some disruptive aspect score Low score.
Biomethanation is susceptible to process upsets, and it is necessary to maintain a strict anaerobic

environment to sustain methanogenic activity. This is assigned an intermediate score of 8. The
process flexibility of composting also has been rated as intermediate (8) in view of the long periods
required.
Landfilling as a process has an advantage as far as process flexibility is concerned - there is no major
process upsets. The methanogenic activity responsible for LFG generation depends entirely on the
climatic conditions of the landfilling site. This parameter has therefore been rated with a high score of
(10).
3. Scale-up Potential (0-6)
For truly modular technology types, this parameter will be given a maximum score (6); where there
are some scale-up issues then a low score of (4) will be relevant.
Biomethanation plants can be designed and constructed as modular units for future scale-up
requirements as also the thermal process systems – incineration or gasification.
MWH Chapter 14-5

Scale-up can be a limiting factor for an existing landfill or composting site. This evaluation parameter
is given a rating of 4, since new facilities are unlikely in the present socio-economic scenario.
B. System Auxiliaries (0-30)
4. Pre-treatment (0-20)
The technology, which requires less pre-treatment can score high (16), while an elaborate system will
score low (8). In practice all technology types will require pre-treatment to match process needs .
Scores are thus based on the extent of pre-treatment required and will range from 8-16.
It is necessary to treat MSW prior to biomethanation by removing recyclables such as plastic, glass
and metals besides inert by size reduction, screening using suitable equipment. For biomethanation
technology this parameter has been assigned an intermediate score of 12.
The present trend in the U.S., U.K. and other EU countries is to recover all the valuables and reduce
the quantities of waste destined for landfill. Consequently, with limited land availability, pre-
treatment can become a necessary sequence of unit operations for material recovery. Hence a low
score (8) would be relevant. Composting will require pre-treatment to remove the recyclable material
to obtain a saleable product. This aspect is accordingly assigned an intermediate score of 10.
Pre-treatment requirements are generally well defined for both the thermal options of incineration and
gasification/ pyrolysis due to the need to remove both moisture and inert materials from MSW.
Accordingly they are assigned a low score (8).
5. Post-treatment (0-10)
A intermediate score (6) has been assigned to all the technologies, The gas and by-product produced
by all these technologies need a post treatment.
Biogas requires H2S scrubbing prior to use as boiler/ engine fuel. The residual sludge also requires
dewatering and stabilization by composting. LFG will require clean up for odour constituents such as
H2S and hydrocarbons besides leachate treatment. The final compost with a poor off-take will require
upgrading to improve its quality as a fertilizer to improve its marketability. Downstream clean up of
incineration flue gas for environmental compliance will be elaborate and costly, besides the disposal
of ash residues as a hazardous waste or for reuse. Syngas will also require moderate treatment prior to
use as fuel and the disposal of ash/ slag residues will also require a post treatment before disposal.
With similar downstream add-on treatment needs, all technologies has been assigned a low score (6).
C. Environmental Aspects (0-30)
6. Environmental Impacts (0-30)
Environmental impact considerations are very important in technology selection and have been rated
on a 0–30 scale. This complex parameter will have a high score (25) with fewer environmental
externalities. If one or more environmental issues count strongly against a technology type then a low
score has been assigned (5). With some negligent environmental impacts a technology type has
assigned an intermediate rating (15).
The biomethanation process generates biogas, which can be used as a boiler fuel or for power
generation. Greenhouse gas emission parameters are thus positive and the availability of the reactor
residues as a stabilised compost for agricultural, municipal or residential reuse is generally positive.
Biomethanation is, therefore, assigned a high score of 25.
MWH Chapter 14-6

The landfilling process generates LFG, which is used as a boiler fuel or to produce electricity.
Greenhouse gas parameters are positive but there is a very high possibility of ground and surface
water contamination due to leachate and runoff. The matter of environmental impacts is very
sensitive, with landfilling being given an intermediate score of 15.
The process requirements for composting are relatively “low tech” but associated odour problems can
become a major issue at MSW composting facilities, and the necessary odour mitigation measures
complicate the process. Development of harmful fungi during the composting process has also been
reported. Consequently an intermediate score of 15 is given for this parameter.
Emission control technology is now available to meet increasingly stringent environmental standards
for fine particulate atmospheric emissions in Europe and the United States but the extremely high cost
of this additional equipment makes incineration an increasingly marginal waste-to-energy technology.
Fewer new units are being constructed in these countries and many existing facilities have been
decommissioned, or else expensively retrofitted. In the United Kingdom, for example, incineration is
no longer supported under incentives for waste-to-energy projects. The negative assessment of all
these aspects for incineration gives it a low score of 5.
Gasification/ pyrolysis technologies have positive environmental connotations, being very low in
terms of gaseous emissions and producing limited solid waste residues that are inert and which can be
encapsulated, if necessary. This assessment, therefore, provides an intermediate score of 15 for this
parameter.
D. Resource Recovery (0-30)
7. Energy and By-products (0-30)
Energy recovery efficiency places the technology types in the order of gasification (20), incineration
(16), biomethanation (16), landfill (12) and composting (0). Likewise the residual product generally
has a low value in all the cases and assigned a low score (4).
Energy recovery in the form of biogas is reasonably high, being equivalent to two-third of the energy
potential of the biodegradable constituents of MSW. A total score of 20 has been assigned for
biomethanation.
The full biochemical energy potential of the compostable organic fraction of MSW disposed in
landfill site is not realized. A landfill is also not productive for the initial period of three to five years.
The quantum of LFG generated beyond a useful period of 15 to 20 years also tends to decrease. These
considerations entail a total rating of 12 for this technology, since there are no saleable residues.
The energy recovery potential of composting process is nil, and this technology scores a low of 4
points from the sale of compost.
Energy recovery potential of incineration process is relatively comparable to biomethanation process

and hence this parameter is assigned a score of 20. Likewise gasification yields the maximum energy
recovery and hence this parameter has been assigned a high score of 24.
MWH Chapter 14-7

E. Commercial Aspects (0-30)
8. Capital Cost (0-12)
Where capital costs are low a technology type achieves a high score (10); compared to a low score of
4 for technologies with elaborate equipment.
The all-round cost structure for biomethanation is moderate. Hence it is assigned an intermediate
score of 6. The capital cost structure for landfilling will be relatively less and land costs will be very
high, and so merits a low score of 4.
Composting costs would also entail high capital for equipment, and land requirements to establish an
economically viable facility. Hence a low score of 4 is relevant on these accounts.
Capital costs for waste-to-energy incineration equipment and the associated pollution control system
are very high and consequently, assigned a low score of 4. The capital costs for gasification/ pyrolysis
are also relatively very high and have been assessed at a low score of 4.
9. Operation &Maintenance (0-12)
With normal O & M considerations all technology types will achieve a high score (10). Technologies
with major issues of maintenance to sustain routine operations are rated low (4) and the technologies
with moderately complicated maintenance and operational issues will score an intermediate score of
6.
The relative simplicity of biomethanation systems means that mechanical maintenance will not be a
significant issue, except perhaps during mechanical breakdowns and this factor has been assigned a
high score of 10 points. A wide range of day-to-day operations is required for the efficient
performance of a landfill, which will be a significant issue. Break down of the LFG system would
mean that maintenance becomes a sensitive issue requiring immediate attention. All these issues lead
to assign an intermediate score of 6. A low rating of 4 is considered appropriate for composting owing
to the fluctuating quality of the finished product compost. A low score of 4 is given for incineration
process owing to the significant maintenance requirements associated with process control and
instrumentation and skilled manpower needs. The pollution control cost of the gasification system is
relatively low and an intermediate score of 6 is assigned to gasification technology.
10. Track Record (0-6)
Technology types such as biomethanation, incineration and landfill with gas recovery with well-
proven international track records of uptake and performance score high (6); and emerging
technologies such as gasification score low (3) as also the ones with low public acceptance such as
composting.
14.3.1 Technology Scores
Biomethanation technology scores an overall rating of 107 out of 150, i.e. 71% with technical (system
configuration and system auxiliaries), commercial (resource recovery and commercial aspects) and
environmental factors contributing 40, 42 and 25 points respectively.
Landfilling technology scores an overall rating of 83 out of 150, i.e. 55% with technical (system
MWH Chapter 14-8

Composting technology scores an overall rating of 70 out of 150, i.e. 45% with technical (system
environmental factors contributing 40, 15 and 15 to the assessment total score.
Incineration technology scores an overall rating of 67 out of 150 i.e. 47% with technical (system
Gasification/ pyrolysis technology scores an overall rating of 80 out of 150 i.e. 53% with technical
(system configuration and system auxiliaries), commercial (resource recovery and commercial
aspects) and environmental factors contributing 28, 37 and 15 points respectively.
14.4 Technology Ranking
This detailed analysis delineates a comprehensive global picture of the status of the four technology
options for energy recovery from MSW, and a comparison with composting as a technology for
beneficial waste reuse. A summary of the technology level score is given in Table 14.3. The overall
scores for the various technology options are in the order of 107, 83, 80, 70 and 67 out of 150 for
Biomethanation, Landfill with gas recovery, Gasification/ pyrolysis, Composting, and Incineration
respectively. Accordingly, the overall ranking for the five options considered in this assessment are
given below:
• Biomethanation (Rank 1)
Biomethanation as a WTE technology option ranks first. Biomethanation has several advantages over
all the other technologies with a good track record and less environmental impacts. Biomethanation
has emerged as a mature and preferred WTE technology on a global basis.
• Landfill with gas recovery (Rank 2)

Landfill with gas recovery system ranks second due to system simplicity and a long track record with
good control of atmospheric emissions and lechates, even though it has a low energy recovery
potential.
• Gasification (Rank 3)
Gasification/ pyrolysis processes have emerged as a distinct third choice as a WTE technology with
several superior attributes compared to incineration.
• Composting (Rank 4)
Composting has failed as a technology option for the disposal of MSW in the North American and
European countries with very poor public acceptance.
• Incineration (Rank 5)
Incineration technologies have a long track record with numerous installations world wide for
handling urban and industrial wastes. The recent focus has been on elaborate environmental
compliance, which has become a very costly option. Incineration technologies have slipped to the
fifth position according to this study owing to the competing features of gasification technologies.
14.5 Emerging Global Trends
Biomethanation is positively favored as a mature WTE technology for urban and industrial waste.
MWH Chapter 14-9

Landfill with gas recovery systems have been widely used in developing countries for over two
decades having overcome the concerns associated with atmospheric emissions and leachates, now that
there are adequate controls in place. The present emphasis is on material recovery facilities with
limited land availability for new LFG facilities in the urban centers and the fast filling up of the sites
currently in use. This would require only a limited quantity of recalcitrant waste to be sent to landfills
as a repository. The present US and EU directives do not favour any new sites for landfilling. Secured
landfill sites are also required for the ultimate disposal of hazardous wastes at most of these locations.
Consequently landfilling will not be a relevant technology option for the disposal of MSW.
Incineration is a mature technology for energy recovery from urban and industrial wastes and has
been successfully commercialized in the developed countries, and has a good track record. However,
the recent focus has been on environmental compliance, tending to make the capital and operating
cost of the total system very high.
Gasification processes, which rank third in the current evaluation, have the potential to move higher
in the hierarchy as this technology matures with an increase in the number of installations worldwide.
Additional factors contributing to this potential upswing are the current trends of a shift away from
incineration and landfilling as preferred technology options in the developed countries.
Based on the major findings of the technical evaluation of this study and the present trends in
developed countries, biomethanation and gasification are emerging as two major competing options
for energy recovery from MSW.
14.6 Relevance to India
The ranking of the WTE technologies can be considered to be relevant to Indian urban waste (MSW)
as a guideline. The average quality of Indian MSW is generally poor and variable with a high
proportion of moisture and inerts. Biomethanation is effectively neutral to elevated moisture content,
and while the lower organic content of a typical Indian MSW is not especially positive for
biomethanation, this can be accommodated by process adjustments such as increased retention times
with a larger reactor volume (admittedly at a cost). The potential presence of a high proportion of
moisture and inert in Indian MSW can be potentially detrimental to thermal-based waste-to-energy
technologies. The inerts can arise in a number of ways, but street sweeping is a particular contributor
besides construction debris. The present unorganised waste separation practices are an important
source of revenue for certain sections of society in India. A significant proportion of the paper and
plastics are removed and used as resources to sustain recycled product's businesses. Consequently, the
need for any elaborate material recovery facilities will be greatly modified at the proposed MSW
treatment plants in India.
All the above concerns have great relevance to the selection of a suitable technology for waste-to-
energy application for MSW. For example, most incineration systems are optimised for U.S. and
European wastes that have high fractions of paper, cardboard and plastic, and consequently, a
relatively high-energy value. The typical low calorific value Indian MSW stream is generally outside
the design parameters of most commercially available MSW incineration technologies. The MSW
stream in India is, therefore required to be ‘upgraded’ by the removal of inert fractions to obtain RDF
as the feedstock.
Technologies such as landfilling with gas recovery and composting can also become viable options
for certain locations in India as a short to medium term option.
With the gradual adoption of the various technologies on a large scale in India, the relative weightage
for the commercial factors could become even more important, with most of the technical and
MWH Chapter 14-10

operational inputs becoming routine issues. These aspects would not be potential deterrents to
technology selection for a given WTE application.
Besides the above general observations, there are several specific issues relevant to India that may
tend to make different technology options attractive for energy recovery from MSW. Following are
some such aspects: waste and labour availability, operator training, capital cost of equipment,
construction and equipment sourcing from within the country, maintenance, royalties, overall
commercial viability, etc.
With the possible exception of some well defined liquid waste types, the only cost effective and viable
technological option for waste-to-energy application suitable for Indian industrial and municipal
liquid waste streams appears to be biomethanation. For liquids such as waste oils, and for other liquid
wastes, where the composition is well characterised like distillery spentwash and paper mill black
liquor, the waste-to-energy technological requirements can be precisely specified; it is also possible to
adopt certain proprietary gasification/ pyrolysis technologies in waste-to-energy applications.
The evaluation of the applicability of the technologies of biomethanation, gasification/ pyrolysis,
incineration and landfilling as Waste-to-Energy options in the global context, and their comparison
against composting as a competing technology for beneficial waste reuse, has shown the following
potential prospects:
• Biomethanation is positively favoured under the considerations of a large range of criteria.

• High rate biomethanation must be considered a high priority for waste-to-energy projects in
India due to the combination of cost, technology, effectiveness, and environmental benefits.
• Gasification/ pyrolysis has a distinct promise, and although there are limitations to its uptake,
these can be circumvented as the technology matures.
• Incineration is being displaced gradually by gasification as a better WTE technology option.
• The present trend is in favour of material recovery facilities and a shift away from landfills for
MSW disposal.
• Composting is not a WTE option and does not come out as a meritorious waste treatment
process.
• Technologies such as landfill with gas recovery (LFG) and composting can also become
viable options for certain locations (in India) as a short to medium term option.
MWH Chapter 14-11

Table 14-1. List of Technology Evaluation Criteria and Numerical Ratings (MSW)
S.No Evaluation Criteria Features and Assessment of Rating Rating Range

A. System Configuration 0-30 (20%)
1. Simplicity & General rating of total system and accessories as
Operability simple, medium and complex (high tech), besides
operational aspects like man power, skill levels,
automation versus manual inputs, resources used, etc.
Simple systems with less skill requirements, low
man power needs and requiring mainly manual
operation and low resource inputs will score high 0-12
(10-12). Others with elaborate accessories
(downstream/upstream) and process
instrumentation/process control and significant
operability issues (e.g.. high energy and skill
requirements, considerable automation, etc) will
score low (3-4). Moderately complex
technologies will be intermediate
2. Process Flexibility Ability to cope with fluctuations in waste
composition, waste load, interrupted supplies,
process upsets and turn down capability.
Technologies which cope best with fluctuating
load, waste type, process disruptions, etc score 0-12
high (10-12) Technologies with strict operational
parameters (such as design constraints, physical
operating requirements, etc.) will score low (3-4);
those susceptible to at least one potentially
disruptive aspect score mid-range values.
3. Scale-up Modular nature of process equipment

For truly modular technology types this
0-6
parameter will be given a maximum score (6);
where there are some scale-up issues then a low
score of (0) will be relevant.
B. System Auxiliaries 0-30 (20%)
4. Pre-treatment Recovery of valuables, plastics, iron (metals) etc.
from the wastes by mechanical equipment, screening,
etc. and to obtain the desired proportion of organics
in the feedstock for energy recovery.
0-20
With less pre-treatment is required a technology
can score high (15), while an elaborate system
will score low (5). In practice all technology
types will require some pre-treatment (simple to
MWH Chapter 14-12


elaborate) to match process needs v/s feedstock
quality. Scores are thus based on the extent of
pre-treatment required and will range from 5-15.
5. Post-treatment Post treatment involves downstream cleaning of
LFG/biogas/incineration/gasification process waste
gases. Product upgrading for saleable compost and
dewatering sludges from biomethanation plants,
landfill leachates treatment and ash residues from
thermal processes.
0-10
If less or no post-treatment is required the
technology scores high (8-10); a technology type
scores low (3-4), depending on whether one or
more of the aspects of product gas (or waste gas)
clean-up, residue upgrading, or residue (e.g.. ash)
disposal is required.
C. Environmental Aspects 0-30 (20%)
6. Environmental Relevant environmental issues include air emissions,

Impacts ground water and surface water contamination, green
house gas emissions, health/welfare considerations
and solid waste disposal.
This complex parameter will have a high score
0-30
with fewer environmental externalities (25-30).
If one or more environmental issues count
strongly against a technology type the score
will be low (5-7). With some negligible
environmental impacts a technology type will
get an intermediate rating.
D. Resource Recovery 0-30 (20%)
7. Resource Recovery Important criteria in evaluating the relative energy
(Power, By- recovery potential.
products)
Power: Energy recovery efficiency places the
technology types in the order of gasification (20),
incineration (15), biomethanation (12), landfill 0-30
(6) and composting (0). Likewise the residual by-
product generally has a low value in all the cases
and assigned a low score (4).
F. Commercial Aspects 0-30 (20%)

8. Capital Cost Capital cost includes
0-12
i) all equipment used for material recovery during
MWH Chapter 14-13


pretreatment & post treatment (products/by
products)
ii) main process equipment
(Bioreactor/Incinerator/Gasifier and all
accessories (up-stream/down-stream))
iii) turbine/engine for power generation
iv) all infrastructure facilities (onsite/offsite)
Where capital costs are low a technology type
achieves a high score (10-12); for technologies
with elaborate equipment this factor will score
low (3-4).
9. Operation & Operational cost will include various components for
Maintenance successful & sustained operation of the facility like
manpower, material, spares & supplies, utilities,
financing, working margin, overheads and other
related expenses during breakdowns and shut downs. 0-12
With normal O & M considerations technology
type achieves a high score (10-12). Technologies
with major issues of maintenance to sustain
routine operation are rated low (3-4).
10. Track record Technology status, operating installations.
The technology types with well proven
international and/or national track records of 0-6
uptake and performance score high (5-6); and
emerging technologies score low (3) as also the
ones with low public acceptance.
Total 150
MWH Chapter 14-14

Table 14-2. Evaluation of Global Waste-to-Energy Technology Options (MSW)
S. Evaluation Rating Biological Processes Thermal Processes

No Criteria
Biomethanation Landfill Composting Incineration Gasification /
with gas Pyrolysis
recovery
A. System Configuration
1. Simplicity & 0-12 8 12 12 4 4
Operability
2. Process 0-12 8 10 8 4 4
Flexibility
3. Scale-up 0-6 6 4 4 6 6
Sub Total 0-30 22 26 24 14 14

B. System Auxiliaries
4. Pre-treatment 0-20 12 8 10 8 8
5. Post treatment 0-10 6 6 6 6 6
Sub- Total 0-30 18 14 16 14 14

C. Environmental Aspects
6. Environmental 0-30 25 15 15 5 15
Impacts
Sub-Total 0-30 25 15 15 5 15
D. Resource Recovery
7. Energy and by- 0-30 20 12 4 20 24
products
Sub-Total 0-30 20 12 4 20 24
E. Commercial Aspects
8. Capital Cost 0-12 6 4 4 4 4
9. Operation & 0-12 10 6 4 4 6

Maintenance
10. Track record 0-6 6 6 3 6 3
Sub-Total 30 22 16 11 14 13
Total 150 107 83 70 67 80
MWH Chapter 14-15

Table 14-3. Summary of Global Technology Evaluation Scores
Technology Evaluation Scores

Technical Commercial Environmental Total Ranking
60 (40%) 60 (40%) 30 (20%) 150 (100%)
A. Biological Options
1. Biomethanation 40 (27) 42 (28) 25 (17) 107 (71) 1
2. Landfill 40 (27) 28 (19) 15 (10) 83 (55) 2
3. Composting 40 (27) 15 (10) 15 (10) 70 (47) 4
B. Thermal Options
4. Incineration 28 (19) 34 (22) 5 (3) 67 (44) 5
5. Gasification 28 (19) 37 (24) 15 (10) 80 (53) 3
MWH Chapter 14-16

15 Mass and Energy Balances for Urban WTE

Facilities
Mass and energy balance calculations are very useful as an audit tool for various unit operations and
processes in the system. In any WTE facility, the mass balance calculations will indicate the quantum
of waste constituents that gets into various waste disposal streams such as (a) recyclable/ recoverable
material (b) landfill and (c) the main energy recovery process – biological/ thermal. Energy balance
calculations focus on the main process to assess the net quantum of energy that can be uploaded into
the grid. Detailed mass and energy balance calculations are presented for typical capacities of
municipal solid waste to energy plant (MSW: 500 TPD) and domestic sewage treatment plant
(capacity: 10 MLD).
15.1 Municipal Solid Waste
A typical MSW WTE facility is considered to consist of Pretreatment, Biological/ Thermal
Processing, Power generation and Residues Management (Sludge Dewatering/ Composting/ Ash
Disposal) stages, as shown schematically in Figure 15.1.
Mass and energy balance calculations, require a fairly reliable estimate of the characteristics of the
waste feedstock (MSW) for a given urban location. This will also lead to realistic estimates of the
process inputs, energy recovery potential and other outputs. The average characteristics of Indian
urban wastes used for the mass and energy calculations are given in Table-15.1.
MSW generated in most of the urban locations in the country is generally consists of 60 – 70 %, of
total solids and 30%-40% of moisture. This total solids is further classified into 65 – 50 % of organic
matter and the rest 35 – 50 % are inert matter which includes lesser quantities of plastics, paper,
metal, glass, etc. The latter are removed from raw MSW by manual sorting for recovery and reuse
(see Appendix 15 A). Consequently, the composition of MSW made available at the WTE facility can
be highly varying in nature and require different levels of pre-treatment. MSW available at the WTE
facility would perhaps show ± 15%-20% variation in both composition and quantum (tonne/day) and
it is necessary to recognize this aspect in all detailed material and energy balance calculations. These
calculations are carried out for a typical plant of 500 TPD capacity based on the following
assumptions:
• Average characteristics of MSW are assumed constant for all capacities and processes
(biological and thermal).
• Gross chemical composition (on wet basis) consists of moisture 35%-45%, organic matter
25%-35% and inerts 25%-35%.
• Physical composition (on dry basis) in (%):
Paper 8-12
Plastic 4-10
Metals and Glasses 0.5-1.0
Sand, Leather, Rubber, Rags, etc. 20-26
Volatile Solids (% of Total Solids) 60-70
Biodegradable (% of V.S.) 55-65
• Approximately two-third of the unprocessed MSW consists of compostable organic matter

which can be used as feed stock for biomethanation process and the remaining portion is
separated during pretreatment or manual sorting (by rag pickers) while recovering recyclable
material such as plastic, metal, glass, etc. .
MWH Chapter 15-1

• Solids Retention Time (SRT) of 15 and 20 days for low and high solids biomethanation
processes respectively.
• Mesophilic and thermophilic processes operate at 30%-350C and 55%-600C respectively.
• Volatile solids (VS) = 65% of total solids (TS)
• Biodegradable Volatile Solids (BVS) = 60% of VS
• BVS destruction efficiency = 60%
• Biogas generation rate = 0.8 m3 per kg VS destroyed
• Methane content of biogas = 55%
• H2S content of biogas < 0.5%
• Engine thermal efficiency = 38%
• Lower calorific value (LCV) of biogas = 4,800 kcal/Nm3
• Aerobic composting of biomethanation sludge residue is considered to get a stabilised
saleable product
• Average calorific value of unsorted MSW is 1000-1200 Kcal/kg (Dry basis)
• Average calorific value of RDF pellets is 3800 Kcal/kg
15.1.1 Biomethanation Technology

An integrated biomethanation system for energy recovery from MSW is shown in Figure 15.2, and
includes the four major sections: (a) Pretreatment (b) Anaerobic digestion (c) Power generation and
(d) Post-treatment. The important stage of the facility is the anaerobic digestion, and there are two
main process design variations.
• Medium solids AD (Wet Process) operating at solids concentration of 10%-15%.

• High Solids AD (Dry Process) operating at solids concentration of 25%-35%.
• The description of various commercial technologies available in India and abroad are given in
Appendix 9A. Mass and energy balance calculations have been carried out for the two main
process variations – mesophilic medium solids biomethanation and thermophilic high solids
biomethanation.
Figures 15.3 and 15.4 represent the mass and energy balance calculations for a 500-TPD MSW WTE
facility based on thermophilic high-solids (dry) anaerobic digestion process.
A summary of the mass and energy balance calculations is given in Table 15.2 for MSW processing
capacities of 150, 300, 500 and 1,000 TPD, based on both the high and medium solids biomethanation
processes. All the process streams are identified numerically (1 to 26) in Figure 15.2, and these are
used in Table 15.2 for convenient representation of the various streams. The summary is presented as
per the following sequence:
A Pre-treatment section (common for both the processes) (Table 15.2 A)

B Biomethanation and Biogas/Power Generation (Thermophilic Process) (Table 15.2 B)
C Post treatment section (Thermophilic Process) (Table 15.2 C)
D Biomethanation and Biogas/Power Generation (Mesophilic Process) (Table 15.2 D)
MWH Chapter 15-2

E Post treatment section (Mesophilic Process) (Table 15.2 E)
The mass and energy balance calculations for biomethanation process show that on an average, the
power generation potential of the unsorted MSW is 1 MW per 100 TPD of MSW.
15.1.2 Gasification Technology
Gasification process is based essentially on the exothermic and endothermic reactions, wherein the
exothermic reactions release heat to sustain the gasification process, while the endothermic reactions
lead to the generation of combustible fuel gas. These reactions are carried out in different
configurations of gasifiers – vertical, horizontal, fixed bed, rotary kiln, multiple hearths and fluidized
bed etc. The gasifiers that use air, operates at a temperature ranging between 7000C to 8500C) to
produce a low calorific value fuel gas (500 - 600 kJ/m3) and granular char/ash. The system, which
uses pure oxygen, operates at a high temperature (1,4000C – 1,6000C) results in generating a flue gas
with a calorific value ranging in-between (1,000 – 1,200 kJ/m3) and vitreous slag as residue. Oxygen
based units are developed and pilot tested successfully on MSW by Carbide Corporation, as Purox
Gasifier, which is no longer in commercial production. (Source: Integrated Solid Waste Management
by Tchobanoglous et. al 1993).
Brightstar Environmental, Australia has developed a technology - Solid Waste Energy and Recycling
Facility (SWERF) for municipal solid waste management. The process has tremendous potential to
eliminate waste and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and at the same time generate electricity. The
world’s first SWERF is located in Wollongong Australia, with processing capacity up to 1,50,000
tonnes of MSW annually to produce electricity for approximately 24,000 households.
A schematic sketch of the SWERF system is shown in Figure 15.5. The SWERF process consists of
the following three components:
• Pre-processing of MSW
• Gasification, and
• Electricity generation
Pre-processing involves receipt of the MSW, its sterilisation with steam in an autoclave, and
mechanical separation. Steel, aluminium and plastics are recovered for recycling, and a pulp is
produced from the organic material.
The pulp is fed into a high temperature gasifier that breaks down the solid pulp into gaseous
compounds consisting mainly of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. These elements are reformed into a
clean, dry synthetic fuel gas (syngas). The gasification process operates in sealed, pressurised units,
with a low volume of emissions, and heats the waste in an oxygen-free environment to produce a
clean fuel gas. During the gasification process, the solid waste is not burned as in incineration. This is
an environmentally sound and superior alternative for waste combustion.
Syngas is used to drive highly efficient internal combustion engines to produce renewable energy in
the form of electricity, which is supplied to the local electricity distribution network for use in homes
and businesses in the area. The combustion of clean syngas is very similar to the combustion of
natural gas or LPG. As it is a clean gas, it avoids the air emissions usually associated with combustion
(incineration) of solid waste. In addition, as syngas is not a fossil fuel, it reduces reliance on using
non-renewable resources such as coal for the generation of electricity.
In essence, SWERF converts household garbage into green electricity for use in homes and businesses
and reduces the amount of domestic waste going to landfill by up to 90%.
MWH Chapter 15-3

EDL India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi has an on-going project under implementation to generate 14.85 MW
power by gasification from 600 TPD MSW at Chennai. The Solid Waste Energy and Recycling
Facility (SWERF) comprises of streamlined integration of following proven components:
• A waste receiving and separation plant that homogenizes the organic material and separates
the inorganic materials
• A gasification plant that converts the organic material into a clean, dry synthetic gas (syngas)
suitable for combustion in modified gas engines; and
• A power generation plant that converts the syngas into electricity using reciprocating gas
engines driving an alternator.
Figure 15.6 and Table 15.3 represent a detailed mass and energy balance calculation for a 500 TPD
MSW gasification system based on “SWERF” process promoted by Brightstar Environmental/EDL
Australia. All the process streams are identified numerically (1 to 30) in Figure 15.4 and are used for
convenience in representing the various process streams.
Mass and energy balance calculation show that 11.5 MW of power can be generated from a 500 TPD
plant processing unsorted MSW. (Equivalent to 2.1 MW/100 TPD MSW)
15.1.3 RDF/ Incineration Technology
Refuse-Derived Fuel (RDF), commonly refers to solid waste that has been mechanically processed to
produce a storable, transportable, and more homogeneous fuel for combustion. The waste is
preprocessed to remove incombustible materials, thus increasing the calorific value of the fuel.
Technology has now been well established for pelletising the combustibles separated from MSW and
RDF has emerged as a very useful substitute for coal as a clean, energy efficient and eco-friendly fuel.
Combustion systems for RDF with higher energy content will be compact and more efficient than
mass-fired incineration systems. Hot flue gases from the combustion of RDF are converted to high-
pressure steam and used for power generation using a steam turbine.
The most common method for the production of electricity from RDF is by using steam turbine
systems. Steam is produced in a boiler by burning MSW or RDF. The generated steam is used to
drive a steam turbine and then condensed back into the boiler as feed water. The steam turbine drives
an electricity generator, which supplies onsite power and excess power for export. The system is
essentially a scaled – down version of a coal-or gas-fired electricity utility plant.
The salient features of mass and energy balance for RDF facility (capacity: 40 TPD) from municipal
solid waste (150 TPD) are illustrated below.
Mass Balance
Installed capacity (RDF-TPD) 50
A. Raw material input
MSW (TPD) 160 – 180

Binder / Additive (Optional) (TPD) 2
Daily production TPD 40
Monthly production @ 25 days TPM 1000
Additional land requirement for solar-drying of MSW (acres) 2
Electrical load (HP) 375
MWH Chapter 15-4

Manpower requirement 60
Monthly sales Rs.10,00,000/-
Monthly O & M Rs.6,50,000/-
(Power, Manpower, Consumables / repair / maintenance
Taxes / Water / Insurance, Office / Sales exp. /Any other)
Profit margin Rs. 3,50,000/-
B. Energy Balance
Calorific value of RDF pellets (Kcal/kg) 3800 (average)

Energy Potential (Kcal/month) 3.8 x 109
Coal calorific value (Kcal/kg) 4000
Coal equivalent (tonne / month) 950
Source: Energy From MSW RDF Pelletization – A Pilot Indian Plant, Dr. Pawan Sikka, Department of Science
& Technology, Government of India, New Delhi – 110 016
RDF pellets derived from MSW has the potential to generate upto 3 MW electricity per 100 T RDF.
Figure 15.7 represents a mass and energy balance calculations for a 500 TPD MSW Fluidized Bed
Incineration system for generating 6.2 MW of power.
15.1.4 Landfill Technology

In the landfill, LFG generation from a particular quantity of MSW is the highest in the first two years
after waste is filled. During this time, anaerobic digestion of most of the degradable content of food
wastes occurs. LFG generation continues after this but at slowly decreasing rates. While gas
generation can extend for periods of up to fifty years, in most cases LFG release occurs within five
years, because food and garden waste typically comprise a large proportion of all organic materials in
MSW.
The EPA model (Section 12.1) can be used for a preliminary estimate of the LFG generated at a
landfill with particular characteristics. Based on this model a landfill of 100 TPD capacity (serving a
population of about 2,00,000) can generate about 3,300,000 m3 of LFG in a year, 375 m3 per hour.
The heating capacity of the hourly flow is 4,450 Kcal x 375 m3 = 1650000 Kcal. This will be
equivalent to 0.4 MW/100 TPD MSW power with an internal combustion engine requiring 4,000 Kcal
to generate one kilowatt (kW) of electricity. Assumptions about climate, composition of waste and
landfill management, will not apply equally to all landfills. An accurate assessment for cost estimates
of LFG generation can only be done after considering their LFG extraction test.
15.2 Municipal Sewage

The average characteristics of municipal sewage are indicated in Table 15.1 (B). Even though sewage
is a dilute effluent with BOD between 200-400 mg/l and COD between 400-750 mg/l, conventional
aerobic treatment by activated sludge process entails a high power requirement for handling a large
volume of waste generated in most cities. It will be cost-effective to save on energy demands by an
alternate two-stage biological treatment consisting of anaerobic-aerobic sequence.
The anaerobic stage utilises an UASB bioreactor for recovering the biochemical energy potential of
sewage as biogas. Typical mass balance values for the main process streams are indicated in Figure
MWH Chapter 15-5

15.8. It is seen that a 10 MLD sewage treatment plant has the potential to generate 1,050 Nm3/day of
biogas, which in turn can be used to generate power equivalent to 150 kW. Interestingly, this plant has
the potential to save 53 kW power over the conventional activated sludge process. Several full-scale
plants are in operation in India for treating municipal sewage by anaerobic treatment. They have the
dual benefit of energy generation (biogas) and energy savings (though less HP) from downstream
aerobic treatment.

Power generation potential of Indian MSW is 1 MW/100 TPD. This is comparable to the potential of
1.1 to 1.2 MW/100 TPD MSW considered abroad for biomethanation process.
Generally, gasification/pyrolysis of MSW leads to 70-80 % of the energy inherent in the feedstock to
be recovered as energy in the product (gas, oil or solid). The net energy output of a gasification plant
will be 2.0 MW per 100 tonnes of MSW processed.
The use of RDF pellets, derived from MSW, has the potential to generate upto 3 MW electricity per
100 TPD RDF.
Power generation potential for LFG (serving a population of 2,00,000) will be 0.4 MW per 100 TPD
MSW.
A sewage treatment plant (capacity 10 MLD) has the potential to generate 1,050 Nm3/day of biogas,
which in turn can be used to generate 150 kW power. This plant also has a potential to save upto 53
kW power compared to conventional activated sludge process.
MWH Chapter 15-6

Table 15-1. Average Characteristics of Indian Urban Waste
A. Municipal Solid Waste
Moisture Total Inerts Organics Calorific Value *

% Solids % (Volatile) Kcal / kg
% % TS (Dry basis)
30-40 60-80 35-50 50-65 1000-1200
B. Municipal Liquid Waste
pH SS BOD COD Oil & TDS

(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Grease (mg/L)
(mg/L)
7-8.5 150-250 200-400 400-750 15-30 500-800
MWH Chapter 15-7

Table 15-2. Mass and Energy Balance Summaries - MSW Biomethanation

Plants
A) Pre-treatment Section (common for both thermophillic and mesophillic processes)
Identity Stream Capacity (TPD)

No.
150 300 500 1000
1) MSW Feed 150 300 500 1000
2) Large Particles 2 4 4 8
3) Feed To 148 296 496 992
Trommel
4) >180mm 14 28 50 100
5) <40mm 89 178 300 600
6) 40-180mm 45 90 146 292
7) Landfill 25 50 83 166
7A) Landfill 20 40 63 126
8) Ballistic 89 178 300 600
Separator
9) Recycle 1 1 1 2
10) Magnetic 88 177 299 598
Separator
(MSW for AD)
B) Biomethanation and Biogas / Power Generation (Thermophilic Process)

No.
150 300 500 1000
10 MSW for AD 88 177 299 598
11 Sewage / Water 35 60 90 180
12 Steam 50 101 171 342
13 AD Recycle 966 1946 3250 6560
14 AD Feed 1104 2224 3760 7520
15 AD Sludge 138 235 385 770
16 Biogas (Nm3/d) 11880 23760 52500 105000
17 Power (MW) 1.2 2.93 5.0 10.0
17A MW/100 TPD 0.8 1.0 1 1
18 Boiler Feed 50 94 205 410
Water
MWH Chapter 15-8

C) Post Treatment Section (Thermophilic Process)

No.
150 300 500 1000
15 AD Sludge 138 235 385 770
19 Sludge (1) 50 100 200 400
20 Filtrate 88 135 185 370
21 Sludge (2) 3 6 10 20
22 Total Sludge 53 106 210 420
23 Sludge For Composting 43 86 170 340
24 Recycle 10 20 40 80
25 Centrifugate (m3/d) 85 129 175 350
26 Compost 32 64 125 250
D) Biomethanation and Biogas / Power Generation (Mesophilic Process)

No.
150 300 500 1000
10 MSW for AD 88 177 299 598

11 Sewage / Water 152 305 516 1032
13 AD Recycle 960 1928 3260 6520
14 AD Feed 1200 2410 4075 8150
15 AD Sludge 219 439 720 1440
16 Biogas (N-m3/d) 11132 22790 50500 101000
17 Power (M-W) 0.96 2.28 4.84 9.68
17A MW/100 TPD 0.64 0.76 0.97 0.97
MWH Chapter 15-9

E) Post Treatment Section (Mesophilic Process)

No.
150 300 500 1000
15 AD Sludge 219 439 720 1440
19 Sludge (1) 50 100 200 400
20 Filtrate 169 339 520 1040
21 Sludge (2) 3 6 10 20
22 Total Sludge 53 106 210 420
23 Sludge For Composting 43 86 170 340
24 Recycle 10 20 40 80
3
25 Centrifugate (m /d) 163 333 510 1020
26 Compost 30 64 125 250
MWH Chapter 15-10

Table 15-3. Mass and Energy Balance for 500 TPD MSW SWERF Plant
A) MSW Pre-Treatment
Solid/Liquid Stream Incoming Pulp Metal Clean Inert Mix Pressate

Waste Blend Sales Fuel
1 2 3 4 5 6
Organic Material (tpa) 61848 62456 - 62456 - 855
Inerts and Ash (tpa) 35135 35567 - 6617 28950 415
Water (tpa) 85888 153699 - 149549 4150 89225
Total (tpa) 182872 251722 0 218622 33100 90495
Moisture Content (%) 47% 61% - 68% 13% 99%
Energy Content GJ/T- 8 8 - 7 - -
HHV wet wt.
Energy Flow – GH 1462980 1462980 - 1462980 - -
(HHV)
B) MSW Gasifier
Solid/Liquid Stream Entrained Char Syngas Out Internal Stack Losses Condensate
Pulp Use Water
7 8 20 21 22 23
Organic Material (tpa) 61600 740 63757 31879 - -
Inerts and Ash (tpa) 6200 6200 - - - -

Water (tpa) 56174 - - - - -
Total (tpa) 123974 6940 - - - -
Moisture Content (%) 45% - - - - -
Energy Content GJ/T- 12 - - - - -
HHV wet wt.
Energy Flow - (HHV) 1462980 - 1147633 323692 90634 -
Inorganics (tpa) - - 42 21 - 21
Steam (tpa) - - 15152 7576 7576 15153
MWH Chapter 15-11

C) Power Generation
Solid/Liquid Gas to Engine Engine Power Out

Stream Exhaust
24 25 30
Organics 31879 - -
Energy Flow 1147633 762823 384810
(HHV)
(11.5 MW)
D) Waste Heat Recovery
Solid/Liquid Stream Boiler Steam Blow WTP Hot Wash Raw Excess
Water Down Sludge Water Water Water Water
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Organic Material (tpa) - - 25 830 - 24900 - 18
Fuel Bound Ash (tpa) - - 42 415 - 12450 - 18
Water (tpa) 65736 54780 10956 2075 0 1381452 0 36566
Total (tpa) 65736 54780 11023 3320 0 1418802 0 36603
Moisture Content (%) - - 99.40% 63% - 97.40% - 99.90%
MWH Chapter 15-12

Figure 15-1. Schematic Process Flow Diagram of an Integrated MSW

Biomethanation System
To be taken from separate file “Final 5 Figures_Chapter 15.doc”
MWH Chapter 15-13

Figure 15-2. Schematic Process Flow Diagram of an Integrated MSW

Biomethanation System
MWH Chapter 15-14

Figure 15-3. Mass Balance Diagram for MSW WTE Project – Biomethanation
Technology – Capacity 500 TPD (Thermophillic High Solids
Dry Basis)
MWH Chapter 15-15

Figure 15-4. Energy Balance Diagram for MSW WTE Project –

Biomethanation Technology – Capacity 500 TPD
(Thermophillic High Solids Dry Basis)
MWH Chapter 15-16

Figure 15-5. Schematic of SWERF Process
1. MSW Reception
2. Waste sterilised in autoclave
3. Waste separated into organic pulp and recyclables
4. Organic pulp washed and dried
4a. Pulp storage
5. Organic pulp converted to syngas (Gasifier)
5a. Syngas cleaning
6. Power generation
MWH Chapter 15-17

Figure 15-6. Mass and Energy Balance for 500 TPD MSW Gasification
System based on SWERF
Take from separate file – Figures 15-4 & 15-5.doc
MWH Chapter 15-18

Figure 15-7. Mass & Energy Balance for MSW WTE Facility with Fluidized
Bed Incineration – (Capacity 500 TPD)
Take from separate file – Figures 15-6 & 15-7.doc
MWH Chapter 15-19

Figure 15-8. Process Flow & Mass Balance Diagram for Municipal Liquid
Waste To Energy Project –UASB 10 MLD
Take from separate file MLW-r1.doc
MWH Chapter 15-20

16 WTE Project Costs
16.1 Introduction
Successful implementation of any technically feasible project is dependent on its commercial
viability. The commercial viability of any project is determined by a detailed financial analysis and
involves a comprehensive and critical review of its cost estimates and revenue generation potentials.
Once the project is assessed to be commercially viable, its financing arrangements are determined to
ensure its successful implementation. Illustrative cost comparisons for WTE projects for the waste
streams of Municipal Solid Waste and Municipal Liquid Waste are given below.
MSW WTE projects are generally implemented by private agencies on the basis of Build Operate &
Transfer (BOT), Build Own Operate (BOO), Build Own Operate & Transfer (BOOT), Design Build
Operate (DBO) options. Due to high capital investments, these projects require substantial help from
financial institutions through term loans and subsidies from government agencies such as IREDA,
HUDCO, etc.
A brief description of some MSW WTE projects coming up in India together with cost estimates is
presented in the next section. A preliminary comparison of major technologies like biomethanation,
and gasification are also presented for a typical 1,000 TPD capacity MSW WTE project.
16.2 Upcoming Projects in India
Costs for some upcoming projects in India are used to assess current trends. It is necessary to
recognize that the first full scale MSW WTE plant is yet to be commissioned as a demonstration plant
in India. Nonetheless, several proposals based on biomethanation technology are at various stages of
finalisation or scrutiny. In addition, two more plants utilizing gasification technology are also planned
for power generation from MSW.
Lucknow Nagar Nigam Project
Non-conventional Energy Development Agency, (NEDA), Uttar Pradesh, with the assistance of
MNES, Government of India, has undertaken a 5 MW WTE demonstration project based on MSW at
Lucknow. The project is designed to process 300 tonnes of MSW per day by the medium solids
anaerobic digestion process (BIMA digester). The estimated cost of the project is Rs. 80 crores,
equivalent to Rs. 16 crores per MW. Work on the project is in progress under an agreement between
Lucknow Nagar Nigam and M/s. Asia Bio Energy (India) Ltd., Chennai (a firm promoted by Enkem
Engineers, Chennai). The site was visited by MWH on 1st October 2002. (Additional details of the
project are given in Appendix 9-H.)
Nagpur Project
The Nagpur project was approved as a demonstration project by MNES in March 1998. The project
was designed to process a maximum of 650 tonnes per day of MSW by high solids anaerobic
digestion (DRANCO) process to generate 5.4 MW. The project was awarded under the BOO scheme
to CICON Environment Technologies Ltd., Bhopal, M.P. The technical know–how for the project is
provided by OWS, Belgium. The project highlights are given in Appendix 9-H.

Hyderabad Project (SELCO)
M/s SELCO, Hyderabad, have commissioned an RDF project for making 150 TPD of RDF based on
700 TPD MSW. M/s SELCO are in the process of establishing a power plant based on RDF to
produce 6.6 MW of power using moving grate boiler system at a total cost of Rs. 40 crores. (Site Visit
by MWH on 18th October 2002.
Mumbai Project (Bermaco)
A 1000TPD MSW WTE facility based on biomethanation process to produce 11 MW of electrical

energy is in the planning stage at a capital cost of 140 crores. Bermaco/ WM Power Ltd is the project
proponent.
Mumbai Project (Sound Craft)
A project designed to process 1,000 tonnes per day of MSW, based on biomethanation, to generate
11.5 MW of electrical energy. The project is awarded to M/s Sound Craft, Mumbai, at a capital cost
of Rs.145 crores.
Ulhasnagar Project (Wabio)
MSW (340 T) along with vegetable market waste (60 T) will be used as the feedstock for the
Ulhasnagar project to generate 2.5 MW of electrical energy at a cost of Rs.28 crores. M/s Hydroair
Tectonics, Navi Mumbai, will execute it. The technical know-how is provided by Eco-Technology
JVV OY, Finland (Wabio Process), based on medium solids biomethanation technology.
Chennai Project (Gasification)
The construction of the 14.85 MW Chennai power plant from MSW has been undertaken by EDL
India Pvt. Ltd on BOO basis. The plant is expected to start functioning during 2003. The project,
based on gasification technology, is expected to cost around Rs. 180 crore. The Chennai Corporation
will collect and supply 600 tonnes per day of garbage for this plant that is being set up adjacent to the
MSW dump at Perungudi, Chennai on a 15-acre plot of land leased to the company for 15 years.
Mumbai Project (Gasification)
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai has entered into an agreement that facilitates a
gasification based Waste To Energy (WTE) plant at Mumbai's Gorai dumping ground. The Rs. 242
crore plant to be supplied by Energy Developments Limited India (EDL) will gasify 1, 000 metric
tonnes of MSW per day to generate 21 MW of electricity.
16.2.1 Cost Estimates
Presently, the technology providers for some of the above projects have provided limited data relating
to overall investment and operation costs, power generation and quantum of MSW that will be
processed. A list of plant and machinery required for a typical MSW biomethanation project is given
in Appendix 16 A. The available cost data is summarized in Table 16.1, and includes information on
the quantum of MSW to be handled, power generation, process technology and current project status.
Six of these projects are based on biomethanation, while two utilize gasification and one uses RDF for
power generation by incineration. These projects cover a wide capacity range of 250 –1000 TPD
MSW to produce 2.5 to 21 MW power.

Figure 16.1 shows a wide variation in capital cost of Rs.8-16 crores per unit energy generation (MW)
for the various projects.
Capital cost per MW electrical energy generation gives a preliminary indication of the cost
effectiveness of a technology. The capital cost/MW is Rs. 16 crores for the Lucknow project (BIMA),
and is the highest amongst all the projects. The capital cost/MW for the Nagpur project is Rs. 8.74
crores, and thus the Nagpur project is the most economical project. The capital cost/MW for Mumbai
projects-Bermaco and Sound Craft are Rs. 12.72 crores and Rs. 12.60 crores respectively.
It appears that the capital cost per MW energy generation (Table 16.1 & Figure 16.1) tend to decrease
as the technologies mature with time. This is evident from the fact that the capital cost per MW
energy generation for the Lucknow project in 2000-01 was 16 crores, while the same for Mumbai in
2002-03 is 12.60 crores.
Figure 16.2 illustrates the quantum of energy generated for every 100 T of waste treated. The
Lucknow project claims to have more energy generation at 1.67 MW/100 T, whereas Nagpur claims
the least at 0.84 MW/100 T and this variation is primarily due to characteristics of the waste
processed. In the case of biomethanation projects, this ratio has stabilized to around 1 MW for every
100 T of waste treated. However, in both the gasification projects it has been claimed that these
projects are two and half times more efficient than biomethanation projects. The energy generation
per 100 tonnes of waste for RDF-based incineration is higher than a comparable biomethanation plant.
It is advisable to be cautious while using this data for future studies. In many cases, the sources of the
estimates fail to provide sufficient information to convert them to a consistent base or to judge the
reasons for the differences. For example, the finance charge for the capital investment for a given
facility would be significantly affected by the prevalent interest rate at the time of project financing,
but many sources fail to note that interest rate. Moreover, the type and composition of the wastes and
the plant site conditions in general would affect capital investment, but many sources fail to provide
data on these matters. Similarly, the O&M costs are affected by site-specific conditions such as labour
rates, labour contracts, safety rules, the size of the work team, and other factors.
One of the objectives of the waste-to-energy projects is waste treatment and its safe disposal. Higher
the quantum of the waste treated, more is the reduction in the green house gas emission. The quantum
of waste treated (Tonnes/day) for a unit cost (Rs. crores) for upcoming projects in India is illustrated
in Figure 16.3.
16.3 Typical Municipal Solid Waste to Energy Projects (Capacity: 1000

TPD)
Biomethanation, Incineration and Gasification are the three technological options examined for a
preliminary assessment of the commercial viability of a typical 1,000 TPD capacity plant (with 15
years economic life).
The following assumptions are made for the purpose of cost comparison:
• The economic life of the project is considered as 15 years.

• Capital cost is considered to be borrowed from the financial institutes and is considered to be
paid back in Equated Yearly Instalment at the interest rate of 11% in a period of 15 years.
• Operation and Maintenance costs are considered to increase at the rate of 8% per year, along
with the age of the plant, and no major additional capital investments are envisaged during the
economic life of the project.

• Revenue from the surplus electric power is considered to be Rs. 3.87/kwh and is assumed to
increase further at the rate of 5% per annum.
• The present price of manure is taken as Rs 1,200 and is assumed to increase at the rate of 5%
per annum.
• Project realisation period is considered as moratorium period.
• Discount factor is taken as 10%.
As an illustration, the commercial viability of the waste-to-energy projects based on the three
technologies is examined on a stand alone basis. The primary findings are summarised below:
• The capital cost of gasification plant is comparatively higher (Rs. 219.54 crores) than for
biomethanation (Rs. 90.76 crores). The break-up of the capital cost between pre-treatment,
main process and post-treatment, including power generation, for gasification and
biomethanation systems is 38, 26, 36% and 30, 45 and 25% respectively.
• The present value of net revenue for biomethanation plant is found to be the highest (Rs.
151.12 crores) followed by gasification (Rs.149.9 crores).
• The net present worth of the net revenue for biomethanation and gasification plants are
surplus, indicating that these technologies shall be commercially viable.
It should be noted that this financial analysis is done after making a number of assumptions, and that a
case specific financial analysis needs to be done for individual projects to examine their commercial
viability.
16.3.1 High and Medium Solids Biomethanation Project
The preliminary capital cost and revenue generation are determined for implementing two
biomethanation projects - high solids and medium solids anaerobic digestion processes, for capacities
of 300,500 and 1,000 TPD. The details are given in Table 16.3. The two sources of revenue
generation in these projects are (a) sale of electricity generated (b) compost produced. The costs
details given in Table 16-3 highlight the following features:
• The cost of biomethanation project varies between Rs. 10-14 lakhs per tonne of waste treated.
• The high solids anaerobic (dry) process is cheaper by 5% than the medium solids anaerobic
(wet) process.
• As the plant capacity increases, the unit capital cost decreases for both the processes.
• Revenue generation in the high solids process is more than the revenue generation in the
medium solids process.
• Revenue generation increases with an increase in plant capacity.
• Nearly 40% of the revenue can be generated through the sale of manure. The total quantum of
compost produced is the same in both the processes.
• The pay back period of biomethanation project varies between four to six years depending
upon the process and the capacity of the plant.
16.4 Municipal Liquid Waste to Energy Projects

A conventional sewage treatment process (option 1) is compared with an anaerobic treatment facility
with downstream aerated lagoon (option 2) to assess relative economics.

1. Option 1: Activated Sludge Process followed by an anaerobic sludge digestion

2. Option 2: UASB followed by short detention aerated lagoon
The following parameters were used for evaluating the technological options:
• Degree of treatment required

• Capital and Operation & Maintenance cost
• Mechanical equipment requirement
• Power requirement, and
• Land requirement
A typical 100 MLD plant is considered for comparison purpose. The capital cost per MLD of sewage
treated for Option-1 with ASP works out to Rs. 26.68 lakhs, whereas the same for Option-2 with
UASB is Rs.20.37 lakhs. The cost calculations for both options are given in Table 16.4.
These cost estimates are further evaluated (Table 16.6) after calculating the cost implications over a
period of 15 years. Various assumptions are made for the purpose of cost comparison, such as:
• The residual value of the installations is considered as 15 years from commissioning, i.e. the
economic life of the project is considered as 15 years.
• Capital cost is considered to be borrowed from the financial institutes and is considered to be
paid back in Equated Yearly Instalment at the interest rate of 11%.
• Operation and Maintenance costs are considered to increase at the rate of 8% per year along
with the age of the plant, and no major additional capital investments are considered during
the economic life of the project.
• Revenue from the excess electric power is considered to be Rs. 3.87/kwh and is further
considered to increase at the rate of 5% per annum.
• The present price of manure is taken as Rs 1,200 and is considered to increase at the rate of
5% per annum.
• Project realisation period is considered as moratorium period.
• Discount factor is taken as 10%.
A comparative analysis has been made to evaluate the alternatives with respect to their potential costs
and revenue generation. The analysis shows that:
• The capital cost of a 100 MLD Activated Sludge Plant followed by an Anaerobic Sludge
Digestion facility is Rs. 2668.02 lakhs and is 30% higher than the capital cost of a UASB
system followed by Aerated Lagoon facility.
• As municipal liquid waste is dilute, the operation and maintenance costs of the plant can be
substantially reduced or even recovered to the extent of 100% from the revenue generated.
It should be noted that this preliminary financial analysis is carried out after making a number of
assumptions and that a case specific financial analysis needs to be done for individual projects to
examine their viability.

16.5 Industrial Waste to Energy Projects
In the context of industry, where critical cost minimization and operational streamlining at every
juncture is a pre-requisite for success, recent decades have witnessed worldwide a focused search for
and development of viable techniques for extracting energy from wastes. This involves multiple
benefit to the industry to treat the waste and to recover energy and reuse in the industrial process. This
multiple aim is met in the waste-to-energy projects.
Biological processes, involving anaerobic digestion of organics, are widely accepted because they are
relatively simple, low-cost, self adjusting and versatile. Even though the primary objective of the
industrial waste treatment system is to treat the waste, with energy recovery being secondary
consequence, cost and revenue generation is a vital aspects of waste to energy projects, it is necessary
to focus on cost of treatment and generation of revenue for development of a self-sustainable facility.
Each industry is unique in its waste generation spectrum. The nature and characteristics of many
industrial wastes are better understood now and the quantum of waste generation is considered as an
index of inefficiency in utilizing virgin raw material resources.
An comparison has been made between the anaerobic digestion (WTE) system against conventional
aerobic system for the following industrial sector (Table 16.5).
• Dairy
• Pulp and Paper Mill
• Sugar Mills
• Distillery
• Maize Starch
The following are broad findings
• Capital cost of the anaerobic system is less than the cost of aerobic system.
• The load required for aeration of the same quantum of wastewater is multifold of anaerobic
system depending on the wastewater characteristics.
• The cost recovery of an anaerobic system is more than the recurring cost (in terms of extra
power required to the run the plant) of a conventional aerobic system.
• For most of the high strength wastewater viz. Starch, distillery, the costs of the investments
on the WTE project can be recovered within 3-5 years from commissioning.
Waste-to-Energy projects are generally implemented by private agencies that evolve an appropriate
financing package. Since it is necessary to pay the loans fully back to the lending agency, these
projects are required to be commercially viable. Besides, the private entrepreneurs/ agencies also need
to be convinced that the proposal would fetch adequate returns over the specified period of time.
In principle, biomethanation plants provide a single waste management facility for processing various
types of feedstock and concurrently address the issues of energy recovery, valuable recovery/ recycle,
waste disposal and socio –economic benefits. Biomethanation seems to be a promising option with
disposal of more quantum of waste and requiring less capital cost for unit energy generation.

There is a wide variation (Rs. 8 to 16 crores per MW) in the capital costs based on various Indian
technology providers and developers. This cost is expected to reduce as the technology matures in due
course. As of now, the reality is that waste-to energy plants require significant financial investment.
The estimation made for biomethanation and gasification indicate a continuous revenue surplus
increasing every year. However, cost reductions over the preliminary estimates may be possible by
careful selection of the design, sizing, and location of the plant, as well as by the selection of
commercial markets for biosolids (residues) and recovered energy.

Table 16-1. Highlights of Some Ongoing/ Proposed MSW WTE projects in India
Sr. Project Technology Financing Status Power Project Cost (Rs. Quantum of MSW
No. Location Mechanism Crores)
MW MW/ 100T Total Cost /MW Tonnes/ day Tonnes/ MW
1 Lucknow, UP Biomethanation BOO Execution (2001) 5 1.67 74 14.8 300* 60
(Low Solids/
BIMA)
ENTEC, Austria
Asia Bioenergy,
Chennai
2 Nagpur, Biomethanation BOO Execution (1999) 5.4 0.84 47.3 8.74 650 (max) 120
Maharashtra (High Solids/
DRANCO)
GWS, Belgium
CICON, Bhopal
3 Mumbai, (WABIO) BOO Planning (2002) 11 1.1 140 12.72 1000 91
Maharashtra
Bermaco/ WM
Power Ltd,
4 Mumbai, Biomethanation BOO Planning (2002) 11.5 1.15 145 12.60 1000 87
Maharashtra
Ericsons, USA
SOUNDCRAFT
Mumbai
5 Ulhasnagar, Biomethanation BOO Planning (2002) 2.5 1 28 11.2 250 100
Maharashtra (WABIO)
HYDROAIR, Navi
Mumbai

Sr. Project Technology Financing Status Power Project Cost (Rs. Quantum of MSW
No. Location Mechanism Crores)
MW MW/ 100T Total Cost /MW Tonnes/ day Tonnes/ MW
6 Navi Mumbai, Biomethanation BOO Planning (2002) 3.5 0.875 43 12.28 400 114
Maharashtra (WABIO)
(340 MSW + 60
HYDROAIR, Navi
Vegetable waste)
Mumbai
7 Chennai, TN Gasification EDL BOO Execution (1999) 14.85 2.475 180 12.12 600 40
New Delhi
8 Mumbai, Gasification EDL- BOO Planning (2002) 21 2.1 240 11.42 1000 48
Maharashtra New Delhi
9 Hyderabad, A.P RDF-Incineration BOO Execution (2003) 6.6 0.95 40 6.06 700 106
SELCO-
Hyderabad
Note * Organic Fraction of MSW (Wet Basis)

Source: Appendix 9G and Appendix 11H of this report and others

Table 16-2. Financial Estimates for 1000 TPD Plant Capacity
Sr. Description Biomethanation * Gasification **

No.
(1000TPD Plant) (1000TPD Plant)
1 Capital Costs (Rs Lakhs)
Pre-treatment 2723 8343
Biological/ Thermal Conversion 4084.6 5708
Post –treatment 2269.3 7903
Total Costs 9076.9 21954.0
2 Capital Cost Per MW 907.7 1045.4
3 Operation and Maintenance
costs (Rs Lakhs/year)
Maintenance Cost 901.4
Operation Costs including 727.0
Salaries + License fee +
Insurance + Royalty and other
operating costs
Total Operation and 975.6 1628.3
Maintenance Costs
4 Resource Recovery (Rs
Lakhs/year)
Manure 825.0
By selling of electricity @3.4 2198.0 4936.0
Rs/Kwh
Total Resource Recovery 3188.0 4936.0
5 Present Net Revenue (Rs. 9934.7 7453
Lakhs)
Note:
Source:
* CICON Group, Bhopal
** EDL India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi
Costs implication towards Rupee depreciation + Financing Expenses + Margin money and Interest components are not
considered
Costs of Land and Site Development not included
The electricity tariff is considered as per the MNES policy(3.4/kWh)
All costs/prices are based on year 2002 (2002=100)
MONTGOMERY WATSON
Chapter 16-10
Table 16-3. Budgetary Project Cost Estimate and Revenue Generation
Capacity (TPD)
Sr. No. Particulars 300 TPD 500 TPD 1000 TPD
High Medium High Medium High Medium
Solids Solids Solids Solids Solids Solids
A. Budgetary Cost Estimate (Rs. Lakhs)
1 Civil Works (A) 888 1004 1148 1303 2063 2363
2 Plant & Machinery
a) Indigenous 989.71 1088.68 1522.63 1674.89 2740.74 3014.81
b) Imported 1235.05 1235.05 1900.08 1900.08 3420.14 3420.14
Total 2224.76 2323.73 3422.71 3574.97 6160.88 6434.95
3 Misc. Fixed assets 50 50 50 50 80 80
4 Pre-operative costs 150 150 150 150 200 200
5 Contingencies 150 150 200 200 350 350
6 Interest during construction 300 300 500 500 1000 1000
7 Tech. Fees 150 150 150 150 150 150
8 Training Expenses 30 30 30 30 30 30
9 Margin for W.C 80 80 80 80 150 150
Total 4022.76 4237.73 5730.71 6037.97 10183.88 10757.96
4025 4240 5730 6040 10200 10760
B. Revenue Generation & Pay back Period
1 Biogas Production (Cum/day) 31,500 29,900 52,500 49,900 105,000 99,750
2 Electricity (MW)
a) Power Generation (MW) 3 2.85 5 4.75 10 9.5
b) Parasitic consumption (MW) 0.45 0.57 0.75 0.95 1.5 1.9
c) Wheeling and Transmission 0.10 0.09 0.17 0.15 0.34 0.3
Losses (MW)
d) Net Electricity for Sale (MW) 2.45 2.18 4.08 3.64 8.16 7.29
e) Annual Operating Hours 7920 7920 7920 7920 7920 7920
6
f) Units for Sale (kWh *10 ) 19.4 17.33 32.3 28.89 64.6 57.78
g) Sale Price Rs./kWh* 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4
h) Revenue Rs. Lakhs 659.6 589.2 1098.2 982.3 2196.4 1964.5
3 Bio fertilizer
a) Capacity (TPD) 75 75 125 125 250 250
MONTGOMERY WATSON
Chapter 16-11
Capacity (TPD)
Sr. No. Particulars 300 TPD 500 TPD 1000 TPD
High Medium High Medium High Medium
Solids Solids Solids Solids Solids Solids
b) Annual Production (T) 24,750 24,750 41,250 41,250 82,500 82,500
c) Sale Price (Rs./T) 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
d) Revenue Rs. Lakhs 247.5 247.5 412.5 412.5 825 825
4 Total Revenue 907.1 836.7 1510.7 1394.8 3021.4 2789.5
5 Less O & M Expenses @ 30% 272.1 251.0 453.2 418.4 906.4 836.8
6 Net Revenue 635.0 585.7 1057.5 976.4 2114.0 1952.7
(Including repayment of loan
and interest)
* As per MNES policy
MONTGOMERY WATSON
Chapter 16-12
Table 16-4. Financial Estimates of a Typical 100 MLD STP with WTE Facility
Sr. No Description Conventional UASB (Option 2)

(Option 1)
1 Capital Cost (Rs. In Lakhs)
Civil 1901.60 1623.40
Mechanical, Electrical and Instrumentation 766.40 413.79
Total 2668.00 2037.18
2 Capital Cost/MLD (Rs. In Lakhs) 26.68 20.37
3 O&M Cost (Rs. in Lakhs/yr) 838.5 458.61
4 O&M Cost / MLD (Rs. in Lakhs/yr) 8.38 4.58
5 Resource Recovery
Manure 14.21 17.76
Electricity @ Rs 3.4/kWh 89.34 148.92
6 Total Revenue 103.55 166.68
Notes:
Costs implication towards Rupee depreciation + Financing Expenses + Margin money and
Interest components are not considered
20 % of the sludge produced is considered as utilized in the plant premises and wastage
All costs/prices are based on year 2002 (2002=100)
Electricity tariff is considered as 3.4 /kWh as per MNES policy
MONTGOMERY WATSON
Chapter 16-13
Table 16.5 Financial Estimates of a Typical Dairy Plant WTE Facility
Sr. Sector Capacity Wastewater Organic Capital Cost (Rs in Connected Load for Biogas Production with Recurring Cost (Rs in Cost recovery
No. Generated Waste Lakhs) aeration (HP) (extended 50 % CH4 (m3/day) lakhs /year) (in terms of recovered by biogas to
(m3/day) (mg/L) aeration activated extra power) energy generation (Rs
BOD sludge process) in lakhs per year)
Conventional WTE Conventional WTE Conventional WTE Conventional WTE Conventional WTE
System System System System System System System System System System
1 Dairy 75,000 ltrs 1200 800 91 82 70 15 Nil 384 11.43 Nil Nil 23.29
of Milk
Processed
2 Pulp & Paper 50 TPD 1500 4000* 104 106 225 70 Nil 2400 32.24 Nil Nil 58.24
kraft paper
3 Sugar 12000 TCD 4800 600 97.5 100 228 36 Nil 800 17 Nil Nil 9.2
Factory**
4 Distillery 150 KLD 2040 4000* 316.16 9009 218.62
Alcohol
5 Maize Starch 1050 10000* 612.56 4725 114.66
Notes
Costs implication towards Rupee depreciation+Financing Expencies+Margin money and Interest components are not considered
Plant works for 330 days a year
WTE facility implies UASB system
Electricity tariff is considered as Rs 3.4/-per kWh as per MNES policy
All costs/prices are based on year 2002: 2002=100
* - COD
** - Sugar Factory works for 141 days

Figure 16-1. Capital Cost per MW Energy Generation
20
16
Cost /MW
12
n)
r
n)
i
n)
P
ga
ba
pu
ba
ba
,U
io
tio
tio
na
um
um
um
ag
at
w
ia
ra
as
ic
N
no
iM
M
ic
ne
lh
sif
ck
sif
ci
U
av
a
Lu
In
G
(G
N
i(
F-
na
D
ai
(R
b
en
um
Ch
ad
M
ab
er
yd
H
Actual Co s t Averag e Co s t- Bio methantio n p ro jects
Figure 16-2. Energy Generation v/s Waste Treated
3
Waste Utilization
(MW/100 tonne)
0
r
n)
r
n)
n)
P
ga
ba
pu
ba
ba
,U
t io
io
tio
na
um
um
um
ag
ow
at
ca
ra
as
N
ci
iM
M
ifi
ne
n
lh
ifi
ck
as
ci
U
av
as
Lu
In
G
(G
N
i(
F-
na
D
i
ba
(R
en
um
Ch
ad
M
ab
er
yd
H
MONTGOMERY WATSON
Chapter 16-15
Figure 16-3. Waste Treated v/s Capital Cost

Waste Disposed/Unit Cost
20.00
16.00
12.00
8.00
4.00
0.00
n)
r
n)
P
ga
ba
pu
ba
ba
.
,U
io
t ..
tio
na
um
um
um
ag
at
ra
w
ia
as
c
N
no
ne
iM
M
ic
ifi
lh
ci
ck
if
as
U
av
as
In
Lu
F-
N
i(
i(
D
a
ba
nn
(R
um
e
ad
Ch
ab
er
yd
H
MONTGOMERY WATSON
Chapter 16-16
Figure 8-1:Technological Options for Energy Recovery from Urban Wastes
URBAN WASTES
SOLID (MSW) LIQUID (SEWAGE)
BIOMETHANATION
BIOLOGICAL THERMAL
BIOGAS
LANDFILLING COMPOSTING BIOMETHANATION

POWER
COMPOST INCINERATION GASIFICATION PYROLYSIS
POWER COMBUSTION
BIOGAS
FUEL FUEL CHARCOAL
GAS OIL
POWER
POWER
Chapter 8-11
MWH
Figure 8-2 Technology Options for Energy Recovery from Industrial and Farm Wastes
INDUSTRIAL & FARM WASTES
LIQUIDS SEMI-SOLIDS/SLUDGES SOLIDS
BIOMETHANATION SLURRY DEWATERI NG/

DRYING
BIOGAS RESIDUALS
EVAPORATION THERMAL
POWER
INCINERATION GASIFICATION PYROLYSIS
POWER FUEL GAS FUEL OIL CHARCOAL
Chapter 8-12
MWH
Table 8-3. Criteria for Assessment/Selection of Global WTE Technologies*
Criteria Incineration Anaerobic Digestion Gasification/ Pyrolysis

A. Feedstock
Nature of Waste
Industrial
Liquid Not Suitable Suitable Not Suitable
Solid Suitable Not Suitable Suitable
Urban
Liquid Not Suitable Suitable Not Suitable
Solid Suitable Suitable Suitable
Farm
Poultry Suitable Suitable Suitable
Cattle Suitable Suitable Suitable
Desired Feedstock Properties for WTE
Industrial
Liquid - Suitable -
Solid Organics (>50 %) - Organics (>50 %)
Moisture (<25 %) Moisture (< 25 %)
Urban
Liquid - BOD (200 – 400 mg/L) -
Solid Calorific Value (dry Volatile Solids Calorific Value (dry
state) state)
(>60 % TS)
(1900-2800 kcal/kg) (1900-2800 kcal/kg)
Farm
Poultry Calorific Value (dry Volatile Solids Calorific Value (dry
state) state)
(>60 % TS)
(3500 - 3800 kcal/kg) (3500 – 3800 kcal/kg)
Cattle Calorific Value (dry % Volatile Solids Calorific Value (dry
state) state)
(>60 %TS)
(3200-3700 kcal/kg) (3200-3700 kcal/kg)
B Technology Features
Technology Status
Industrial Proven Proven Emerging
Urban Proven Proven Emerging
Farm Proven Proven Proven
Energy Recovery Hot combustion gas Biogas Syngas,bio-oils
Chapter 8 - 8
MWH

Power generation Steam turbine Gas turbine Gas/Steam turbine
Efficiency 85-90% (based on 50 – 60% (based on 90-95% (based on
calorific value) volatiles) calorific value)
Residue Ash Digested slurry Ash, Char
Residue Disposal Landfill Farm land Reuse possible, or as
roading material
Downstream Elaborate Air Pollution Sludge stabilization Limited air pollution
Processing Control control
Operating Conditions
Temperature 900-1200 ºC 35-40 ºC 600 –1400 ºC
(mesophilic)
55-60 ºC
(thermophilic)
Pressure 200-300 mbar 150-250 mbar 250-400 mbar
Reactor Atmosphere Oxidizing (Excess Air) Strictly anaerobic Inert (pyrolysis)/
Partially oxidizing
(gasification)
System Complex Simple Complex
Configuration
Process Flexibility Low Good Low
Modular Yes Yes Yes
Area requirements Elaborate Compact Compact
2 2
Basis: 300 TPD (500 –750 m ) (100 –250 m ) (200 –400 m2)
MSW
C. Capital and O&M Costs
Relative Capital Very High Medium Very High
Cost
O&M High Low Limited (few moving
parts)
Commercial viability Less viable owing to Readily viable Varies considerably
costly downstream air
pollution control
Captive Power Significant Low Variable
(25 – 30 %) (5 %) (5 – 20%)
Royalty 10 % 0-5 % 10%
Technology On going On going On going

upgradation
D. Environmental Control
Chapter 8 - 9
MWH

Air Pollution Dust Collection, Gas H2S – Scrubbing Dust collection, Gas
Scrubbing (Elaborate) (Compact) scrubbing (Compact)
Water Pollution Minor Down-stream aerobic Low
Solid/Hazardous Ash to Landfill Stabilised sludge Ash/Slag (Reuse)
wastes
Overall compliance Feasible Feasible Feasible
Environmental Can be minimized Minimum Can be controlled
impacts (costly) (additional costs)
E. Socio – Economic Aspects
Waste disposal Complete, except for ash Complete except for Complete, except for ash
to landfill sludge stabilization
Public acceptability Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory
Waste Collection Municipal/Agency Municipal/Agency Municipal/Agency
Power distribution Power Grid Power Grid Power Grid
Facility operation Agency Agency Agency
* Remarks apply to installations abroad.
Chapter 8 - 10
MWH
Figure 15.1 General Schematic of MSW WTE Options
BIOGAS ENGINE/
POWER
TURBINE
1. BIOLOGICAL INCINERATION
MSW
PRE-TREATMENT
2. THERMAL BOILER
GASIFICATION
(SYNGAS) TURBINE
RESIDUALS
MANAGEMENT POWER
BY-PRODUCTS
MWH Chapter 15-13

Figure 15.2 Schematic Process Flow Diagram of an Integrated MSW Biomethanation System
Conveyor 10
MSW Conveyor Conveyor 5
Manual Inclined Rotary Screen Ballistic 8 Magnetic
Inspection separator Separator
1 3 <40mm
7 9
To Landfill (Recyclable)
PRE TREATMENT
>180 mm Homogenising 7A
Large 4 Drum
(Landfilling / Recyclable)
Particles
Conveyor
(Landfilling / Recyclable)
Air
Biogas Gas
POWER GENERATION Gas Flare Dual Fuel Engine
Storage Power
17
16 Exhaust Gas
Waste Heat Steam
2 Biogas Cleaning System 18 Water
Recovery 12
6
ANAEROBIC DIGESTION 15 Digester Feed

Hydraulic Unit Mixing Unit
14
Digesters
11
Recirculation 13
Dewatering
Sewage/ Fresh Water

Unit
Air
20 Wastewater
Centrifuge ETP To Disposal
25
19
21 <12mm
Vibrating Aerobic Compost 26
Screen Maturation
POST TREATMENT 22 23
Air+Excess Heat
24 >12m From Heat Recovery
Recyclable
MWH Chapter 15-14

Figure 15.3: Mass Balance Diagram – Biomethanation Technology - Capacity 500 TPD (Thermophillic High Solids Dry Basis)
MSW Manual Conveyor Trommel Screen Conveyor Ballistic Conveyor Magnetic
Inspection separator Separation
496 300
500 300
(<40mm)
83 to (Landfill) 1 (Recyclable)
PRE -TREATMENT
(>180 mm) 146 83
Homogenising
Large Particles Drum
Conveyor
299
4 (Landfill) 50 63 TPD
(Landfill / Recyclable) 40-180mm (Landfilling / Recyclable)
Air
52500 Nm3/d Biogas
POWER GENERATION Flare Gas Storage Dual Fuel Engine Power
(500 m3) (5.0 MW)
Exhaust Gas
Water Waste Heat Recovery Steam 171
205 m3/day
ANAEROBIC DIGESTION Biogas Cleaning System

3760
375 Digester feed
Digester
4 x 5540 m3
Recirculation 3290
Dewatering
Unit
Sewage/ Fresh Water

Air
175 Wastewater
165 m3/D
200
10
<12mm
Vibrating Aerobic Maturation Compost 125 Units: TPD
Screen
210 170
POST -TREATMENT
>12mm
40 Recyclable AIR+EXCESS HEAT FROM HEAT RECOVERY
MWH Chapter 15-15

Figure 15.4: Energy Balance Diagram – Biomethanation Technology - Capacity 500 TPD (Thermophillic High Solids Dry Basis)
Steam
2850 Stack
7.125 T/Hr
KW 508 KW
*
3210
Waste Heat KW
Recovery Composting
System Plant
299 TPD
MSW 7210
KW
*
12210
Anaerobic KW Dual Fuel/ low BTU To grid
Digester 4250 KW
Gas Engine
2 x 2700 KW 5000 KW
Electrical Output
* Radiation Loss 750 + 400 =1150 KWE

Captive
Consumption
Biogas = 52500 NM3/day
LCV = 4800 K. cal. 750 KW
Heat in Gas = 52500 x 4800
24 860
= 12210 KW
MWH Chapter 15-16

Figure 15-6. Mass and Energy Balance for 500 TPD MSW Gasification System based on SWERF
EXHAUST
16
(WASTE HEAT RECOVERY)
15
RAW
WATER
9 WATER
BOILER
TREATMENT
10 11 13 12 14 6
2 21 23 25
1 INERT PLUG SCREW
MSW PROCESSING GASIFICATION GAS POWER 30
REMOVAL FEEDER
2 4 7 20 COOLING 24 GENERATION
8
5
INERT LANDFILL
3
RECYCLE
MWH Chapter 15-18

Figure 15-7. Mass & Energy Balance for MSW WTE Facility with Fluidized Bed Incineration – (Capacity 500 TPD)
500
498 Conveyor 302 301 Screw Press
MSW Manual Trommel Screen Ballistic Magnetic
Inspection Conveyor separator Separator
<40mm - 302
Landfill
40-180 mm
82
146 (Recyclable) 118 m3/D
PRE TREATMENT 1 Wastewater
Homogenizing 82
>180 mm
Drum
Large Particles 64
2 (Landfill) (Landfill/Recycling)
50 (Landfilling / Recyclable)
Fluidized Bed
Power Steam Turbine Incinerator/Boiler RDF Pellets Pelletiser
(6.2 MW) (25 % efficiency) (70 % efficiency) 183
RDF INCINERATION/POWER (CV 4000 kcal / kg)
Ash
POST TREATMENT 25
Multiple
Scrubber ESP Cyclones
Stack
UNITS -TPD
MWH Chapter 15-19

Figure 15-8. Process Flow & Mass Balance Diagram for Municipal Liquid Waste-To-Energy Project – UASB 10 MLD
Air
Flare Gas Holder Dual Fuel Engine 150 kW

POWER GENERATION
(500 m3) Power
Exhaust Gas
Biogas = 1050 cum / day
Air With 85 % CH4
Q = 9970
Facultative Aerobic COD < 100 mg/L
H2S Scrubber Lagoon BOD <30 mg/L
POST TREATMENT TSS <50 mg/L
UASB Reactor Q = 9970

(3500 m3) COD < 165 mg/L
ANAEROBIC
DIGESTION TSS <100 mg/L
BOD < 50 mg/L
Q = 35
Q =5 TSS = 65 kg TSS/cum
TSS = 80 mg/L
Sludge Drying Beds
Sludge Disposal
Q = 10000
COD = 550 mg /L CAPACITY : 10 MLD
PRE TREATMENT TSS = 250 mg/L
(OPTIONAL) BOD = 200 mg/L
Q : FLOW (cum/day)
MWH Chapter 15-20

Appendix 9-A
Commercial Biomethanation Technologies
9.A.1 Technologies with Indian Collaborators
9.A.1.1 SMAG Process
Developer: Reva Technologies - India
Description:
The Structured Media Attached Growth (SMAG) is a patented technology. This anaerobic treatment
system is a fixed film, fixed bed reactor and is packed with specially designed plastic media to
provide a very large surface area for the anaerobic bacterial film to grow and become immobilized.
This media has a void ratio of 95% and provides surface area of 95 to 105 square meters in each cubic
meter volume. The entire media is kept submerged in the reactor content. The micro-organisms
attached to specially designed media metabolise organic matter in the
Digester Media
wastewater and produce methane rich biogas which can be used as non-conventional energy source
for generation of steam & power.
The structured media attached growth (SMAG) technology offered by us has inherent multiple
advantages like Quick Restart, Low Area Requirement, High Reliability, Continuous Generation of
Bio-gas with an extremely attractive PAY-BACK period of less than two years.
This process can be used for treatment of high strength wastewater like distillery, pharmaceutical etc.
Partial List of SMAG Installations :
S.No. Projects Type of Capacity

Industry
1 Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd., Dhampur, Distillery 800 m3/d
U.P. COD : 120000 mg/l
2 Kesar Enterprises Ltd., Baheri, Uttar Distillery 450 m3/d
Pradesh COD :100000 mg/l
3 Gauri Industries Ltd., Gauri-Bidnaur, Distillery 600 m3/d
Karnataka COD : 100000 mg/l
4 SLN Distillery Pvt. Ltd., Dharwad, Distillery 450 m3/d
MWH Appendix 9A -1
S.No. Projects Type of Capacity

Industry
Karnataka COD : 100000 mg/l
5 Kanoria Chemicals & Ind.Ltd., Distillery 400 m3/d
Ankeleshwar , Gujarat COD : 100000 mg/l
6 Simbhaoli Sugar Mills Ltd., Simbhaoli, Distillery 650 m3/d
U.P. COD : 100000 mg/l
7 Royal Distillery Pvt. Ltd., Daman Distillery 575 m3/d
COD : 120000 mg/l
8 PVK Distilleries Ltd., Varanasi, U.P. Distillery 600 m3/d
COD : 100000 mg/l
9 Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Pharmaceutical 120 m3/d
Ranipeth, T.N. Industry COD : 120000 mg/l
10 Emmellen Biotech Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Pharmaceutical 120 m3/d
Mahad, M.S. Industry COD : 120000 mg/l
11 Deccan Sugars Ltd., Samalkot, A.P. Distillery 225 m3/d
COD : 100000 mg/l
12 Andhra Sugars Ltd., A.P. Distillery 225 m3/d
COD : 90000 mg/l
13 Hanumanth Kali Vara Prasad Babu Distillery 225 m3/d
Chemicals Pvt.Ltd., Hanuman, JN, A.P. COD : 100000 mg/l
14 Sri Indra Distillery Pvt. Ltd., Tanukau, Distillery 225 m3/d
A.P. COD : 110000 mg/l
15 Vijayshree Chemicals India Ltd., Distillery 550 m3/d
Mathura, U.P. COD : 100000 mg/l
16 Penguin Alcohols Pvt. Ltd., Canacona, Distillery 240 m3/d
Goa COD : 110000 mg/l
17 Ashwini Biopharma Ltd., Tirupati, T.N. Pharmaceutical 200 m3/d
Industry COD : 120000 mg/l
18 Emmellen Biotech Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Pharmaceutical 90 m3/d
Mahad, M.S. Industry COD : 120000 mg/l
19 Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Pharmaceutical 200 m3/d
Ranipeth, T.N. Industry COD : 120000 mg/l
20 Empee Sugars & Chemicals Ltd., Distillery 225 m3/d
Nellore, A.P. COD : 100000 mg/l
21 Avon Organics Ltd., Pharmaceutical 140 m3/d
Sholapur, M.S. Industry COD : 100000 mg/l
22 Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd., Dhampur, Distillery 900 m3/d
U.P. - Second Repeat order for 3rd COD : 120000 mg/l
digester
23 Samson Dist. Pvt. Ltd. Dist. 800 m3/d
Davangere, Karnataka COD : 120000 mg/l
MWH Appendix 9A - 2
Contact Information:
Reva Enviro System Pvt. Ltd.

9, Sunderlal Rai Path,
Ramdaspeth,
Nagpur - 440 010
Maharashtra
Tel No : 91 - 0712 - 544817 / 544818
Fax No. : 91- 0712 – 544813
E-Mail : info@revaenviro.com
MWH Appendix 9A - 3
9.A.1.2 Biomethanation Technology - BIMA (Biogas Induced Mixing Arrangement) High

Rate Digesters
Developer: M/s ENTEC Engg. Pvt. Ltd., Austria
Indian Counter Part: M/s Enkem Engg. Pvt. Ltd, Chennai
Description:
M/s Entec have developed and patented an unique system of anaerobic digesters to treat high organic
waste with high solids concentration.
The salient features of these digesters are as follows:
• Can handle solid concentration upto12% i.e. 1,20,000 ppm of suspended solids.
• No mechanical moving parts for mixing
• Control of scum and sediments
• In built biological desulphuration system
The most important aspect of BIMA digester is that it does not employ any mechanical moving parts
like mixers, agitators, compressors etc. for mixing the contents of anaerobic digesters. The bio-gas
generated from the system is used for mixing the contents of anaerobic digesters. Hence, the name
BIMA digesters i.e. the Bio-gas Induced Mixing Arrangement digesters. The detailed operating
principle with sketches is shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2, M/s. Entec have executed more than 50
Biomethanation plants in Europe, Japan, Taiwan, Korea, etc. for various substrates like distillery
waste, starch industry waste, cattle manure, poultry litter, piggery waste, slaughter house waste,
municipal solid wastes (garbage), food processing waste, industrial waste etc.
MWH Appendix 9A - 4
Figure 1: Cross Section of BIMA Digester
MWH Appendix 9A - 5
Figure 2: Operating Principle of BIMA Digester
1. Main chamber 2. Central tube

3. Upper chamber 4. Distribution & mixing wings
5. Substrate feeding pipe 6. Substrate effluent pipe
7. Gas discharge pipe 8. Ground sludge pipe
9. Mixing shafts 10. Gas dome
11. Mixing valve 12. Substrate starting level
13. Rising substrate level in the upper 14. Pressed & decreasing substrate level in the
chamber main chamber
15. Highest substrate level, in upper chamber 16. Lowest substrate level in main chamber
17. Fresh substrate feed 18. Inner basin in upper chamber
19. Outer ring-basin in upper chamber 20. Wall diving upper chamber into (18) and (19)
21. Overflow-wall
MWH Appendix 9A - 6
BIMA Digester – Operating Principle
Biogas Induced Mixing Arrangement (BIMA) Digester, is capable of handling upto 12% solids
and can be operated at very high loading rates. The digester has the following advantages:
i. Since the digester can handle wastes with high solids content (upto 10% dry matter) and can
support high concentration of biomass, smaller digester with shorter retention time are
possible. This translates to reduced capital cost.
ii. Reduced installation, servicing and maintenance cost as there are no mechanical mixing parts
for mixing
iii. High reliability of the process on account of good control of scum and sediments.
iv. As no short-passes are possible on account of the chamber system, “plug flow” effect is
created in the digester.
The BIMA digester can handle upto a maximum of 12% solids and does not require mechanical
devices (such as agitators, screw mixers, lancers with compressors) to accomplish mixing in the
digester. BIMA digester is of the high rate type, and require significantly reduced volume to
accomplish effective degradation.
Moreover, in conventional digesters an energy equivalent of about 26 watts/m3 needs to be provided

in order to accomplish complete mixing. Hence, appreciable energy needs to be provided to
accomplish mixing in conventional digester system. In comparison, an energy equivalent of about 70
watts/m3 is generated during mixing in the BIMA digester, which is about three times that required to
accomplish complete mix, and hence there would be no mixing problems in BIMA digester. Besides
mixing, this energy is also adequate to prevent the formation of any scum/sediment in the digester.
Further, as indicated earlier, this energy is derived from the biogas generated in the system (without
the need for any mechanical device like agitators), and therefore the operating costs would be
significantly lower.
The versatility and superiority of the BIMA digester over the conventional digester system can be
seen from the following table which compares the two digester systems. Additionally, the BIMA can
be configured to prevent the formation of scum or sediment. As this waste has a tendency to form
scum, the digester would be suitably designed to prevent any scum formation at the top of the
digester. Further, the BIMA digester has a sand trap to periodically drain the sand/silt, if any, from
the bottom of the digester. This implies that the process of washing of the feed could be dispensed
and the waste after segregation could be fed to the shredder and then to the dissolution unit.
BIMA digester is divided into three separate sections, being connected liquid and gas wise. The
three sections are the main chamber, the upper chamber and the central tube, to which the feed-pipe is
connected. In this central tube a pre-hydrolysis of the substrate takes place. Most of the biogas is
generated in the main chamber through the decomposition of organic materials. By closing an
automatic valve in the gas pipe between the two chambers the gas produced in the main chamber is
collected there, which in turn displaces an equal amount of the digested substrate into the upper
chamber, building a level difference and thus a gas pressure in the main chamber. When the required
level is achieved (mixing pressure), the gas pressure is released by opening the automatic valve in the
gas connecting pipe. Thus the substrate displaced into the upper chamber flows back to the main
chamber with high velocity. A portion of the waste flows to the main chamber through the mixing
wings while the rest flows back through the mixing shafts. On account of this, fresh substrate, scum
and sediments are perfectly remixed with the contents of the main chamber. Thus the new pre-
hydrolysed substrate is mixed with active biomass in the digester. Another portion of the digested
MWH Appendix 9A - 7
substrate which flows out through the mixing shafts, pours onto the surface of the main chamber, thus
avoiding formation of scums.
Projects/ (India)
M/s Enkem Engineers Pvt. Ltd. in collaboration with Entec Environment Technology. Ltd., Austria
have executed/executing following biomethanation plants.
Solid Waste Biomethanation Plants
a. Slaughter house solid waste biomethanation plant (60 tons/day) to generate biogas using
BIMA digester. (50% MNES Grant)
b. 1.5 MW power plant using BIMA digester at Namakkal, Tamil Nadu 200 tons/day poultry
litter.(with MNES subsidy ).
c. Implementing Biomethanation plant for cattle manure (235 tons) to produce biogas and 1
MW power at Ludhiana, Punjab Energy Development Agency.
d. BIMA digester is proposed to treat Organic fraction of Municipal Solid Waste to generate 5.0
MW power at Lucknow.
Enkem Engg. Pvt. Ltd.
824, Poonamallee High Road,
Kilpauk (Near KMC)
Chennai 600 010
Tel : 6411 362, 6428 992
Fax : 6411788
E-mail : enkem99@md3.vsnl.net.in, enkem2000@vsnl.net
Developer :
Entec - Environmental Technology

Umwelttechnik GmbH
Shilfweg 1
A-6972 Fusbach/Austria
Tel: +43-5578-7946
Fax: +43-5578-73638
E-Mail: entech@roundtech.vol.at
MWH Appendix 9A - 8
9.A.1.3 DRANCO Process
Developer: OWS, Belgium (DRANCO)
Indian Counter Part: Cicon Environment Technologies Ltd.
Description:
The DRANCO process consists of a thermophilic, one-phase anaerobic fermentation step which is
followed by a short aerobic maturation phase. This flexibility of DRANCO Technology allows the
treatment of a wide range of different input materials. The digested residue is extracted from the
digester, de-watered to a TS-content of about 50% and then stabilised aerobically. DRANCO digester
does not have any internal mixing arrangement so the raw MSW (after pretreatment) is mixed with
recirculated digestate and fed into the digester from the top. The digestate is withdrawn from the
bottom of the digester.
Process Characteristics
• thermophilic or mesophilic, one-phase anaerobic fermentation system

• high waste stream flexibility
• proven and stable high-rate digestion process
• simple and reliable digester design: low maintenance, low wear
• no mixing inside digester
• controlled external inoculation
• high biogas yield and biogas production
• reduced surface area required
• automated process control.
Process Parameters
• digester loading: 10 to 20 kg COD/m³ reactor/day

• retention time in the digester: 15 to 30 days
• biogas production: 100 to 200 m³ of biogas per ton of waste
• electricity production: 170 to 350 kWh per ton of waste
Contact Information :
Prashant Sahu (Managing Director)

Cicon Environment Technologies Ltd.
Plot 61-B, Kasturba Nagar,
Bhopal 462 024
Tel: 91-755-789446, 280 499, 273 609
Fax: 91-755-582331
e-mail : prashantsahu@cicongroup.com
ciconprs@bom6.vsnl.net.in
MWH Appendix 9A - 9
Developer :
Organic Waste Systems nv

Dok Noord 4
B-9000 Gent - Belgium
Tel (+32)-9-233.02.04
Fax (+32)-9-233.28.25
E-mail: mail@ows.be
MWH Appendix 9A - 10
9.A.1.4 Wabio Anaerobic Digestion Process
Developer: Ecotechnology, JVV OY, Finland
Indian Counter Part: Nestler EcoTec Pvt. Ltd., Navi Mumbai

Hydroair Techtonics (PCD) Pvt. Ltd., Navi Mumbai
Description:
Wabio Anaerobic Digestion Process is developed by Ecotechnology JVV OY of Finland. It is one

stage, medium concentration anaerobic digestion process operating in the mesophillic temperature
range with solid concentration 10-20% range. The process involves two stages. First stage is the
pretreatment stage where the garbage is received and is followed by hand picking belt conveyor and
an electro magnet. After segregation, the material is shredded to smaller pieces ranging from 25-50
mm. The shredded material is screened. The second stage (Wabio) consists of feed preparation tanks
which receive the screened material and a slurry of 15% solid concentration is made. The slurry is
then pumped to bioreactors where the process of digestion takes place. The products of bioreactors
are methane rich gas from the top and sludge/slurry from the bottom. The supernatant liquid, near the
top, is sent for recirculation to make the slurry. Gas is stored in the gas holder. Part of this gas is
used for mixing the contents in the bioreactors. From the gas holder the gas is sent to gas engines to
produce electricity.
Sludge/ slurry from the bottom of the bioreactors is sent to filter press for dewatering. After
dewatering, the filtrate is sent back to the feed preparation tanks. The remaining dewatered cake has
organic fertilizer value.
Projects/ demonstrations:
Vassa in Finland and Bottrop, Germany.
Mr. N. D. Chhabria
Nestler EcoTec Pvt. Ltd., Hydroair Tectonics (PCD) Pvt, Ltd.,
30 Sadhna, 4th Floor, Nowroji Gamadia Road 116 Raheja Arcade, Sector 11,
Mumbai-400026 Plot No 61, Belapur
Tel: +91-22-282 5846 Navi Mumbai 400 614
Fax: +91-22-367 6053 Tel: +91-22-756 4347
E-Mail: nanduch@bom5.vsnl.net.in Tele Fax: +91-22-756 4364
E-Mail: hydroenviro@vsnl.net
Web: www.hydroair.com
Developer :
Valkhärventie 2
02130 Espoo
Finland
Tel: +9+358-43577477
Fax: +9+358-43577488
Web: www.ecotechnology.fi
9.A.1.5 Linde-KCA-Dresden GmbH
Developer: Linde - Germany
Indian Counter Part: Linde Process Technologies (I) Pvt, Ltd., Vadodara
Description:
Linde-KCA-Dresden GmbH, a wholly owned subsidiary of Linde AG, Wiesbaden, in association with
Linde BRV Biowaste Technologies AG and, following the acquisition of the technologies and
experience of the "Mechanical-Biological Waste Systems" product line of Austrian Energy &
Environment, has become a leader in the field of mechanical-biological waste treatment. We have so
far completed a number of digestion and biogas plants as well as treatment and composting plants for
various types of waste.
We plan and build plants for the following types of waste:
Biowaste from separate collection systems, Residual waste, Mixed waste/household waste,
Household-type industrial waste Kitchen waste Differing types of biogenic waste from commerce and
industry Market waste Garden and vegetable waste Animal manure Sewage sludge
Wet Digestion
Single-stage and two-stage wet digestion processes can be run in thermophilic or mesophilic mode
depending on the type of input material. They are designed to produce biogas at high yield rates. Their
characteristic features are an automatic separation of contaminants in the wet preparation stage
(pulper, drum screen) and safe waste handling in closed systems. The characteristic feature of our
technology is the digestion reactor with gas recirculation using a centrally located recirculation tube.
Digestion residues from wet digestion plants like these have a very low contaminant content and can
be used for the production of high-grade composts.
One preferred application of the wet digestion process is the co-digestion of biowaste and sewage
sludge and/or agricultural waste (manure).
Dry digestion
Dry digestion is a thermophilic or mesophilic process using horizontal plug flow reactors with a
rectangular cross-section.
The digestor is normally provided with an upstream aerobic pre-treatment for hydrolysis and
systematic acidification. The reactor is designed for handling waste with total solid concentrations of
15 % to 45 % TS in the digestion substrate.
This process can handle most types of waste, such as green waste, biowaste or commercial waste, but
is particularly suitable for the treatment of waste rich in solids (high TS content) such as residual or
mixed waste.
Contact Details
Linde Process Technologies India Private Limited

Nutan Bharat Society, Alkapuri
Baroda-390 005, Gujarat
Tel: 0265-336319, 336196/
Fax: 0265-335213
Developer:
Linde-KCA-Dresden GmbH
Postfach 210353
D-01265 Dresden
Germany
Tel: +49 3 51 45 600
Fax: +49 3 51 45 60 202
9.A.1.6 TBW-biocomp Process
Developer: TBW, Germany
Indian Counter Part: Mailhem Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Pune
Description:
Organic waste is fed through a wheel loader into the rotary screen at the receiving station, separating
the flow of material into a coarse fraction comprising shrubbery trimmings and the like and a fine
fraction made up of vegetable peelings, etc. The separated coarse fraction is forwarded to the
composting plant. On separate conveyors, the different fractions are run through a magnetic separator
that removes any iron-containing particles. The vibration unit uniformly distributes the flow of
material onto the downstream sorting belt. Parallel belts carry the material to the enclosed sorting
platform, which is also connected to the biofan by a space ventilation system at this point, any
remaining troublesome material, e.g. plastic, is sorted out. This combination of different techniques
makes it possible to achieve a high level of seperation efficiency. After sorting, the fine fraction is
sent to the pulper for mixing with liquid separated.
Batches of prepared fine fraction are pumped out of the feed tank into the first-stage fermenter
(reactor), where a process temperature of 35°C is maintained, special propeller-type agitators keep the
slurry homogeneous. It takes approximately two weeks for she slurry to pass through the first reactor
from top to bottom, with stirring at each level. Then, by way of the reactor's bottom drain, the active
sludge proceeds on to the second reactor, which it enters from the bottom. An ingenious substrate
control setup enables separation of any fines that have been released by the decomposition of organic
substances in the interest of optimal decontamination/disinfection in combination with high rates of
digestion, a temperature of about 55°C is maintained in the second reactor. Again, it takes
approximately two weeks for the slurry to pass through the reactor, this time from bottom to top at the
end of those two weeks, at least 60% of the substrate's original organic content will have been
converted into biogas. The reactors are equipped with flexible gas-collecting membranes that serve as
quasi pressureless interim gas storage spaces. The batches of digested sludge are press-dewatered with
the liquid returning to the process via the separator and the filter cake being mixed with mature crude
compost for subsequent compostation
The reactors continuously produce a combustible mixture of raw gases that have to be cleaned and
dried before they can be converted into electricity and heat. A biocatalytic process reduces the
hydrogen sulfide from gas. Electricity and heat are generated from the biogas in cogenerating modules
that consist chiefly of a water cooled, diesel-type aspirating engine, an induction generator and an
exhaust heat exchanger. The module efficiency is in excess of 90%. A biogas-fueled combined-cycle
module extracts roughly 1.5 kWh (el) and 3 kWh(therm) energy from each cubic meter of biogas. The
specific emissions are even lower than those produced by a comparable internal combustion engine
equipped with an oxygen sensor emission control system (three-way catalytic converter). The thermal
energy yield covers the plant's heating and hot water requirements. The combined anaerobic/aerobic
process supplies the energy required for the composting process- some 50 - 100 kWh per ton of
organic waste - and has enough left over to feed the public power grid
Mailhem Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,

14, Vishrambag Society,
Senapati Bapat Road
Pune 411 016
Tel: +91 20 400 2285
Tel. Fax: +91 20 400 2286
Developer:
TBW
Baumweg 10
d-60316 Frankfurt
Germany
Tel: +49 699 43 5070
Fax: +49 699 43 0711
9.A.1.7 Kompogas Process
Developer: Kompogas – Switzerland
Indian Counter Part: Greentech Environmental Systems
Description:
All conventional processes for disposing of organic waste such as landfills, incineration or
composting have their drawbacks. On the other hand, utilising them with the aid of Kompogas offers
numerous advantages. Thus, the end products obtained are compost to VKS guidelines, CO2 neutral
fuel, gas, electric power and heat.
To produce energy from yard and kitchen waste, the organic waste is first freed of foreign matter and
then fed to the fermenter. In the entirely enclosed reactor operating according to the anaerobic
principle (with absence of oxygen), microorganisms transform the organic substance present in the
material into compost and biogas. The thermophile fermentation process takes place at a temperature
of 55 to 60 degrees Celsius and lasts for 15 to 20 days. During this time, undesirable germs and weed
seeds are reliably eliminated.
Today's Kompogas plants recycle the biogenous waste supplied day in, day out while optimally
utilising the energy it contains. The biogas produced during the degradation process is converted into
electrical and thermal energy, ensuring self-sufficient operation and generating considerable surplus
energy. The biogas may be upgraded to natural gas standards for fuelling cars and/or for being fed
into the natural gas network. From one metric tonne of organic waste, 130 cubic metres of biogas are
extracted, corresponding to about 70 litres of petrol (gasoline). Kompogas (biogas), which can be used
as a fuel for vehicles or for co-generation units in order to generate electric power, is today considered
to be one of the most environmentally friendly, CO2-neutral sources of energy available to a broad
segment of the population.
The high-quality, hygienic compost is used by private individuals, in agriculture and in gardening.
Kompogas compost and the liquid fertiliser are valuable, natural fertilisers (certified for organic
agriculture), which allow impressive harvest results to be achieved.
In addition to its high specific gas yield, this process is mainly characterised by its high operating and
process reliability, thanks to the experience gained to date. The new modular plant design reduces the
capital cost requirement. A large part of the plant construction work can be done by local companies.
Ensures ecological utilisation of biogenous waste closes the materials cycle (compost and liquid
fertiliser). Generates considerable amount of CO2 neutral energy satisfies hygienic requirements.
Proven process - numerous Kompogas plants in operation around the world.
Asit Nema
Greentech Environmental Systems
F-200, Sarita Vihar
New Delhi 110 044
Telefax : 91 11 695 40 84
e-mail : greentech@mantraonline.com
Developer:
Kompogas AG
Rohrstrasse 36
CH-8152 Glattburgg
Switzerland
Tel: +41 1 809 71 33
Fax: +41 1 809 71 10
Web: www.kompogas.ch
List of Technology Providers in India
Sr. No. Technology Provider

1. Director
National Environmental Energy Research Instt.
Nehru Marg, Nagpur – 400 020
Ph. 0712-223893, 222725
Fax: 0712-222725
2. Dr. Ramesh Daryapurkar

Dy. General Manager
Lars Enviro Pvt. Ltd.
218, Balaji Nagar
S.A. Road
Nagpur – 440010
Tel : 91-0712-233775 / 224130
Fax : 91-0712-235567 / 224140
3. GENL
Ashirwad, 29/B, Lokmanya Colony
Survey No 89/90, Kathra
Pune – 411038
Tel : 91-95212-364730
Internet : genlt@giaspn.01.vsnl.net.in
4. Hydroair Tectonics (PCD) Pvt., Ltd.,

116 Raheja Arcade, Sector 11,
Plot No 61, Belapur
Navi Mumbai 400 614
Tel: +91-22-756 4347
Tele Fax: +91-22-756 4364
E-Mail: hydroenviro@vsnl.net
Web: www.hydroair.com
5. Linde Process Technologies India Private Limited

Nutan Bharat Society, Alkapuri
Baroda-390 005, Gujarat
Tel: 0265-336319, 336196/
Fax: 0265-335213
6. Lt. Col. Suresh Rege (Retd.)
Mailhem Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,
14, Vishrambag Society,
Senapati Bapat Road
Pune 411 016
Tel: +91 20 400 2285
Tel. Fax: +91 20 400 2286
7. Mr. Anand Kothaneth

Vice President
Batliboi Environmental Engg. Ltd.
99/2, 99/3, N.R. Road
Bangalore – 560002
Tel : 91-080-2235061, 2, 3

Fax : 91-080-2235085
8. Mr. Asit Nema

Greentech Environmental Systems
F-200, Sarita Vihar
New Delhi 110 044
Telefax : 91 11 695 40 84
e-mail : greentech@mantraonline.com
9. Mr. Bimal Dhar

Sr. Manager – Business Development
Utility Powertech Limited
S-168 Greater Kailash Part I
New Delhi – 110048
Tel : 91-011-6281667 / 1670 / 6293363
Fax : 91-011-6489518
10. Mr. K.S. Shivaprasad

Director (Technical)
Zen Global Resources & Energy Ltd.
1, Sriram Nagar, South Street
Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018
Ph. 044-4994059, 4996946
Fax: 044-4996811
11. Mr. Mukesh Grover

General Manager – Process and Business Development
Degremount India Ltd.
Water and the Environment
SCO-4, Sector – 14
Gurgaon – 122 001
Ph. 124-305549, 305564
Fax:305551
Email:dgtind@del2.vsnl.net.in
12. Mr. N. D. Chhabria

Nestler EcoTec Pvt. Ltd.,
30 Sadhna, 4th Floor, Nowroji Gamadia Road
Mumbai-400026
Tel: +91-22-282 5846
Fax: +91-22-367 6053
E-Mail: nanduch@bom5.vsnl.net.in
13. Mr. Naresh Verma

Vice President (MKTG)
UEM India Limited
D-19 Kalkaji
New Delhi – 110019
Tel : 91-011-6421634 / 6447825 / 6239718
Fax : 91-011-6239801

14. Mr. P. Sumbramani
Director
Enkem Engg. Pvt. Ltd.
824, Poonamallee High Road,
Kilpauk (Near KMC)
Chennai 600 010
Tel : 6411 362, 6428 992
Fax : 6411788
E-mail : enkem99@md3.vsnl.net.in, enkem2000@vsnl.net
15. Mr. R.D. Mehta

Gen. Manager (Business Div.)
Paramount Pollution Control Ltd.
Paramount Complex
Gotri Road, Race Course
Baroda – 390 007
Ph. 0265 – 336111, 6183647
Fax : 6186369
16. Mr. Tony David

Marketing Officer
Western Bio-Systems Ltd.
65/1-A, Akarshak, 2nd Floor
Opp. Nal Stop, Karve Road
Pune – 411 004.
Ph. 0212-349159, 332345
Fax: 0212-348321
17. Mr. V. Nandakumar

Customer Service Division
Hindustan Dorr Oliver Ltd.,
Dorr-Oliver House
121 Rukmini Lakshmmipathy Road
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008
Tel : 8554183 – 82, 8555
Fax : 85553728
18. Prashant Sahu (Managing Director)

Cicon Environment Technologies Ltd.
Plot 61-B, Kasturba Nagar,
Bhopal 462 024
Tel: 91-755-789446, 280 499, 273 609
Fax: 91-755-582331
e-mail : prashantsahu@cicongroup.com
ciconprs@bom6.vsnl.net.in
19. Quantum Tech LL.C.

127 Satyam Estate
163/164 Erandwane
Pune – 411 038
Ph. 0212-360076/362847

20. Reva Enviro System Pvt. Ltd.
9, Sunderlal Rai Path,
Ramdaspeth,
Nagpur - 440 010
Maharashtra
Tel No : 91 - 0712 - 544817 / 544818
Fax No. : 91- 0712 – 544813
E-Mail : info@revaenviro.com
21. The Director

Envirod Projects Pvt. Ltd.,
Avadhpuri Road
6, Lakhanpur
Kanpur – 208024
Tel : 91-0512-580208 / 580061 / 583226
Fax : 91-0512-582532
9.A.2 Technologies without Indian Collaborators
9.A.2.1 High solids Anaerobic Digestion
Developer: NREL, U.S. Department of energy, Licensee Alpha-Gamma Developed by Dr.

Christopher Rivard currently with PINNACLE
Description:
High-Solids Anaerobic Digestion (HSAD) technology is a microbial bioconversion process that

recycles organic solid waste into fuel gas and a nitrogen-enriched compost. The process can be
applied to many different wastes, agricultural waste, sewage and industrial sludge, green waste, and
municipal waste. Wastes may be treated separately or combined to achieve waste treatment flexibility
and economy of scale.
The continuous HSAD process can be readily integrated into existing industrial plants and municipal
solid waste sorting facilities. HSAD is an application of a proven conventional low-solids anaerobic
digestion system. In the anaerobic digestion, bacterial and fungal actions convert organic materials in
the liquid waste to biomass and biogas. Anaerobic digestion reduces the organic content of the
wastewater to levels that can safely be released back to the environment.
The HSAD system applies this same technology to create a new “high-solids” process that can
successfully utilize solid organic waste feedstocks. The solid phase fermentation reduces the required
equipment volumes and associated capital and operating costs, while the bioreactor’s volumetric
productivity is significantly increased. Conventional anaerobic digestion feedstock typically contains
1-2% solids. In contrast, HSAD feedstocks are up to 50% solids.
The key element of the HSAD process is a proprietary closed-system design developed through
NREL sponsorship. This system utilizes equipment modified from the chemical processing industry to
prepare organic solid wastes and load the HSAD bioreactor. Inside the bioreactor, a unique
consortium of thermophilic microorganisms converts the organic carbon into cell mass and biogas.
Therefore it is also described as “Anaerobic Composting”.
The biogas produced is captured and converted to electricity or steam and heat. The effluent from the
bioreactor produces two products: a moist, compost material and liquid fertilizer.
Even though, The HSAD process is specifically designed to recycle solid organic waste, but it easily
processes combinations of solid and liquid, municipal or industrial wastes. Blends of rapidly
degrading feedstocks, such as fats, oils, and grease, and slower degrading materials including paper
and yard waste, make superior feedstocks. Blended feedstocks provide consistency of composition
with improved process control and higher conversion rates.
This is a closed odorless system that recycles up to 90 % of the organic carbon in the solid organic
waste material into biogas. The process reduces the volume of the solid feedstock by as much as 70%,
the resultant is marketable compost.
Projects/ Demonstrations:
Pinnacle Biotechnologies International, Inc. is currently operating a Pilot Demonstration Unit (PDU)
of the High Solids Anaerobic Digestion process in Stanton, California. This demonstration facility
digests 3 ton per day of municipal solid waste (MSW) and food processing waste to methane and
compost.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Blvd
Golden,
CO 80401-3393
Tel: +1-303-275-3000
PINNACLE Biotechnologies
6559 Jungfrau Way
Evergreen, CO 80439
Tel: +1-303-674-3236
Fax: +1-303-674-0006
9.A.2.2 CBI Walker/Enning ESD™ System
Developer: CBI Walker Inc.
Description:
The CBI Walker/Enning ESD™ System was developed by CBI Walker, Inc., a subsidiary of Chicago
Bridge and Iron Company. The key to the ESD system is the blending of the optimum egg-shaped
vessel with effective and efficient liquid mixing to enhance digester performances.
The double curvature shape, reduced top liquid surface area, and liquid mixing of egg-shaped
digesters eliminate scum and grit build-ups, dead zones, and the need to take the digesters out of
service for cleaning. This contrasts with conventional digesters, which even with the use of mixing
systems, must be periodically cleaned.
The ESD system provides the full design volume, and hydraulic residence time (HRT), throughout the
facility design life. The full HRT is realized because the ESD digester does not have scum and grit
build-ups or dead zones.
Gas tight vessel design reduces the potential for odors associated with anaerobic digestion. Biogas
collects in the top cylinder and flows directly to gas storage and utilization equipment. Pumped liquid
mixing eliminates foaming problems predominant in gas mixing systems. Additionally, operating
costs are lower, since the pump works only against losses in the piping system.
There are two liquid mixing systems developed by CBI Walker:
• CBI Walker/Enning System

• Jet Pump System
CBI Walker/Enning System

CBI Walker/Enning System follows traditional, proven German practice. This system utilizes a
mechanical mixer with draft tube assembly for the main mixing mode, and an exterior re-circulation
pump and heat exchanger to maintain the digester at the most efficient temperature range (95 ºF-100 º
F ). This re-circulating stream is also used to maintain the walls of the vessel free of sludge
accumulation.
Jet Pump System

The Jet Pump mixing system utilizes a jet pump with draft tube assembly and external heat exchanger
to mix and heat the vessel. The size, location, and number of jet nozzles is dependent on the size of
the vessel and characteristics of the raw sludge. The main advantages of this system are lower mixing
energy requirements and no moving parts inside the digester. {(13) internal ref. 26 }
Lincoln, Nebraska, USA ESD facility

San Francisco, California, USA ESD facility
St. Charles, Illinois, USA ESD facility
CBI Walker, Inc.

1245 Corporate Blvd.
Aurora, IL 60504
USA
Tel: +1-708-851-7500
Fax: +1-7-8-851-9392
E-Mail: bsteimle@chicagobridge.com (media inquiry)
Web: www.cbi-nv.com
9.A.2.3 BTA Process
Developer: BTA - Germany
Description:
BTA GmbH & Co. KG has developed and continuously improved the BTA-Process since 1984, is
holding various patents and is worldwide realising BTA-Plants resp. parts thereof together with its
licensees and co-operation partners. Then BTA mainly is acting as know-how provider. In the scope
of realisation of individual BTA-Plants or parts thereof BTA additionally undertakes engineering
work and further tasks in the area of plant construction. (Those further performances are following
explained in relation to singular realised BTA-Plants resp. parts thereof).
BTA Biotechnische Abfallverwertung GmbH & Co. KG was formed in Munich in 1984. The
objective was the further development of the then unknown "BTA Process" and its introduction in the
market.
This process was a new combination of wet pre-treatment and anaerobic digestion for the utilization
of the organic fraction and therefore the largest single portion of the waste stream from domestic,
commercial and agricultural sources. Furthermore, the process is able to treat the residual waste in
order to minimize the volume of and the hazards posed by a residual repository. The process was
initially developed in the Pilot-plant in Garching and following a great number of tests were realized
there to gain experiences with various kinds of waste and to adjust the technology for the treatment of
the different waste streams.
By means of the wet pre-treatment non-biodegradable components of the waste are efficiently
removed and a homogenous pulp is produced. In the following digestion system the degradable
organics are anaerobically digested producing biogas and anaerobic compost. Besides the production
of high quality compost the BTA-Process is producing enough biogas to cover the energy demand of
the plant itself and in addition to feed a surplus yield into the public energy net. Thus, the larger
portion of the organic waste is used as a source of renewable energy and by the CO2-neutral
production of biogas an important contribution to the conservation of the world climate is made.
The BTA-Process was developed to transform biowaste (OFMSW organic fraction of municipal solid
waste) from households, commercial and agricultural waste into high-grade biogas and valuable
compost.
For example the following feedstock can be used:
• Organic components of municipal solid waste (mixed waste)

• Source separated organic waste from households (e.g. kitchen leftovers)
• Food waste from restaurants, canteens and markets
• Waste from food processing industries
• Waste from slaughterhouses (e.g. rumen content)
• Waste from agriculture (e.g. manure)
• Sewage sludge as well as the rake fraction from sewage plants
• Residual waste - environmental aware deposition of residual waste requires reducing the
organic portion of the waste so that no further chemical or biological reaction is likely to
occur in the landfill. This can be achieved by using the BTA-Process.
Results:
• Substantial waste volume reduction

• Environmentally benign treatment of waste
• Maximum energy recovery
• Reduction of CO2-emissions
• Production of high grade compost
The process consists of two major steps: Mechanical wet pre-treatment and biological conversion.
In the waste-pulper the feedstock is mixed with recirculated process water. Contaminants like plastics,
textiles, stones and metals are separated effectively and gently without any handsorting by means of a
rake and a heavy fraction trap. From the contained organics a thick pumpable suspension (pulp) is
produced which can be easily handled and digested.
An optional but essential further component of the process is the grit removal system which separates
the still remaining finest matter like sand, little stones and glass splinters by passing the pulp through
a hydrocyclone. Thus the plant is protected against increasing abrasion.
According to the plant capacity and the kind of energy- and compost utilization various concepts of
the biological step can be offered:
First the so-called one-stage digestion, fermenting the produced pulp within one single step in one
mixed fermentation reactor. This concept enables to use the BTA technology even for comparatively
small decentralized waste management units. Existing digestors (i.e. on a sewage plant or agricultural
biogas plants) can be used which results in an essential reduction of invest- and operating costs.
For plants with a capacity of more than 50,000 t/a the multi-stage digestion was developed, separating
the pulp in a solid mass and a liquid phase by using a dewatering aggregate. The liquid, already
containing dissolved organic components, is directly pumped into a methane reactor remaining there
for a methanisation of 2 days. The dewatered solid material, still containing undissolved organic
components,
is once more mixed up with water and fed into a hydrolysis reactor. After 4 days the mass is
dewatered again and then the liquid is filled into the methane reactor.
By distributing the degradation process on different reactors (acidification, hydrolysis and

methanisation) optimal growth conditions for all groups of micro organisms can be adjusted. This
allows a rapid and extended degradation of the organics resulting in a high yield of biogas. Within
only a few days 60-80% of the organic substance are converted into biogas.
As a further variation for plants with medium capacity the two-stage digestion is available: basing on
the multi-stage concept but without a solid/liquid separation. The pulp is fed into a mixed hydrolysis
reactor which is following connected with an also completely mixed fermentation reactor. To enable
optimal hydrolysis conditions a part of the fermentation reactor content is fed back into the hydrolysis
reactor.
In case of plant extension, the completion of a stage is possible without any problems. For the
treatment of food waste an additional sanitation step will be integrated. The water demand of all
process variations is met by recirculating the water which is contained in the waste. Excess water is
led into a sewage plant.
So in all, a plant designed according to the BTA-Process and/or operating with BTA-Pre-treatment or
parts thereof represents a technology with a high flexibility allowing an adaptation to the specific
needs of each client and to fit the specific conditions of each single case.
Products
Products of the process are biogas and compost.
The biogas consists of 60-65% methane. Due to its high heating value the gas is a valuable source of
energy with a large scope of application. The biogas production is far surpassing the energy demand
of the plant itself. Converted into electricity and heat the surplus can be fed into a public network.
After a short aerobical treatment (1-3 weeks) the anaerobic compost is plant compatible. The stable
crumbly structure improving root growth and aeration is superior to peat and yard waste compost.
Due to its structure, the high percentage of organic substance, its low heavy metal and salt content as
well as its good balance of nutrients BTA compost has a large range of agricultural and horticultural
application.
BTA Biotechnische Abfallverwertung GmbH & Co KG

Rottmannstrasse 18
D-80333 Munchen
Germany
Tel: +49 89 520 460-6
Fax: +49 89 523 23 29
Web: www.bta-technologie.de
9.A.2.4 Valorga Process
Developer: Steinmuller Valorga, France
Description:
The Valorga process was designed to treat organic solid waste. It is thus adapted to the treatment of
mixed municipal solid waste, source sorted household waste (biowaste), organic residual fraction after
biowaste collection (grey waste).
An installation for treatment of organic waste according to the Valorga process is made up of a unit
for the reception and the preparation of waste, an anaerobic digestion unit, a compost production unit,
a biogas utilisation unit, an air treatment unit and optional, an excess-water treatment unit.
The reception and preparation unit is made up of a bascule bridge to weight the collection lorries upon
arrival in the factory. The weighed waste enters into a closed pit situated in the reception hall or a
closed unloading hall with a foul air extraction system. the preparation unit includes calibration, bag-
opening and size reduction designed according to the waste to be treated. The shredded waste is
finally conveyed through conveyors and hopper in order to bring the product to the anaerobic
digestion unit. In the case of mixed waste or gray waste treatment the sorting unit is adapted to the
composition of the waste to be treated. Steinmüller Valorga can join forces with other industrial
partner and sorting unit equipment suppliers in order to meet the requirements of waste sorting.
The anaerobic digestion begins with dilution and mixing of the waste in the form of a thick sludge,
with a high dry matter content (20% to 35% depending on the type of waste), giving a reduction in the
volumes of fermentation. Heating is provided by steam injection. The mixture is introduced at the
bottom of the reactor with a piston pump. The digestion itself that takes place in fermenters under
anaerobic conditions. The temperature can be in the mesophilic range (± 40°C) or thermophilic range
(± 55°C). The Valorga fermenter is a vertical cylindrical digester with a plug-flow transfer of the
matter. The digester has a vertical median inner wall on around 2/3 of its diameter. The introduction
and extraction orifices are at the base of the fermenter on either side of this inner wall. The inner wall
forces fermenting matter to follow a circular movement in order to go around it, so that waste may
only be extracted after having covered the whole surface of the digester. This specialised geometry,
along with a limited level of recycling for fermented matter, guarantees that waste will spend a
minimum of around 3 weeks in the fermenter. This aspect is vital for a perfect hygienisation of
compost. To insure an optimal level of degradation in the digester, the matter should be
homogenised. The particularity of the fermenting matter is that it is abrasive as it contains fine inert
particles. Any mechanical system built to mix such matter would suffer great wear and tear. Valorga's
patented mixing system is pneumatic: biogas is injected through injectors into the base of the reactor
under pressure. A great advantage of this mixing system is that no mechanical mixing equipment is
used in the fermenter, which would necessitate opening and maintenance of the digester, thus putting
it out of action. The biogas used for the mixing turns in a closed circuit The compression of biogas is
made by a two level compressor (8 bar pressure). The gravity extraction and the pressing of the
digested matter: the digested product taken out of the digester then undergoes a mechanical pressing
process, resulting in a solid fraction and a liquid sludge The sludge treatment in order to separate the
suspended solids. A part of the clarified process water is used for dilution of the incoming waste. The
remaining part is either discharged into the sewage network or transferred to the excess water
treatment unit. The solid fractions are transferred to the aerobic post-treatment unit.
This unit is designed to produce a high quality organic amendment from the matter extracted from the
digesters. It involves the maturation and drying of the digested matter in a closed building under
depression, where the product is stored during at least 2 weeks and eventually removed and aerated.
This aerated compost is refined further and packed and sold.
Steinmuller Valorga Sarl

Claude Saint-Joly
1300 avenue Albert Einstein
Immeyble Strategie Concept
Parc du Millenarie – BP 51
F-34935 Montpellier Cedex 09
France
Tel: +33 4 67 994 100
Fax: +33 4 37 994 101
Web: www.steinmuller-valorga.fr
9.A.2.5 PFMSW Methanization - WAASA® Process
Developer: Alcyon Engineering S.A., Switzerland
Description:
In landfills the degradation of organic matter takes many decades, with biogas emitted into the
atmosphere, usually without any energy recovery. In a WAASA® plant the same process takes only
two weeks and the biogas is utilized as fuel for energy production.
The other by-product, the humus, is fully stabilized, and suitable for use in landscaping and
environmentally remedial works. Humus produced from source-sorted MSW is also suitable for use
in agriculture and in horticulture.
Prior to the methanzation, a patented feed preparation vessel, the MixSeparator™, removes plastics,
cork, etc. and solid impurities, like glass, ceramics, sand, gravel etc.
The heart of the WAASA® process is the patented digester, called TwinReactor™, which operates in
the thermophilic temperature range (550C). The process can also be applied in the mesophilic
temperature range (350C). The choice between the two types of operation will depend solely on
economical considerations.
A WAASA® plant normally consists of one or more parallel processing lines. The digesters are
stationary and installed upright. The size of one reactor can go up to 3,000 m3. This will handle the
waste generated by a population of approximately 200,000 people. For larger waste quantities two or
more parallel reactors are required.
Depending on the size, the digesters are made either of steel or of reinforced concrete. The reactors
can also be built inside bedrock.
The degrading of organic matter takes place in the digesters where methanogenic bacteria convert
organic substances into biogas and humus matter. The retention time of material in the process is 15-
20 days. The bioreactor substrate is effectively mixed by means of a bubble column created by the
circulated biogas and by mechanical devices.
For the mesophilic process the digested slurry is pasteurized in order to ensure hygienic safety. The
pasteurization takes place is closed vessels, in which the slurry is kept at a temperature of 700C for 3o
minutes. For the thermophilic process pasteurization is not necessary.
After pasteurization the slurry is mechanically dried to a total solid content down to 25% to 35%. At
a later stage, storing properties, aesthetic appearance, and usability of humus can be improved by
post-aeration and by screening.
The humus by-product is fully processed and stabilized and is thus suitable for landscaping, gardening
and agriculture.
Combining methanization and composting processes on the same site could provide many advantages:
• Methanization will treat wet waste, e.g. the putrescent fraction of the municipal solid waste,
wet garden trimmings, etc.
• Composting will treat dry waste, e.g. ligneous biomass waste, bark residues etc.
Key Benefits
• Green waste management improved, no anaerobic digestion during composting, no compost

compaction, better compost aeration
• Lower composting station, operational costs
• No local nuisance (no order, no leachates)
• Methanization/composting equipment optimization
• Complementary technologies: methanization excess water will be used for compost watering.
After methanization, humus needs 10 days for maturation. It will be mixed to the compost
flow. This improves the quality of the compost, resulting in improved fertilizer quality (better
C/N Ratio).
Contact Details
Alcyon Engineering S.A.

15, AV. Des Baumettes
CH-10202 RENES (Switzerland)
Tel : + 41 21 637 37 37
Fax: + 41 21 637 37 30
Email : desk@alcyon .ch
List of International Technology Providers
Sr. Technology Provider

No.
1. AAT GmbH
Kelhofstraße 12
A-6922 Wolfurt
AUSTRIA
Tel: 43 5574 65190
Fax: 43 5574 65185
e-mail: aat.wolfurt@eunet.at
http://www.austria.org.tw/English/AAT.htm
2. AD Technology, Ltd.
Chris Reynell
Windover Farm, Longstock Stockbridge
Hampshire SO20 6DJ
UNITED KINGDOM
Tel: 44 1264 810 569
Fax: 44 1264 810 131
3. ADI Systems, Inc.

Suite 300
1133 Regent Street
Fredricton, New Brunswick
CANADA
Tel: 1 506 452 7307
Fax: 1 506 452 7308
e-mail: adigroup@adi.ca
http://www.adi.ca/
4. Alcyon Engineering S.A.
15, AV. Des Baumettes
CH-10202 RENES (Switzerland)
Tel : + 41 21 637 37 37
Fax: + 41 21 637 37 30
Email : desk@alcyon .ch
5. ANM
AN Machinenbau und Umwelttschutzanlagen
Waterbergstraße 11
D-28237 Bremen
GERMANY
Tel: 49 421 694 580
Fax: 49 421 642 283
6. Arge Biogas
Walter Graf
Blindergaße 4/10-11
A-1080 Vienna
AUSTRIA
43 14 064 579

No.
7. Bio Recycling Technologies Inc
Jim Hamamoto
6101 Cherry Avenue
Fontana, CA 92336
USA
Tel : 1 909 899 2982
Fax : 1 909 899 9519
8. Biocel/Heidemij Realisatie BV
Wilem Elsinga
Postbox 139
NL-6800 AC Amhem
THE NETHERLANDS
Tel: 31 26 377 8304
Fax: 31 26 442 6984
9. Bioplan A/S
Livørvej 21
DK-8800 Viborg
DENMARK
Tel: 45 86 613 833
Fax: 45 86 626 836
e-mail: info@bioplan.dk
http://www.bioplan.dk/
10. Bioscan A/S
Poul Ejnar Rasmussen
Ørbækvej 101, PO Box 426
DK-5220 Odense SØ
DENMARK
Tel: 45 66 157 071
Fax: 45 66 157 771
e-mail: bioscan@bioscan.dk
http://www.bioscan.dk/
11. BKS Nordic AB
PO Box 6035
Fabriksgaten
S-781 06 Borlänge
SWEDEN
Tel: 46 243 370 38
Fax: 46 243 375 73
12. BRV Technologies Systeme GmbH
Westfalenstraße 208
D-48165 Münster
GERMANY
Tel: 49 250 129 106
Fax: 49 250 129 108
13. BTA Biotechnische Abfallverwertung GmbH & Co KG

Rottmannstrasse 18
D-80333 Munchen
Germany
Tel: +49 89 520 460-6
Fax: +49 89 523 23 29, Web:www.bta-technologie.de

No.
14. BWSC
Burnmeister & Wain Scandanavian Contractors A/S
Erik Breiner Kristensen
Gydevang 35, Box 235
DK-3450 Allerød
DENMARK
Tel: 45 48 140 022
Fax: 45 48 140 150
15. C.G. Jenson
Stenvej 21
DK-8270 Højbjerg
DENMARK
Tel: 45 86 273 499
Fax: 45 86 273 677
16. Carl Bro Environmental A/S
Bent Raben
Granskoven 8
DK-2600 Glostrup
DENMARK
Tel: 45 43 486 060
Fax: 45 43 964 414
e-mail: cbg@carlbro.dk
http://www.carlbro.dk/
17. CBI Walker, Inc.
1245 Corporate Blvd.
Aurora, IL 60504
USA
Tel: +1-708-851-7500
Fax: +1-7-8-851-9392
E-Mail: bsteimle@chicagobridge.com (media inquiry)
Web: www.cbi-nv.com
18. CiTEC International Ltd Oy

Rune Westergård
PO Box 109
SF-65101 Vaasa
FINLAND
Tel: 358 6 324 0700
Fax: 358 6 324 0800
e-mail: rwe@citec.fi
http://www.citec.fi/
19. Dobbie & Co Ltd
John Winders
42 The Green, Ewell
Surrey KT17 3JJ
UNITED KINGDOM
Tel: 44 181 393 3192

No.
20. Dranco Organic Waste Systems
Winfried Six
Dok Noord 4
B-9000 Gent
BELGIUM
Tel: 32 9 2330 204
Fax: 32 9 2332 825
http://www.ows.be/
21. DSD Gas und Tankanlagenbau GmbH
Lars Klinkmüller
Pablo Picasso Straße 45
D-13057 Berlin
GERMANY
Tel: 49 30 929 010
Fax: 49 30 929 0114
22. Duke Engineering & Services
Harold Backman
PO Box 1004
Charlotte, NC 28201-1004
USA
Tel: 1 704 382 8570
Fax: 1 704 382 3105
http://www.dukeengineering.com/
23. Eco-Tec
Eco-Technology JVV OY
Terho Jaatinen
Valkärventie 2
SF-02130 Espoo
FINLAND
Tel: 358 9 4357 7477
Fax: 358 9 4357 7488
24. Entech Umwelttechnik GmbH
Shilfweg 1
A-6972 Fussach
AUSTRIA
Tel: 43 5578 7946
Fax: 43 5578 73638
e-mail: entec@roundtech.vol.at
http://www.austria.org.tw/English/Entec.htm
25. Enviro-Control Ltd
Paul Stafford
26 Forsythia Drive, Greenways, Cyncoed
Cardiff CF2 71 1P
UNITED KINGDOM
Tel: 44 1222 734 738
Fax: 44 1222 549 909

No.
26. Ferm Tech, Inc.
Dirk Quartemont
Gretelweg 2
D-53819 Neunkirchen
GERMANY
Tel: 49 2247 89 789
Fax: 49 2247 89 694
27. Haase Energietechnik GmbH
Oliver Martens
Gadelanderstraße 172
D-22531 Neumünster
GERMANY
Tel: 49 4321 8780
Fax: 49 4321 87829
e-mail: info@haase-energietechnik.de
http://www.haase-energietechnik.de/
28. HGC
Hamburg Gas Consult
Guido Gummert
Heidenkampsweg 101
D-20097 Hamburg
GERMANY
Tel: 49 40 235 33 0
Fax: 49 40 235 333 730
29. IMK BEG Bioenergie GmbH
Konrad Adenauerstraße 9-13
D-45699 Herning
GERMANY
Tel: 49 2366 305 262
Fax: 49 2366 305 230
30. Ionics Italba, SpA
Via G. Livraghi /B
I-20126 Milano MI
ITALY
Tel: 39 226 000 426, Fax: 39 227 079 291
31. Jysk Biogas A/S
Kjeld Johansen
Haals Bygade 15
DK-9260 Gistrup
DENMARK
Tel: 45 98 333 234
Fax: 45 98 678 711
32. Kompogas AG
Rohrstrasse 36
CH-8152 Glattburgg
Switzerland
Tel: +41 1 809 71 33
Fax: +41 1 809 71 10
Web: www.kompogas.ch

No.
33. Krüger A/S
Karsten Buchhave
Klamsagervej 2-4
DK-8230 Åbyhøj
DENMARK
Tel: 45 8746 3300
Fax: 45 8746 3420
http://www.kruger.dk/
34. Larsen Engineers
S. Ram Shrivastava
700 West Metro Park
Rochester, New York 14623-2678
USA
Tel: 716 272 7310
Fax: 716 272 0159
35. Linde-KCA-Dresden GmbH
Dr. Helmut Hubert
Postfach 120184
D-01003 Dresden
GERMANY
Tel: 49 351 456 0207
Fax: 49 351 456 0272
36. Maltin Pollution Control Systems Ltd
Chris Maltin
Gould’s House, Horsington
Somerset BA8 0EW
UNITED KINGDOM
Tel: 44 1963 370 100
Fax: 44 1963 371 300
37. Motherwell Bridge Envirotech Ltd
PO Box 4, Logans Road
Motherwell ML1 3NP
UNITED KINGDOM
Tel: 44 1698 266 111
Fax: 44 1698 269 774
38. National Renewable Energy Laboratory
1617 Cole Blvd
Golden,
CO 80401-3393
Tel: +1-303-275-3000
39. NNR
Nellemann, Nielsen & Rauschenberger A/S
Lars Baadstorp
V. Kongevej 4-6
DK-8260 Vibe J
DENMARK
Tel: 45 86 147 111
Fax: 45 86 140 088

No.
40. NSR
Nordvästra Skånes Renhållnings AB
Dag Lewis-Jonsson
S-251 89 Helsingborg
SWEDEN
Tel: 46 42 107 570
Fax: 46 42 107 793
41. Paques Solid Waste Systems BV
Marten Bennen
Postbox 52
NL-8560 AB Balk
THE NETHERLANDS
Tel: 31 514 60 8500
Fax: 31 514 60 3342
e-mail: info@paques.nl
http://www.paques.nl/default.htm
42. Pinnacle Biotechnologies International, Inc.
Brian Duff
6559 Jungfrau Way
Evergreen, CO 80439
USA
Tel: 303 674 3236
Fax: 303 674 0006
e-mail: info@pinnaclebiotech.com
http://www.pinnaclebiotech.com/
43. Prikom/HKV
Poul Lyhne
Enghavevej 10
DK-7400 Herning
DENMARK
Tel: 45 99 268 211
Fax: 45 99 268 212
44. Projektrör AB
Gunnar Örn
PO Box 7256
S-183 07 Täby
SWEDEN
Tel: 46 8 732 5334
Fax: 46 8 732 5344
45. Purac AB
Daniel Ling
PO Box 1146
S-22 105 Lund
SWEDEN
Tel: 46 46 191 900
Fax: 46 46 191 919

No.
46. R.O.M.
Recycling Organischer Materialien AG
Rolf Wetter
Mattstraße
CH-8502 Frauenfeld
SWITZERLAND
Tel: 41 52 722 4660
Fax: 41 52 722 4042
47. RPA
Risanamento Protezione Ambiente, SpA
Str. Del Colle 1A/1 - Loc. Fontana
I-06074 Perugia
ITALY
Tel: 39 755 171 147
Fax: 39 755 179 669
48. Schwarting-UHDE GmbH
Lise Meitnerstraße 2
D-24941 Flensburg
GERMANY
Tel: 49 461 999 2121
Fax: 49 461 999 2101
Http://www.schwarting-umwelt.de/
49. Snamprogetti SpA
Mr. Bassetti
Via Toniolo 1
I-61032 Fano
ITALY
Tel: 39 721 881 769
Fax: 39 721 881 952
50. SPI
Srl Societa Produzione Idrosanitari
Via per Borgomanero - Reg. Pulice
I-28060 Comignago
ITALY
Tel: 39 322 50 146
Fax: 39 322 50 334
51. Steinmuller Valorga Sarl
Claude Saint-Joly
1300 avenue Albert Einstein
Immeyble Strategie Concept
Parc du Millenarie – BP 51
F-34935 Montpellier Cedex 09
France
Tel: +33 4 67 994 100
Fax: +33 4 37 994 101
Web: www.steinmuller-valorga.fr

No.
52. SWECO/VBB Viak
Anna Lindberg
PO Box 34044
S-100 26 Stockholm
SWEDEN
Tel: 46 8 695 6239
Fax: 46 8 695 6240
53. TBW GmbH
Andreas Krieg
Baumweg 16
D-60316 Frakfurt am Main
GERMANY
Tel: 49 69 9435 070
Fax: 49 69 9435 0711
54. Unisyn Biowaste Technology
Matt Lyum
Waimanalo, HI
USA
Tel : 808 259 8877
Fax : 808 259 5267
55. Wehrle Werk AG
Peter Schalk
Bismarckstrasse 1-11
79312- Emmendingen
GERMANY
Tel: +49 7641 5850
Fax: +49 7641 585106
56. WMC Resource Recovery Ltd
Peter Cumberlidge
2, Eaton Crescent, Clifton
Bristol BS8 2EJ
UNITED KINGDOM
Tel: 44 117 973 7993
Fax: 44 117 973 3167
Appendix 9-B
Status of Biomethanation in Representative Countries
Status information of biomethanation in the following countries are given below:
• Austria
• Belgium
• Canada
• Denmark
• Germany
• Greece
• Italy
• The Netherlands
• Norway
• Portugal
• Sweden
• Switzerland
• United Kingdom
Country Reports of Anaerobic digestion of Ago Industrial Waste1
1
Source: http://www.ad-nett.org/html/country.html
MWH Appendix 9B - 1
9.B.1 Austria
Anaerobic Digestion Status Report Austria

Braun, R. and Steffen, R.
Dissemination
In Austria information on anaerobic digestion in agricultural related areas is mainly disseminated

through several existing local networks and interest groups. Due to this fact no further dissemination
network was established. The Institute for Agrobiotechnology (IFA) acts as the binding link between
the different networks and AD-interest groups. The main existing association in agricultural area is
the ARGE Biogas, which has 14 special consultants for anaerobic digestion.
The IFA - full scale anaerobic digestor using cattle slurry together with pharmaceutical wastes as co-
substrate, is used as demonstration plant for scientific research. Visitations of the plant for interest
groups, politicians and operators are organized as required.
A direct link from the IFA web-page to the AD-Nett homepage exists. Furthermore the institute
represents AD-Nett on national congresses, seminars and workshops.
Existing Networks
Academy for Environment and Energy (Akademie für Umwelt und Energie),
Schloßplatz 1, 2361 Laxenburg
(M. Mayer)
ARGE Biogas (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Biogas) - Naturschutzbund Salzburg
Arenbergstraße 10, A-5020 Salzburg or Blindengasse 4/10-11, A-1080 Wien
(W. Graf)
Austrian Biomass Association (Österreichischer Biomasse-Verband)
Franz Josefs-Kai 13, A-1010 Wien
(H. Kopetz)
Funds and Sources for Subsidies
Österreichische Kommunalkredit
Türkenstr. 9, A-1090 Wien
Fonds zur Förderung der gewerblichen Wirtschaft
Kärntnerstraße 21-23 A-1010 Wien
related Federal Ministries (as described under chapter 3.1)
Governments of the 9 Austrian Provinces
Agricultural Chambers of the respective provinces (Landwirtschaftskammern der einzelnen
Bundesländer)
Existing Information
BIOGAS FILM - planning, construction and operation, 15 min., English and German. ARGE Biogas,
Arenbergstr. 10, A-5020 Salzburg; can be ordered for the price of 175,- ATS.
BIOGAS TAGUNG - Der derzeitige Stand der Technik und die Möglichkeit der Biogasnutzung in der
Landwirtschaft und der Industrie sowie als kommunale Entsorgungstechnik - Symposium, 25. - 26.
April 1996, Landwirtschaftliche Fachschule Edelhof, A-3910 Zwettl
BOXBERGER, J. (1997): Landwirtschaftliche Biogasanlagen. ÖKL-Baumerkblatt Nr. 61; Österr.
Kuratorium für Landtechnik; A-1041 Wien.
MWH Appendix 9B - 2
BOXBERGER, J. (1998): Sicherheitstechnik für landwirtschaftliche Biogasanlagen. ÖKL-Merkblatt

Nr. 62; Österr. Kuratorium für Landtechnik; A-1041 Wien.
BRAUN, R. (1999): Anaerobe Abfallbehandlung. Entwurf ÖWAV-Richtlinie; Österr. Wasser- und
Abfallwirtschaftsverband, ÖWAV; A-1010 Wien, Marc-Aurel Str. 5.
GRAF, W.: Broschüre Biogas für Österreich. Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, A-
1010 Wien
HÄUSLER, F. (1981): Erfahrungsbericht über landwirtschaftliche Biogasanlagen in Österreich, Wien,
1981, ÖKL (Landtechnische Schriftenreihe, 86)
HIMMEL, W. (1982): Berichtsband zum Biogas - Statusseminar Graz 6. - 7. Mai 1982; Inst. für
Biotechnologie, Mikrobiologie und Abfalltechnologie, Techn. Univ. Graz, A-8010 Graz
MITTEILUNGSBLATT "Nachwachsende Rohstoffe": Quarterly publication of the Federal
Agricultural Technology School (BAL Wieselburg); A-3250 Wieselburg.
MAGAZIN "ÖKOENERGIE": monthly publication of the University for Agricultural Sciences and
the Austrian Biomass Association; A-1010 Wien.
PADINGER, R. (1986): Biogas in der Landwirtschaft - Erkenntnisse und Perspektiven;
Forschungsgesellschaft Joanneum Graz, A-8010 Graz
Research Institutions Concerned with Anaerobic Digestion
Univ. Agricultural Sciences Vienna

Inst. for Agrobiotechnology (IFA), Dept. Environmental Biotechnology
Konrad Lorenz Strasse 20, A-3430 Tulln
(R. Braun; R. Steffen; M. Grasmug; F. Steyskal)
Inst. for Agricultural, Environmental, and Power Engineering, Dept. for Agricultural Machinery &
Operational Technology
Peter Jordan-Strasse 82, A-1190 Vienna
(J. Boxberger, T. Amon)
Technical Univ. Vienna

Inst. for water quality and waste management, Dept. for water quality management
(Institut für Wassergüte u.Abfallwirtschaft Abteilung für Wassergütewirtschaft)
Karlsplatz 13 / 2261, A-1040 Wien
(H. Kroiss, N. Matsche, K. Svardal)
Institute for process, fuel and environmental engineering, Inst. für Verfahrenstechnik,
Brennstofftechnik und Umwelttechnik
Getreidemarkt 9, A 1060 Wien
(K. Mairitsch)
Others
Joanneum Research, Graz
Institut for Energy Research (Institut für Energieforschung)
Steyrergasse 17, A-8010 Graz
(J. Spitzer)
Federal Agricultural Technology School (Bundesanstalt für Landtechnik, BAL Wieselburg)
Rottenhauser Str 1, A-3250 Wieselburg an der Erlauf ( NÖ );
currently no activities in AD
Landwirtschaftliche Fachschule Edelhof
Continuous comparative studies with 3 small scale agric. biogas plants since 1980
(J. Graf)
MWH Appendix 9B - 3
Governmental and Private Institutions concerned with AD
Federal ministries
Ministry for the Environment, Youth and Family
Stubenbastei 5, A-1010-Wien, Austria
Ministry for Agriculture & Forestry
Stubenring 1, A-1010-Wien, Austria
Ministry for Science and Transport
Minoritenplatz 5, A-1014 Wien, Austria
Others
Federal Environmental Agency (Umweltbundesamt)
Spittelauer Lände 5, A-1090 Wien, Austria
Österr. Kuratorium für Landtechnik (ÖKL)
Schwindgasse 5, A-1041 Wien
(G. Jüngling)
O.Ö. Energiesparverband
Landstraße 45, A-4020 Linz
(E. Grübl)
Academy for Environment and Energy (Akademie für Umwelt und Energie),
Schloßplatz 1, A-2361 Laxenburg
(M. Mayer)
Austrian Association for Water and Waste Management (Österr. Wasser- und Abfallwirt-
schaftsverband, ÖWAV)
Marc Aurel Straße 5, A-1010 Wien
(W. Lengyel)
Private Companies Concerned with Anaerobic Digestion
Austrian Energy & Environment (AE&E)

Siemensstraße 89, A-1211 Vienna
Planning and construction
(J. Lahnsteiner)
Bauer Friedrich G.m.b.H.
Oberegging 90, A - 3373 Kemmelbach
(F. Bauer)
Bioenergetica - Energieerzeugungsanlagen GmbH
Schwanthalergasse 8, A-4910 Ried im Innkreis
BIOS I GesmbH
Untergrafendorf 8, A-3071 Böheimkirchen
Construction
(H. Schmied)
BioTrend GesmbH
Hochheide 33, A-4202 Hellmonsödt
(W. Ecker)
Elektro Technik Pichlmaier (ETP)
Boder 135, A-8786 Rottenmann
Planning
(R. Pichlmaier)
Entec - Environmental Technology, Umwelttechnik GmbH
MWH Appendix 9B - 4
Schilfweg 1, A-6972 Fussach

(P. Stepany)
Ing. Lehner Landwirtschaftsbau GesmbH
Thomas-Bohrer-Straße 15, A-9020 Klagenfurt
Construction
Sattler Textilwerke OHG
Sattlerstraße 45, A-8041 Graz
Construction, gas storage tanks,
TCS - Technical Consulting Steyskal GmbH
Konrad Lorenz Straße 20, A-3430 Tulln
(F. Steyskal)
VSP Anlagenbau GmbH
Arlbergstr. 101, A-6900 Bregenz
(H. Pfefferkorn)
Dipl.Ing. Friedrich Waltenberger
Am Bachlberg 8, A-4040 Linz
Planning
(F. Waltenberger)
Wolf Systembau GesmbH
Fischerbühel 1, A-4644 Scharnstein
Construction
Technical Scale Treatment Plants
There are no official documents or references on existing biogas plants in Austria available. Based on
recent estimations and various personal communications (Graf, 1999), the following plants are
currently in operation:
90 Agricultural biogas plants (4 under construction)
88 Domestic sewage sludge digesters
31 Landfill gas reclamation plants (19 under construction)
20 Anaerobic Industrial waste water pretreatment plants
3 Domestic biowaste treatment plants
The respective 86 agricultural biogas plants correspond to an installed electrical capacity of 3,300
kWe and a total electrical energy production of 25 GWhe per year (Graf, 1999).
References:
HAUER, I. (1993): Biogas-, Klärgas- und Deponiegasanlagen im Praxisbetrieb. ÖKL Landtechnische
Schriftenreihe Nr. 192; Österr. Kuratorium für Landtechnik; A-1041 Wien
BRAUN, R. (1997): Biologische Abfallbehandlung. In: „Umweltbiotechnologie", Studie des UBA,
A-1090 Wien
BRAUN, R. (1997): Anaerobtechnologie für die mechanisch biologische Vorbehandlung von
Restmüll und Klärschlamm. Studie des BMUJF, A-1010 Wien
GRAF, W. (1999): personal communication on existing Austrian agricultural biogas plants
ÖWAV (1997): Entgasung von Deponiekörpern. Heft 110. Österreichischer Wasser- und
Abfallwirtschaftsverband (ÖWAV), A-1010 Wien
Further information:
R. Braun and R. Steffen

e-mail : nyns@gebi.ucl.ac.be
MWH Appendix 9B - 5
9.B.2 Belgium
Anaerobic Digestion of Agricultural and Agro-Industrial Waste

The State-of-the-Art in Belgium
April 1997
Edmond-Jacques NYNS, PhD,
Retired Professor of Bioengineering
Belgium is a federation of three regions : the Flemish region (Flandres), the Walloon (french
speaking) region (Wallonie) and the region of Brussels (Bruxelles Capitale). Government is federal
with responsibility for various activity delegated to the regions. Waste management is such an activity
and each of the three regions manage it independently.
In Flandres, agricultural (mainly animal) waste management is of major concern because of intensive
stock rearing and pig farming. Little has been done hitherto to favour anaerobic digestion (AD).
Numerous digesters were built on individual farms in the '80s but it is thought that few of these are
still operational. Recently, a region subsidy of BF 1 (ECU 0.025) has been allocated to each kWh
electricity produced from renewable energy sources. It is thought that this will be a positive influence
for large scale biogas systems such as landfills but will not necessarily stimulate the uptake of small
farm scale AD plants. In addition to this development there have been indications that a large scale
biogas plant would be constructed for an association of farmers with the help of public subsidies.
More will be written on this in an update of the present state-of-the-art.
In the region of Brussels and Wallonie, the problem of agricultural (and animal) waste is less acute.
As a result there is little interest in farm-scale anaerobic digestion. The situation is very different for
agro-industrial waste, however. In 1980, public help to applied research was a federal matter.
Research was launched on the process of anaerobic digestion at the University level, but industrial
involvement was encouraged in the research. Consequently by 1985 industries were established aimed
at the AD of agro-industrial waste (water) treatment market. By 1995, these industries had expanded
their market across the World. Together with The Netherlands, Belgium is a pioneer in anaerobic
agro-industrial waste (water) treatment. More details on these achievements will appear in the updates
of the present state-of-the-art.
MWH Appendix 9B - 6
9.B.3 Status of Anaerobic Digestion in Canada
Type of waste that could be treated
Anaerobic Digestion (AD) processes are not common in Canada. They are currently used in some
areas of Canada to treat municipal sludge, paper mill wastewater, potato processing plant wastewater
and cheese factory wastewater. These industries treat their wastewater to solve environmental
problems and eliminate cohabitation problems. Energy recovery and utilisation is a secondary issue.
The other type of wastes that could be treated by AD processes are: swine, dairy and poultry manure
slurries; slaughterhouse wastewater; other food processing and municipal organic wastes.
Main Driving Force:
The main driving forces for AD in Canada are the environmental regulations. For some industry AD
is the most economical option to treat their wastes. If the energy cost increases in the future, it is
likely that interest in AD will increase. Another driving force is the relationship of industry with its
neighbourhood. Some industries are interested in AD to eliminate nuisance problems such as odours,
pathogens etc.
Past and Present History
Some industries have been using AD for twenty years and the technology is becoming more popular
with industries producing high strength wastewater. From 1973 to 1986 several AD processes were
researched, developed and installed on Canadian farms. These projects were carried out through
research contracts with engineering firms and universities. None of the 28 projects is still in operation
today. Various problems were experienced including unstable systems and difficulties in operation
and the plant were found to be labour intensive and not cost effective. It was concluded that
application of this technology to Canadian farms is not profitable and cannot be recommended.
Developments in the near Future
Development of low cost and easy to operate AD processes which control odour efficiently and
reduce the pollution potential of high strength wastewater is required. There is also a need for
processes which operate at low temperatures (10 - 20oC), because of the Canadian climate.
Main Players in the Future
Municipalities; food processing industries; dairy, swine and poultry farmers.
Support Available
At the present time there is limited funding available to support research and development of AD
processes
MWH Appendix 9B - 7
9.B.4 Status of Anaerobic Digestion in Denmark
Introduction
Nineteen centralized biogas plants and 18 on-farm biogas plants currently operate in Denmark and
further new plants are under construction or planned.
The development of biogas plants based on animal manure has been predominantly undertaken in
centralised plants. Today these plants function well both technically and economically. At the
centralised plants the animal manure is transported from the farms to the biogas plants. The residue is
returned after digestion for use as a fertilizer. The manure may be co-digested with different waste
products from the food-industry. Total biomass input to the plants (including waste) ranges from
10.000 and 160.000 tons per year.
The biogas program
The first biogas plants based on animal manure were built in the 1970's. About 40 small plants were
built, but most of them were closed after a relatively short period, mainly due to technical problems.
At the end of the 1980's the Danish Energy Agency launched a programme to develop large scale
centralised systems. The programme aimed to clarify whether technical development, combined with
the need to address agricultural and environmental issues could result in stable economics. Ten
centralised plants were built with up to 40 percent grant funding. The DEA programme examined the
economics, technical development, operational processes as well veterinary, agricultural and
environmental issues.
In parallel with this programme an industry for construction of biogas plants has been developed. The
encouraging results from the programme have lead to the construction of further plants, and today 19
centralised biogas plants are in operation.
The focus in Denmark has been on centralised plants, because they offer a possible solution to farmers
facing legislation on storage capacity for animal manure and demands related to environmental
factors. Sixteen of the plants are owned by farmers in cooperatives. Three plants are owned by
municipalities. The biogas plants have not been developed solely for energy production; they also
address environmental and agricultural issues, such as waste recycling. In addition, centralised
anaerobic digestion plants have encouraged the establishment of distribution systems for the optimal
utilization of the fertilization value of the waste.
Future
In total the centralised biogas plants currently produce 2.2 PJ. The Danish government energy plan
aims to change energy consumption from fossil fuels to a supply with 30-35 percent from renewable
energy sources. This includes doubling biogas production from anaerobic digestion of farm wastes
before the year 2000 and a four-fold increase before the year 2005. To fulfill this ambitious target
development of biogas plants needs to be changed from centralised plants to on-farm plants.
Experience from centralised biogas plants should enable development of reliable commercial-scale
technology and reduced costs for on-farm anaerobic digestion in the near future.
MWH Appendix 9B - 8
Further Information:
Further information on Danish biogas plants can be obtained through:

Herning Municipal Utilities, Enghavevej 10, DK-7400 Herning, or
The Danish Energy Agency, Landemaerket 11, Dk-1119 Copenhagen K
Number of biogas plants
centralised19
on-farm18
Figures of the centralised plants
Biomass10.000-160.000 ton per year
30-450 ton per day
Biogas production 1.000-20.000 Nm3 per day
Digestors, size 750-7.900 m3
Members, to deliver manure 6-80
MWH Appendix 9B - 9
9.B.5 The German Biogas Association
Objectives and structure
The "Fachverband Biogas"(German Biogas Association) a non-governmental organisation and trust

for no gain was established in 1992. The main objective are promotion, furtherance and dissemination
of a sustainable technology linked within the natural nutrient circle. It is an amalgamation of operators
and manufacturers of biogas plants, engineers, researchers and consultants, agricultural groups,
scientific institutions and organisations involved in the dissemination of other renewable energy
sources. There are presently 400 members including 60 companies and institutions. The Association is
headed by a 5 person steering committee, representing operators of biogas plants, planners,
constructors and research institutions. Several regional groups in Germany and adjoining countries
have been established to meet local demands and to build up an advisory network. Specialist teams
(meeting 3-5 times a year) work on different concepts and solutions in the field of quality/safety
standards, organic waste fermentation, schooling and training, public relations and agriculture.
Agricultural Biogas Plants
At present 380 biogas plants are in operation throughout Germany, 250 plants have been constructed
in the last 2-5 years. The average investment costs for a farm scale plant are DM 250.000.-. There are
11 large scale plants treating agricultural, agro-industrial or organic household with investment costs
ranging from DM 5-20 Mil per plant.
Main Activities of the German Biogas Association
• Organisation of Site visits to biogas plants and operators.

• Holding seminars, conferences, exhibitions, each January "Biogas in the agriculture" .
• Provision of know-how and training and arranging for assistance from experts.
• Technology transfer, including a quarterly newsletter.
• Lobbying Achievements.
• Well established network in Germany and several neighbouring countries, recognised
as important Association for Biogas in Germany.
• Promotion of improved quality standards.
• Establishment of safety rules.
• Development of module construction to reduce investment costs
Major obstacles for the dissemination of Biogas Technology.
• Uncertain national and EU policies towards the existing national law of supplying
electricity from renewable energies to the public grid (Stromeinspeisegesetz).
• National and EU regulations/laws regarding waste management (spreading of
digested organic matter) and emissions from cogeneration units.
• Strict health protection laws and hygienic regulations concerning infectious diseases
spread by organic material.
• Uncertain financial support and electricity prices, strict tax laws.
• Ongoing standardisation for further cost reduction is needed.
• Biogas technology is not recognised as climate protection technology
MWH Appendix 9B - 10
Barbara Klingler, Michael Köttner

Fachverband Biogas
Am Feuersee 8
D- 74592 Kirchberg/Jagst- Weckelweiler Baden-Wuerttemberg
Tel: +49 7954 1270
Fax: +49 7954 1263
9.B.6 Present State of Biogas in Greece
During eighties, a few efforts for biogas applications were carried out in Greece. The feedstock of
them was animal excrements and wastes from food processing industries (oil olive mill wastes). Some
of them were demonstration projects that after enthusiasm and insurance of scientific support were
fallen into disuse. This was mainly due to the lack of information, proper infrastructure, state interest
and financial incentives. Nowadays, the legislative infrastructure, financial instruments and socio-
economics conditions (public awareness for environment protection, coming deregulation of energy
market, etc.) have changed the whole story.
The last three years, the Ministry of Development has located 176 billion GDr for applications of
Renewable Energy Sources (RES), Rational Energy Use (RUE) and Energy Savings (SA) through the
Energy Operational Programme (Measure 3.4). In the framework of that Programme two biogas
plants have be approved (total installed power almost 20 MWe) exploiting sewage sludges and landfill
biogas. Additionally, the Ministry of Development has granted six applications (permissions) for
power plants exploiting biogas; the total installed power amounts 21 MWe. It is expected that
significant interest will be expressed for biogas applications in the next coming Energy Operational
Programme of the Greek government.
The operated biogas plants are presented in the Table 1. Additionally there are other five biogas plants
that are under commissioning.
Table 1. Biogas plants and production in Greece, 1998
Types of biogas plant Amount of Production Production

plants GWh/year TJ
Wastewater treatment plants 2 158.3 569.9
Landfill plants 1 2.1 7.56
Industrial waste treatment plants 2 7.025 25.3
Manure based plants (Centralised co- 1* 1.4
0.394
digestion Farm scale plants)
Total 6 604.2
*The current biogas plant exploits animal manure and additionally sewage sludge
Status of Anaerobic Digestion of Agro-Industrial Wastes in Greece
Anaerobic digestion (AD) for biogas production is seldom used for animal manure and agro-industrial
wastes treatments in Greece at the moment. This is mainly due to the lack of information, proper
infrastructure, state interest and financial incentives.
Sheep, goats and lambs breeding represents the highest percentage of Greek Livestock but that
breeding is mainly shepherded, so the produced manure is spread all over the grazing land. On the
basis of the EUROSTAT figures (1995) including all the kinds of breeding animals, the animal
manure production is estimated up to 38,000 ton/day. The potential users for biogas production
through AD would be focused on intensive livestock such as medium-large scale livestock units.
The number of breeding animal heads and the medium-large scale units for cattle, pig and chicken
breeding are presented in the following Table 2:
Table 2: Medium-large scale livestock units in Greece (Agricultural Bank of Greece, 1996)
1. Category 2. Number of Units 3. Breeding animal heads

Cattle 580 69,328
Brood sows 448 105,793
Chickens 361 20,042,050
These units constitute the potential resource for biogas production under optimum conditions. It is
estimated that AD of the manure produced by those units could result in a methane production almost
0,5 million m3/day and energy potential over of 400 kTOE.
The common practice of manure management is the collection in anaerobic lagoons. After the
stabilisation and sedimentation process the sludge is discharged in an open anaerobic lagoon (5 m
deep) which is stratified in two phases: the upper aerobic zone and the anaerobic zone underneath it.
Due to aeration in the stabilisation tank slurry odour is controlled. In cattle raising farms, manure is
collected on impermeable platform where liquid from dung heap discharges in septic pool.
In both cases, the disposal of slurry or the solid manure spreading are carried out on landfarm
according to the "Codes of good agricultural practice for the protection of the waters from nitrate
pollution". These guide lines define the timing of the disposal as for instance when the weather
conditions are favourable for avoidance of run-off, or the retention time of slurry in anaerobic
lagoons, even though the amounts of liquid manure for certain crops, etc.
Agro-industries prefer wastewater treatment systems that satisfying two factors, cost-effectiveness
and appliance with national legislation. The anaerobic digestion is used only for specific reasons such
as high level of organic load and afterwards the produced biogas burnt on flare. Nonetheless, the
opportunities for anaerobic digestion exploiting agro-industrial wastes are great. Biogas applications
will have more chances for success when there is a combination of by-products from cheese factories,
oil olive mills, etc. with animal excrements. Livestock units that incorporate the whole chain of
production for instance slaughter, trade feeding stuffs, etc. would be potential investors for single
biogas plants. The installation and operation of co-digested biogas plants is a very promising
alternative as it is shown from similar cases in Sweden, Denmark, Holland and Germany. The
increased investment cost, the Greek countryside morphology and the required strength cooperation of
local productive sectors come into conflict with other parameters such as public awareness for
environment protection, coming deregulation of energy market, etc. Although the biogas schemes as a
solution to energy saving and environment protection should be promising for Greece for the time
being.
9.B.7 Status of Anaerobic Digestion of Animal and Agro-industrial wastes in Italy
In Italy the diffusion of Anaerobic Digestion plants for farm and agro-industrial wastes started at the
beginning of the eighties and lasted about ten years. During that period, more than hundred farm
biogas plants and about twenty five large agro-industrial plants were built. A survey carried out by
ENEA in 1983 showed that over 60 farm manure anaerobic digesters were in operation and more than
20 were under construction at that date (Tilche et al., 1983). The growth lasted only few more years,
during which some public funds for anaerobic digestion were still available.
Most of farm plants were treating pig wastes, that in Italy represents an "industrialised" animal
farming, carried out in large and very large units without land, while most of agro-industrial plants
were treating distillery effluents.
Also some centralised projects for digesters treating wastes of many different farms started during
these years.
Since then the situation has changed substantially, particularly because many of the systems
constructed at that time are no longer in operation. The causes can be found in the motivations that led
to the installation of the initial systems. In reality, energy saving was only one reason, and not the
main one, for farmers to build a digester. The "hypothetical" treatment benefit offered by the
technology was often the most important reason, because "industrial" farms had to treat their waste in
order 1) to reduce the amount of land needed for its spreading or 2) to reach discharge standards.
Though anaerobic digestion may ensure substantial removal of carbon (expressed as COD and
BOD5), it leaves very high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus, and this makes attempts to complete
the treatment technically and economically unfeasible. The understanding of this "bitter" truth
certainly led to a decrease in the use of anaerobic digestion in animal wastes applications.
The problem for many of the installed reactors was that processes and technologies developed for the
industrial world were transferred to the agricultural world. These plants were not suited for farms due
to construction costs, technological complexity, relatively small net energy production and expensive
maintenance.
Moreover, the farms on which these systems were installed were not always the most appropriate
sites for the characteristics of the animal wastes and for the small advantages obtained by a low net
energy production in winter - when thermal needs are the highest - and a high energy waste during the
summer. The image of the technology therefore went down.
Many of the farm-biogas system producers surveyed in 1983 no longer operate in this sector, and in
many cases those still working in the field have shifted their attention to the agro-industrial area. On
the other hand, most of agro-industry digesters, realized more for pollution control needs, continued
successfully their operation.
At the end of the eighties, a new generation of simplified low cost plants for animal (mainly pig)
wastes, usually obtained from covering anaerobic lagoons with flexible covers, arrived on the market.
These systems have been developed not only for the purpose of energy recovery but also for
controlling odours and stabilizing the wastes. Their success is witnessed by the number of them -
around fifty, from an un-official survey carried out among manufacturers - built until now, the
majority of which are still working. The systems operate at ambient temperature or at a more or less
controlled temperature.
After 1993-94, the farm market is more or less still, due to lack of public funds and the shortening of
profit margins in animal husbandry. Nevertheless, a provision of the Italian government of 1992 that
offered incentives for self-production of electric energy from biomasses, paying 270 ITL/kWh (0.135
ECU/kWh) (value of April 1996) against an average cost of 160-180 ITL/kWh (0.08 - 0.09
ECU/kWh) gave some impulse to the market of biogas linked to co-generation. However, this rule is
today under revision due to public budget restriction.
Dr. Andrea Tilche

ENEA - Section of Wastewater Treatment and Water Cycle
Via Martiri di Monte Sole, 440129 Bologna – Italy
Tel. : +39-51-6098735
Fax : +39-51-323388
e-mail: tilche@risc990.bologna.enea.it
Dr. Sergio Piccinini

Centro Ricerche Produzioni Animali-CRPA
Environment Division
C.so Garibaldi, 42
42100 Reggio Emilia – Italy
Tel. : +39-522-436999
fax : +39-522-435142
e-mail: S.Piccinini@crpa.it
9.B.8 Status of Anaerobic Digestion for Animal Waste in the Netherlands
Introduction
Potential renewable energy in the Netherlands from anaerobic digestion of the 1.5 million tons
available organic waste and 4.5 million tons of animal manure is 125 million m3 natural gas
equivalent or a saving of 4 PJ (Dc Boo, 1997).
Since the mid-seventies biogas technology has been promoted as part of the Dutch government policy
towards diversification of energy supply and reduction of fossil fuel consumption in order to reduce
carbon dioxide emissions. In the eighties technology for farm scale digestion of animal manure was
further improved although this concept was not very successful due to decreased energy prices.
Manure digestion in the Netherlands was restricted to three types of processes:
1.Farm scale digestion

2.One medium scale demonstration project for central manure digestion for eight farmers at Daersum
3.One full scale digestion plant combined with complete processing of pig manure at Promest
Helmond
A total of 32 farm and full scale digestors were in operation between 1978 and 1993. To our
knowledge these sites are no longer operational. The complete failure of farm scale digestion was due
to low energy prices since the mid eighties and the low biogas production by the use of manure that
was usually aged during storage. High costs for maintenance and repair were also experienced due to
many technical failures and the lack of professional technical assistance. Farm scale digestors became
too expensive and labour intensive. In 1995 Promest Helmond and the Deersum sites also closed. The
Promest Helmond site closed as farmers were unwilling to pay for the asking price for manure
processing and the company became bankrupt. The Deersum plant closed because of the lack of
available organic waste as they had to compete with composting which has became popular since
1991.
In summary, the reasons why digestion of manure in combination with organic waste stream did not
develop any further are as follows:
• low return for biogas and electricity (low prices)

• low cost for processing organic matter by means of composting
• tight regulation on alternatives for fresh manure like digestate
In the past there was also insufficient collaboration effort between the agricultural sector, energy
sector and the waste sector for the introduction of this technique. Communication between involved or
interested parties was too poor.
Current Situation
Since 1997 the future for manure digestion has improved due to the following developments:
• Increased price for disposal of organic waste due to the ban on landfilling of organic
matter
• Higher prices for renewable energy
• The need for selective manure distribution due to stronger manure legislation
• Lower capital/investment costs due to lower interest rates and fiscal incentives such as
vamil and green investments.
• As mentioned earlier no anaerobic digestion plants for animal waste currently exist in
the Netherlands. Work is now underway to start new projects on digestion of
combined animal and organic waste.
• One of the first actions in the Netherlands will be to start a strategy group for manure
digestion with organic additives.
Through discussion and feedback the strategy group aims to bring the following information to light:
• The market for the digestion of mixed manure and organic matter
• Available technology in the market place
• New technology initiatives
• And the promotion of manure digestion
• Bottle necks in the field of legislation and application of manure
The Netherlands has a sound knowledge on anaerobic digestion technology due to past projects and
current projects in the field of anaerobic digestion of green waste, the chance of successful manure
digestion plants is therefore relatively high. One key factor to success is effective, continued
communication and co-operation with all interested parties. The establishment of a national interest
group is therefore an essential start.
Further information on anaerobic digestion in The Netherlands can be obtained through contacting
Edward Pfeiffer at NOVEM, Cathrijnesingel 49, PO Box 8242, 3503 RE Utrecht, The Netherlands,
Phone +31 30 2393631, Fax +31 30 2316491, e-mail: nlnovepf@ibmmail.com. For more information
on anaerobic digestion of animal manure and organic waste in the Netherlands the "Country report on
anaerobic digestion - 1995" is also available.
9.B.9 Anaerobic Digestion in Agriculture and Agro-Industry in Norway
Introduction
In spite of very little historic tradition in production and treatment of biogas, Norway has passed 60
biogas production units. Most of them were built in the last few years. Only 2 of the plants are in
agriculture and 2 plants in agro-industry. The rest are AD-reactors in wastewater treatment plants
(17), AD-reactors in cellulose industry (3 plants) and landfill gas extraction systems (ca. 40 plants).
Almost none of them are built for energy reasons - about 50% of the gas produced is flared.
The reason for this is based on political decisions, the shape of the country and the special (historic)
energy situation.
Norway is mainly rocks and mountains and has an enormous coastline. Cheap electricity from hydro
power and enough wood for personal heating has made no need of other/alternative energy sources.
Politically agriculture has been protected to maintain our own food production and district policy.
Every year much money combined with regulations and restrictions are used to encourage people to
stay in their regions. Combined with fear of diseases this means that farmers are not allowed to raise
as much animals as they want. Normally one unit of pigs are 600 animals, hens 2000 etc.
This means that most farms are spread out, the amount of manure locally is too small for AD-reactors
and most farmers have land for using the manure.
Up to this day only a few people have been involved in anaerobic digestion.
In 1996 one project has been integrated in a R&D programme and groups of farmers started some
AD-calculations.
The growing interest for new renewable energy, environmental protection and source separation may
give anaerobic digestion a new future in Norway.
Energisystemer as,
Aaslyvn 9, N-3215
Norway
E-mail: birkelan@online.no
or
NoBio - The Norwegian Bioenergy Association
Wergelandsveien 23b, N-0167 Oslo
Norway
E-mail: post@nobio.no
9.B.10 Status of Anaerobic Digestion in Portugal
In Portugal there are regions with high concentration of pig farms such as Santarem, Leiria, Montijo
and Rio Maior. In these regions are operating 4 centralized biogas plants at Lourinhã, Rio Maior and
Leiria. About 90 farm scale plants are operating in the central and the southern part of the country.
The centralised biogas plants operate with not very satisfactory results, due to an inappropriate choice
of treatment method. The most common used technologies are anaerobic digestion with biogas
production (plugflow, upflow anaerobic sludge blanket, conventional digestion and anaerobic filter),
activated sludge, composting treatment lines. Co-digestion of manure and other substrates does not
take place in Portugal. The actual distribution of biogas systems in each economical activity are
shown in table 2.
Table 3. Actual distribution of biogas systems in each economical activity.
Economical Activity Installed systems (%)

Pig-breeding 71
Poultry 8
Bovines 5
Milk food 3
Distilleries 1
ETAR* 12
TOTAL 100
*Integrated systems in domestic sludge treatment stations.
The national programme "Energia" supports the biogas production activities as part of the renewable
energy production and support projects promoted by public or private entities. Workshops are an
usual method to promote and stimulate biogas production. Environmental benefits as well as the
possibility of the initial investments amortisation, in reduced periods of time (3 to 7 years), with the
commercialisation and/or use of the produced energy, are underlined as the driving force to integrate
biogas in the energy sector.
The main problems are the insufficient incentives, high investment costs and low income obtained
from the first projected digestors. The lack of monetary incentives affects the possibilities of
improving the technical knowledge and results in a low quality of constructions and equipment, a low
level of maintenance of the existing plants and a deficient control and exploration of the systems.
There is optimism in Portugal about the future of biogas, even though there is very little public
awareness about it. The public is aware of the problems concerning water effluent pollution and
everybody wish solutions to be found. That brings biogas in a favourable position, as a possibility of
non-pollution and energetic valorisation of drains built by combined agricultural and food-industries
and sludge from domestic effluents' treatment stations.
9.B.11 Status of AD of agro-industrial wastes in Sweden
Over the last 2-3 years, five full scale plants have been constructed in Sweden and are currently in
operation or in start up. In addition, one plant is under construction (spring 1997).
The amount of feedstock to be treated ranges from 26000 to 80000 tonnes per year in the first phase.
In a second phase more waste may be received, such as source separated municipal solid waste
(SSMSW) and rendering material from slaughter houses. All of the plant are wet continuous digesters
and are operated as mesophilic or thermophilic one stage, completely mixed, conventional reactors.
All plants have equipment for hygienization of the waste at 70°C in order to guarantee an appropriate
kill of the most abundant pathogens. The feedstocks consist mainly of liquid manure and
slaughterhouse waste. In some cases MSW and wastes originating from restaurants and industry are
also included.
All plants are in the vicinity of major agricultural districts and the digester residue is distributed as a
slurry fertilizer. Concentrations of heavy metals are very low. In fact, in some cases concentrations are
lower in the waste than in the manure (data not shown). These values guarantee that farmers will
accept the digester residue as a soil supplement. Thus far finding a market for the end products has not
been a problem. Four plants are upgrading (or are planning to upgrade) the biogas and compressing it
to be used as a vehicle fuel. The use of vehicle fuel, mainly for buses, is related to the price for
electricity and heat in Sweden, which is currently low. The other plants produce electricity and heat
for district heating or only heat.
In addition to the growing interest in AD of wastes over the last few years, there is also an interest in
AD of ley crop silage as an additional source of organic wastes. Pilot- and laboratory studies are
underway at JTI.
Dr Åke Nordberg, Swedish Institute of Agricultural Engineering (JTI), Box 7033, S-750 07 Uppsala,
Sweden. Tel: + 46 18 67 32 97, Fax: + 46 18 67 33 92
e-mail: ake.nordberg@mikrob.slu.se
9.B.12 Swiss Country Report on Anaerobic Digestion in Agriculture
Introduction
Biogas production in Switzerland has a relatively long tradition in waste water treatment. The first
anaerobic digesters were built in the thirties for the stabilization of sewage sludge. Initially the biogas
was flared. Sometimes perfumes had to be added in order to prevent complaints from the
neighbourhood about odour nuisances.
However, the first plants, operated primarily for the sake of energy production were constructed in
agriculture in the seventies. Swiss farmers were among the first in Europe who started to build biogas
plants after the first energy crisis. Digesters were optimally farm integrated and adapted to the type
and volume of the respective farm waste. Hence, every installation was unique and prices remained
rather high with the consequence that with the decreasing prices of the oil the construction of new
installations came to a halt.
Since 1990 when Switzerland started to promote renewable energy again within the program "Energy
2000", a few new plants were erected digesting bio- and food wastes together with manure.
About 100 farm scale biogas plants are in operation in Switzerland. Three installations are treating
solid waste, all the others are running on liquid manure with addition of chopped straw (1.5 to 3 kg
per animal and day). One of the solid waste digesters is a four vessel batch system made of
prefabricated, concrete side walls with a sandwich insulation and a floating plastic cover. A second
one is an upright cylindrically shaped, continuous flow reactor where the waste is pumped upwards
through an inner cylinder and flowing down by gravity through an outer cylinder. The third and last
solid waste digester is a down-flow pilot plant of 10 m3 operated by Nova Energie at the Swiss
Federal Research Station, FAT in Tänikon.
Except for five, all of the liquid digesters are operated in a continuous flow mode. The predominant
constructions are either upright cylinders made of concrete or glass fiber reinforced plastic, or sunk in
ground concrete digesters of either rectangular or cylindrical shape. The digester volumes range from
30 m3 to over 600 m3. All of the digesters are stirred mechanically. Some of them are connected to
storage tanks covered with gas tight plastic membranes storing at the same time the gas from the
reactor and the gas produced during post fermentation in the storage tank.
The five systems not fed continuously as mentioned above are so called accumulation systems where
the gasthight and insulated storage tank is heated, thus serving at the same time as reactor.
All but one biogas system are operated on individual farms. Centralized anaerobic digestion is not
common at all. The only two central biogas plants serving two respectively three farmers are co-
digesting slurry with vegetable and source separated organic waste and paunch manure.
Originally, the major motivation for the construction of the plants was "energetical independence"
followed by "improvement of the fertilizer quality". In recent years however, the two priorities were
exchanged. The production of electricity became important when the price was fixed to SFr. 0.16 per
kWh for renewable energy. Over 60 of the 100 digesters are equipped with CHP.
Please contact arthur.wellinger@novaenergie.ch for more information.
9.B.13 Status of Anaerobic Digestion for Agricultural Wastes in the UK

April 1997
Ian Higham
Introduction
About 45 farm-scale digesters have been installed in the UK since 1975. Many of these digesters were
installed with the aid of a capital grant which is no longer available. These digesters have been used
for all types of animal manure: pig, cattle and chicken. Typically, the digesters have been between 50
and 1000m3 and have generated gas for on-farm heating only. A few digesters have been fitted with
small CHP engines. Many farmers sell some of the digestate to local householders for use as a
fertiliser and soil conditioner.
Of the 45 units installed, only about 25 are currently operating. These farm-scale digesters have
suffered from several problems. Some of the most common have been an inability to maintain a
mesophilic temperature during the winter months, pipe blockages, digester pH instability and
equipment failures. The two main causes of these problems have been inadequate design and lack of
operator training, both of which should be relatively easy to rectify. However this history of poor
performance has left the technology with a bad reputation amongst many farmers. It should be noted
that most of those farmers continuing to operate digesters now have a good knowledge of their
operation and their plants are running reliably.
Current Situation
Very few farm scale digesters have been installed in the last few years since the removal of grant
funding. Recent interest has focused on larger centralised schemes due to support available from the
Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO). To date seven centralised anaerobic digesters have received
NFFO contracts, one under NFFO3 in 1995 and six under NFFO4 in 1997, as shown in Table 1. All
of these projects are in development and none have yet proceeded to construction. It is hoped that at
least one of these projects will be built in the next 12 months.
These NFFO projects are mainly based on chicken litter but there is some use of pig slurry, cow slurry
and turkey litter. The NFFO rules also allow up to 20% by dry weight of food processing waste and it
is expected that most projects will take advantage of this. Although the NFFO contracts are for
electricity only, it is possible that some of the projects will be developed as CHP, where a suitable
heat load is available.
Table 4: Developer and Capacity
Developer Capacity (MW e)

Attwell Farms Ltd 0.30
LRZ Ltd 1.05
Agtec Ltd 1.00
Agtec Ltd 2.00
Agtec Ltd 0.50
Agtec Ltd 0.60
North Tamar Business Network 1.43
Current development activities
There are several ongoing activities for the promotion of anaerobic digestion in the UK. These
activities are being developed in partnership between the Department of Trade & Industry and British
Biogen (the biomass industry trade association). The main elements of this work are:
• Good practice guidelines;

• An industry working group.
The good practice guidelines are being produced through a consensus building exercise involving
representatives of the biomass industry, government departments, regulatory bodies, environmental
bodies and local authorities. The guidelines are intended to inform interested parties and ensure that
developments proceed in a responsible manner which balance the concerns of the various parties.
The industry working group has been set up to establish a co-ordinated approach to the development
of anaerobic digestion. It is hoped that this group will avoid replication of effort, provide a forum for
shared experience and most importantly enable resources to be focused on the key barriers facing the
industry.
The current emphasis of the industry is on integrated management systems. It is recognised that
anaerobic digestion can fulfil several functions:
• Farm waste treatment;

• Renewable energy;
• Nutrient application control;
• Soil conditioning.
The industry considers that, to be successful, it will have to exploit all of these functions in an
economic manner and this is the challenge that will be faced in the next few years.
Contact Ian Higham at ETSU, Harwell, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0RA, UK. Tel: +44 12 35 43 27
62, Fax: +44 12 35 43 39 90, e-mail: ian.higham@aeat.co.uk.
Appendix 9-C
This Appendix presents a tabulated listing of some 50 representative worldwide examples of

commercially established biomethanation facilities. Details of some of these examples are given in
Appendix 9 D. Further details about many of these examples can be found on the CADDET
Renewable Energy website (www.caddet.co.uk).
MWH Appendix 9C- 1

No. Project / Document Title Plant/Location Country Feed Stock
1. Brecht MSW Plant Brecht Belgium Presorted MSW

2. Helsingor MSW Plant Helsingor Denmark Presorted MSW
3. Amiens MSW Plant Amiens France Unsorted MSW
4. Production of biogas and compost from Anyang City Korea Food Waste, MSW
large quantities of Korean food wastes
5. Fermentation of separately collected Tilburg The Vegetable Garden
vegetable, garden and fruit waste Netherlands And Fruit Waste
6. Large-scale batch-wise anaerobic Arnhem The Vegetable Garden
digestion of vegetable garden and fruit Netherlands And Fruit Waste
waste produces biogas
7. Centeralised biogas plant for animal, Sinding-Orre Denmark Animal, Industrial,
industrial and municipal waste Municipal Waste
8. Thorso centralised biogas plant Thorso Denmark Animal, Industrial,
Municipal Waste
9. Co-digestion of manure with industrial Kristianstad Sweden Animal, Industrial,
and household waste Municipal Waste
10. Anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge at Kingsbridge, United Sewage Sludge
Kingsbridge, Devon Devon Kingdom
11. The power of organic waste Ghent Belgium Sludge, Organic
Industries Waste,
Pre-Sorted
Biowaste, Fat
Sludge
12. Danish biogas plant with separate line for Vaarst-Fjellerad Denmark Slurry, Presorted
organic household waste Household Waste,
Fatty Sludge,
Bleaching
Clay(Bentonite)
13. The Vita Company of Wezep (potato Wezep The Potato Industrial
peeling company ) Netherlands Waste Water
14. Additional income for farmers from Frauenfeld Switzerland Manure And Farm
waste processing Waste
15. Farm power from efficient anaerobic Hayato-cho, Japan Farm Waste
digestion of animal wastes with Kagoshima,
photovoltic supplement
16. Texas Tech University's Animal Science Texas United States Farm Waste
Farm
17. Biogas recovery from chicken manure Rijkers poultry The Chicken Manure
for electricity and heat production farm, Nistelrode Netherlands
MWH Appendix 9C- 2

18. Darrell Smith Farm Princeton, NC United States Poultry waste

19. Anaerobic digestion of farm waste in the Walford collage, United Dairy And Piggery
UK Shropshire Kingdom Waste
20. A centralized thermophillic biogas plant Ribe Denmark Dairy/Cattle
in Ribe, Denmark manure
21. Blaabjerg Plant Norre Nebel Denmark Dairy/Cattle
manure
22. Foster Brothers Farm Middlebury, VT United States Dariy/Cattle
manure
23. Mason Dixon Farm Gettysburg, PA United States Dairy/Cattle
manure
24. Arizona Dairy Company Hgley, Arizona United States Dairy/Cattle
manure
25. Warrnambool Milk Products (WMP) : Warrnambool, Australia Dairy Waste
Anaerobic Digestion for Steam and Hot Victoria
Water
26. Fairgrove Farms Inc. Sturgis, MI United States Dairy waste
27. Lindstrom Welch, MN United States Dairy waste
28. Cooperstown Holstein Co. Farm Cooperstown, United States Dairy waste
New York
29. Agway farm research center Tully, New York United States Dairy waste
30. Oregon Dairy Farms Lititz, PA United States Dairy waste
31. Craven Dairy Farms Cloverdale, OR United States Dairy waste
32. AA Dairy Candor, NY United States Dairy waste
33. M&M Dairy Fontana, CA United States Dairy waste
34. Cushman Dairy North Franklin, United States Dairy waste
CT
35. Langerwerf Dairy Durham, United States Diary waste
California
36. Skinnerup on-farm biogas plant with gas Skinnerup Denmark Dairy Waste
storage Slurry, Fish Oil
Sludge
37. Sindrup on-farm plant for animal and Sindrup Denmark Dairy Waste, Food
industrial waste Industry Waste
38. Biogas combined heat and power in Trädgårdsstaden, Sweden Dairy Waste,
sweden, Laholm Organic Waste
From Industries
39. Anaerobic Digestion of Piggery Wastes Berrybank Farm, Australia Piggery Waste
in Victoria Victoria
MWH Appendix 9C- 3

40. Ejstruplund storage tank biogas plant Ejstrup Denmark Piggery Waste
with soft-top cover
41. Royal Farms Tulare, California United States Piggery waste
42. Churchill Co-op Hecton, MN United States Piggery waste
43. Mccabe Farms Mt. Pleasant, IA United States Piggery waste
44. Rock Knoll Farms Lancaster, PA United States Piggery waste
45. Valley Pork Seven Valleys, United States Piggery waste
PA
46. Barham Farms Zebulon, NC United States Piggery waste
47. Carrol’s Foods Inc. Warsaw, NC United States Piggery waste
48. Lou Palmer Farm Morrilton, AR United States Piggery waste
49. Martin Farm South Boston, United States Piggery waste
VA
50. Sharp Ranch Tulare, CA United States Piggery waste
MWH Appendix 9C- 4

Appendix 9-D
Case Studies
The Appendix has detailed description of twenty-biomethanation projects located world wide.
These sheets contain descriptive information, technical details and (sometimes) performance
information, economic and environmental data.
• Brecht MSW Plant, Brecht, Belgium

• Helsingor MSW Plant , Helsingor, Denmark
• Amiens MSW Plant, Amiens, France

• Production of biogas and compost from large quantities food wastes, Anyang
City, Republic of Korea
• Fermentation of separately collected vegetable, garden and fruit waste, Tilburg,
The Netherlands
• Large-scale batch-wise anaerobic digestion of vegetable garden and fruit waste
produces biogas, Arnhem, The Netherlands
• Centeralised biogas plant for animal, industrial and municipal waste, Sinding-
Orre,Denmark
• Thorso centralised biogas plant, Thorso, Denmark
• The Vita Company of Wezep (potato peeling company ), Wezep, The Netherlands
• Farm power from efficient anaerobic digestion of animal wastes with photovoltic
supplement, Hayato-cho, Kagoshima, Japan
• Texas Tech University's Animal Science Farm, Texas, United States
• Biogas recovery from chicken manure for electricity and heat production, Rijkers
poultry farm, Nistelrode, The Netherlands
• A centralized thermophillic biogas plant, Ribe, Denmark
• Blaabjerg Plant, Norre Nebel,Denmark
• Foster Brothers Farm Middlebury, VT, United States
• Mason Dixon Farm Gettysburg, PA,United States
• Warrnambool Milk Products (WMP) : Anaerobic Digestion for Steam and Hot
Water Warrnambool, Victoria, Australia
• Skinnerup on-farm biogas plant with gas storage, Skinnerup, Denmark
• Sindrup on-farm plant for animal and industrial waste, Sindrup, Denmark
• Ejstruplund storage tank biogas plant with soft-top cover, Ejstrup, Denmark
MWH Appendix 9 D - 1
9.D.1 Brecht MSW Plant
Location: Brecht, Belgium
Feed material: Presorted MSW
Description:
DRANCO (Dry Anaerobic Conversion) process, a second variation of dry process, has been
treating 10,500 tons per year of pre-sorted municipal solid waste in Brecht, Belgium, since mid
1992. The garbage is comminuted in a homogenizing drum and sieved over a 40 mm screen. The
oversize is landfilled, and the fraction less than 40 mm is mixed intensively with digested residue,
heated with steam to a temperature of 50 – 55 0C, to kill any faecal coliform, and pumped into the
digester. The digester has a volume of 808 m3 and after about 18 days of digestion, the residue is
dewatered to a solids concentration of ca, 60% by means of a screw press. The press liquid is
partially used to adjust the total solids concentration inside the digester to about 35%. The press
cakes are aerobically composted during 10 days to get Humotex, a stabilised and pathogen-free
product for soil amendment. The methane yield is 90 Nm3/ton of wet garbage giving a biogas
with 55 % methane content. The biogas is used to produce process steam 290 kw power.
The digester has been upscaled to a volume of 1810 m3 to treat 20,000 ton of biowaste per year
corresponding to the source separated organic waste of the Greater Salzburg area (Austria) with
about 300,000 inhabitants. The performance parameters of the DRANCO process are: a biogas
production rate of 4.5 Nm3/m3 reactor day and loading rate of 13 kg Total Volatile Solid/m3
reactor day.
9.D.2 Helsingor MSW Plant
Location: Helsingor, Denmark
Feed material: MSW
Description:
BTA process uses wet digestion to process 20,000 tons of municipal solid waste in Helsingor,
Denmark from late 1991. In the BTA process, a pulper grinds and suspends presorted refuse into
a 10 % solid solution. A rake fishes out the lighter fraction (mostly plastics and textiles) and
leaves heavier non-digestibles (such as bonem stone and glass) trapped at the bottom of the
pulper. The suspension produced from the organic fraction is heated to 700C, then transferred to a
centrifuge for solid – liquid separation. The liquid is then converted to biogas in the methane
reactor.
Undissolved solids are fed to a hydrolysis reactor, which breaks down complex organics into
molecules accessible to methanogenic bacteria. Solid retention time for the hydrolysis processes
average two to four days and that for methanization, one to two days. Separating hydrolysis from
methanization allows optimal control of the process and cuts the treatment time significantly
compared with single stage digestion. In less than one week, more than 60 percent of the
fermentable substances can be turned into biogas, compared with around 40 percent conversion in
a conventional single stage digestion.
The waste water burden from wet process is also much lower than that from landfill leachate or
from aerobic composting. BTA process produces 400 – 500 liters per tons of waste with a
biological oxygen demand of 0.6 g/L, so it can be treated in a conventional waste water treatment
plant.
9.D.3 Amiens MSW Plant
Location: Amiens, France
Feed material: Unsorted MSW
Description:
An automated sorting unit first removes metals, plastics, paperboard, glass inerts. The remaining
organic fraction is mixed with recycled water from the compost drying press to form a 30-35
percent solid sludge, which is pumped into one of the plant’s three digesters. To avoid the moving
parts that would otherwise be required for mixing, part of the biogas coming off the top of the
fermenter is sparged back into the bottom of the column. Residence time in a reactor is about
three weeks and the biogas yield is 99 Nm3/ton of municipal solid waste, or 146 Nm3/ton of
sorted organic fraction.
The Amiens plant runs at 370C using mesophilic bacteria and producing 5.5 million Nm3/year of
biogas. The biogas is purified and supplied to gas pipeline, the residue of digestion is utilized for
soil amendment or incinerated to produce heat.
The design parameters of the digester and some operating conditions of Valorga process
demonstration plant are summarized in Table 1. And the performances of the process at those
conditions are tabulated in Table 2.
Table 1 Design Parameters Operating Conditions of the Valorga Process
Parameters and Operating Conditions Values

Reactor Volume (m3) 500
Stirring Methods Pneumatic/gas recycle
Hydraulic Retention Time (Days) 15
Solid Retention Time (Days) 15
Reactor Temperature (0C) 37
Inhabitants Served (Person) 25000
MSW Treated (tonnes/year) 8000
Types of Feed MSW (sorted on-site)
Feed Concentration (g TS*/dm3) 350
Feed Volatile Solids (% of TS) 58.6
*TS = Total Solid
Table 2 Performance of the Valorga Process Digester
Parameters of Performance Typical Value

Hydraulic Retention Time (Days) 15
Organic Loading Rate (kg TVS*/m3 day) 13.7
Gas Production Rate (Nm3/m3 day) 4
3
Methane Yield (m /kg TVS) 0.23
Methane Concentration (vol. %) 65
TVS removed (%) 45
* TVS = Total Volatile Sold
According to the performances described in Table 2, a plant using 50,000 tons per year of organic
fraction of municipal solid waste can produce approximately 20,000 tons (dry basis) of humus
and 5 million Nm3 of methane gas a year.
9.D.4 Production of biogas and compost from large quantities of Korean food
wastes
Location : Anyang City, Kyunggido; Republic of Korea
Feed material: Food Waste
Description:
One of the major goals of the Korea Institute of Energy Research (KIER) is to develop and apply
new technologies for the recovery of energy from various wastes including municipal solid
wastes (MSW). The project dealing with the production of biogas and compost from large
quantities of Korean food wastes is a co-operative effort between KIER, the Korea Ministry of
Trade, Industry, Energy, and Halla Engineering and Heavy Industries, Ltd.
The project was first initiated to resolve the problem of food waste management in Korea.
Problems of Korean food waste are caused first of all by its ever-increasing volume and by its
high moisture and salt content. Highly urbanised and populated towns in Korea do not have
enough space for landfill and the high moisture and salt content of food waste hinders effective
recycling for compost production or incineration for energy recovery. The anaerobic process
plant of this project, located at the Anyang City incinerator site, produces biogas and humus from
the treatment of 5 tonnes/day MSW containing approximately 3 tonnes of food waste.
The major achievements of this project are;
1) development of a two-phase anaerobic process optimised for Korean food waste treatment
and biogas (energy) recovery;
2) development of a sorting pre-treatment process suitable for Korean MSW collection systems;
3) demonstration of the feasibility of Korean food waste treatment as one component of an
integrated waste management system including landfill and incineration.
The process was verified to be suitable for energy recovery from pre-sorted food waste in Korea.
A plant sorting 15 tonnes/day of pre-sorted food waste using this process is under construction in
Euiwang City for initial start-up in March 1997.
Technical Data
The two-phase anaerobic process consists of two reactors in series with capacities of 15 m3 and
45 m3 operated in acidic and methanogenic conditions. The effluent of the methane reactor is
recycled. In steady state operation, when 5 tonnes of MSW is treated, about 0.9 and 1.1 tonnes of
plastic and other non-degradable material are removed by means of a drum screen and acid
reactor (by gravity) respectively. About 100kg of humus (70% moisture), 230 m3 of biogas (70%
methane) and 2 tonnes of anaerobically treated waste water are produced from three tonnes of
food waste. It is estimated that around 73% of the degradable waste is converted to biogas.
Performance Data
Several lessons have been learned through the operation of the pilot process;
Although pre-sorted at the collection stage, inclusions such as bones, shells and metal pieces in
plastic food waste bags caused several unexpected problems including clogging in the conveyor
line, hoppers and pipelines;
Modifications were made in the pre-treatment equipment (hoppers, drumscreen, conveyors etc.),
pipe lines and acid reactor to resolve these problems;
For the disposal of non-biodegradable inclusions and waste-water treatment it is desirable to have
the incinerator or landfill and waste-water treatment located nearby;
The process systems should be automatically controlled;
The process is estimated to be the most feasible and effective for the recovery of energy from
Korean food waste, provided that the waste is pre-sorted and treated in co-operation with the
incinerator.
Economic Data
(Note: $ is the US dollar)
In case of the 15 tonnes/day food waste treatment capacity, the operational cost of the plant was
estimated to be $25/tonne of food waste. Treatment and the construction costs were estimated to
be $435/tonne of MSW in Korea. However, no more landfill sites are available for the disposal of
food waste in Korea because of environmental impacts such as leachate and bad odour etc.
Environmental Data
Urban areas in Korea are particularly good locations for the application of anaerobic digestion
technology for waste food treatment and the recovery of energy from high moisture food waste
because of nearby energy demands. The process occupies and is confined to a small space.
9.D.5 Fermentation of separately collected vegetable, garden and fruit waste
Location : Tilburg, The Netherlands
Feed material: Vegetable, garden and fruit waste
Description
The aim of this project is to demonstrate the use of the Valorga digestion process for the
fermentation of separately collected vegetable, garden and fruit waste. Although the process has
been in existence for a number of years, this is the first application in the fermentation of purely
organic waste.
Anaerobic fermentation of waste has several advantages:
- Reduction of waste volume;

- Optimisation of recycling;
- Production of biogas;
- Production of an environmentally friendly compost;
- Reduction of the carbon dioxide emissions;
- Existing landfill gas upgrading unit can be used.
In the Valorga process, the vegetable, garden and fruit waste (VGF) is preheated to 60°C and fed
in to a reactor vessel. Because of the preheating of the feedstock, the average temperature in the
reactor is 37°C, ideally suitable for anaerobic digestion. The stock remains in the reactor for 18
days.
Optimum mixing is achieved by pumping pressurised biogas into the reactor and also by placing
a vertical baffle wall inside the vessel. Part of the digested VGF is recirculated after leaving the
reactor, the rest is fed to a dewatering unit where water is removed mechanically. The residue is
stabilised aerobically; effluent water is partially cleaned and discharged, partially fed back to the
digestor.
The biogas emanating from the process is used in the plant itself; a surplus can be fed to the
national gas grid or be converted into electricity.
Technical Data
Design capacity 52,000 tonnes of VGF/year

Surface Area 10,000 m2
Conversion Time 18 days
Net Biogas Production 110 m3/tonne =5,720,000 m3/year
Methane Content 55 % =3,146,000 m3/year
Surplus electricity 152 kWh/tonne =7,904,000 kWh/year
Compost Production 0.7 tonne compost/tonne VGF =36,000 tonne of compost/year
Waste Water 0.1 tonne of water/tonne of VGF = 5,200 tonne of waste water/year
(where VGF is vegetable, garden and fruit waste)
Performance Data
Assuming a calorific value of the biogas of 19.7 MJ/m3 (55% methane, 45% inert gas) the annual
production of biogas is equal to 112,700 GJ, the equivalent of 3,500,000 m3 of Groningen natural
gas (31.6 MJ/m3). The electricity produced from this gas amounts to 9,412,000 kWh/year,
1,518,000 kWh of which is consumed by the plant itself.
9.D.6 Large-scale Batch-wise Anaerobic Digestion of Vegetable Garden and Fruit

Waste Produces Biogas
Location : Arnhem, The Netherlands
Feed material: Vegetable, garden and fruit waste
General Description
The aim of the project is to demonstrate, at an industrial scale the application of the BIOCEL
system for the digestion of vegetable, garden and fruit waste (VGF), to show that it is ready for
market introduction.
BIOCEL is an anaerobic conversion technique for vegetable, garden and fruit waste. A batch-
wise fermentation process generates biogas, which in turn is converted into electricity. A mixture
of vegetable, garden and fruit waste and structure material is fed into a mixing and sieving unit,
where the material is mixed with inoculum. The mixture is then fed to two 400 to 600 m3
concrete digesters, in which it is digested anaerobically during 22 days at a 35°C temperature.
Methane, emanating from the digesters, is used to generate electricity. Leachate is collected at the
bottom of the vessel, heated and fed back to the digester. Some of the digested material is
returned to the mixing drum to act as an inoculum; the rest is processed into compost.
The demonstration project shows that the BIOCEL system produces energy and contributes to the
reduction of CO2 emissions. Furthermore, the project produces compost by thermal drying of the
fermentation residue. The final product has a composition and a degree of stability comparable to
those of aerobically fermented compost. Finally the project shows the economic feasibility of
anaerobic fermentation, which is essential for further application.
Technical Data
Capacity 35,000 tonne/year

Surface Area 6,000 m²
Conversion Time 22 days
Biogas Production 100 m3 of gas/tonne of VGF
= 3,500,000 m3/year
Methane Content Biogas 55 %
Final Product 0.43 tonne/tonne of VGF
= 1,505,000 tonne/year
Waste Water Production 0.44 m3/tonne of VGF
Dry matter content 65 % by weight
(where VGF is vegetable, garden and fruit waste)
Performance Data
At a calorific value of the biogas of 19.7 MJ/m3, (55% methane, 45% inert gas), the annual
production of biogas is equal to 69,000 GJ/year, the equivalent of 2,200,000 m3/year of
Groningen natural gas (31.6 MJ/m3). The electricity produced from this gas amounts to 5,775,000
kWh/year, 1,365,000 kWh of which is consumed by the plant itself.
9.D.7 Centralised Biogas Plant for Animal, Industrial and Municipal Wastes
Location : Sinding-Orre, Denmark
Feed material: Animal, Industrial and Municipal Wastes
Description
In 1984 the Sinding-Orre Civic Association discussed how to ensure a cost effective heat supply
network for the small urban areas around the town of Herning based on alternative energy. A
committee was appointed consisting of representatives from the civic association, farmers and
municipality. After several meetings it was decided that the municipality of Herning should
establish the biogas plant while a new supplier association (farmers) should be responsible for
transportation and distribution of manure to and from the plant. The plant was built in 1987/88
and involved the production of biogas from the thermophilic digestion of pre-sorted and source-
separated household waste.
Several problems were solved and identified during the first year of operation and a number of
interesting features were implemented e.g. a method for treating source separated household
waste (now in permanent use). Facilities for receiving and converting different types of industrial
waste were also developed. The technique for using the organic fraction of household waste is
now technically reliable and financially satisfactory. It includes pre as well as post sorting of
plastics in order to ensure a clean fertilizer for the farmers.
Water and hydrogen sulphide are removed from the biogas before it is compressed, piped and
sold for electricity and heat production to two local plants (a district heating plant in Sinding and
a combined heat and power plant in Tjorring). The electricity is distributed through the electricity
grid.
Technical Data
Manure suppliers 35
Digestion tanks 21,000 m3
Process temperature 53°C
Process time 15-16 days
Annual consumption (1995);

Animal waste 36,000 tonnes
Industrial and municipal waste 16,000 tonnes
Total 52,000 tonnes
Performance Data
Annual biogas production in 1995 was 3,142,878 m3.
Approximately 30% of the biogas is used as process heating at the biogas plant
9.D.8 Thorso Centralised Biogas Plant using Animal, Industrial and Municipal
Waste
Location : Thorso; Denmark
Feed material: Animal, Industrial and Municipal Wastes
Description
In 1991 a group of farmers initiated the establishment of a centralised biogas plant in co-
operation with representatives of the local municipality and the district heating plant of Thorso.
The main objective was partly to supply Thorso with environmentally favourable energy and
partly to improve environmental conditions in agriculture. The biogas plant was built in 1993 and
became operational in 1994. It is owned by a co-operative society with 68 manure suppliers as
members.
The features of the plant are;

- digestion at 53°C (thermophilic process) during an average period of 15-16 days;
- surplus fertiliser distributed among plant breeders in the area;
- simultaneous utilisation of biogas and natural gas at peak hours (dual-fuel).
Presently approximately 76% of the biofuel is manure, 20 % industrial waste and 4% municipal
waste. Slurry storage facilities have been established at the farms with a total volume of 90,000
m3. Three slurry vehicles bring the manure to the biogas plant.
The co-operative society makes provision for storage and sale of surplus fertiliser.
Thorso biogas plant is equipped with a large gas storage tank where the gas is collected primarily
for use at peak times when electricity production is most valuable.
Biogas is transported through a 3.2 km gas pipe to Thorso Combined Heat and Power plant which
can burn pure biogas, pure natural gas or a mixture. However, the biogas has first priority and
approximately 67% of the energy production is based on biogas. The plant supplies heat to 442
households and institutions and sells the electricity to the regional electricity utility.
Technical Data
Manure suppliers 68
Transportation of slurry
from the farms to the biogas plant 3 slurry vehicles
Process temperature 53 °C
Process time 15-16 days
Digestion tanks 4,650 m3
Nominal manure capacity 280 m3/day
Average manure circulation 300 m3/day (110,000 m3/year)
Animal waste 200 tonnes/day (76%)

Industrial waste 50 tonnes/day (20%)
Municipal sludge 10 tonnes/day (4%)
Gas storage 2,790 m3
CHP engine generator units:

2 each with a capacity of 660 kW
District heating plant supplies - 442 households and institutions
Emissions: Varying negligible amounts of SO2, NH3 and NOx.
Performance Data
Biogas 2.16 million m3/year
Nominal capacity:
CHP plant power 1.3 MW
CHP plant heat 1.64 MW
9.D.9 The Vita Company of Wezep (Waste from a Potato Peeling Company Provides
Biogas for Electricity Production)
Location : Wezep, The Netherlands
Feed material: wastewater from potato peeling industry
General Description
The Vita Company of Wezep, The Netherlands, produces vacuum-packed peeled potatoes. The
process generates about 700 m3/day of waste water, which has to be cleaned prior to being
discharged into the sewer. The water treatment unit incorporates an anaerobic digestion stage,
which produces biogas which previously was simply burned off. In this project, a new, biogas-
fired three-pass fire-tube steam boiler has been installed next to an existing natural gas fired
boiler. The steam generated by this new boiler is fed to the existing steam grid.
Results from this project are of interest to the foodstuff industry in general as well as to other
companies where polluted water is subjected to anaerobic treatment.
Technical Data
Waste water flow 700 m3/day.
The waste water before the process has a concentration of 8,000 to 10,000 mg organics per litre.
After the digestion process the concentration is 1,500 to 2,000 mg/litre. These values are based on
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD). The digestion process provides a purification of 85% on COD
or a purification of about 75% in total.
9.D.10 Farm Power from Efficient Anaerobic Digestion of Animal Wastes with
Photovoltaic Supplement
Location : Hayato-cho, Kagoshima; Japan
Feed Material: Farm Waste
Description
In conventional fermentation processes (anaerobic digestion) in which animal excreta are diluted
and then heated, much of the methane produced is used in the heating especially in winter. This is
obviated by a new process in which undiluted excreta are separated into liquid ingredients and
solid residues by a screw press. Most of the organic matter is concentrated in the liquid which is
fermented undiluted. This process has the following advantages;
(1) Fermentation of highly concentrated readily decomposable substrates uses only 20-30%
of the total methane production, even in winter, as compared to 70-80% in conventional
processes;
(2) The separated solid residues readily rot down into compost.
Together with a photovoltaic generator the process powers a gas engine generator to form a
hybrid generating system, at a 1,000 pig farm owned by an agricultural cooperative at Hayato-
cho, Kagoshima. The photovoltaic system allows gas to be conserved for the hours of darkness
and thus the hybrid system is a reliable power source.
Technical Data
2,300 kg of liquid are squeezed each day from the excreta of 1,000 hogs. From this liquid, 85 m3
of gas with a 63% methane concentration is produced in a fermentation tank with an effective
volume of 60 m3, under the following conditions: fermentation temperature of 34°C, retention
time in the tank of 21 days, concentration of volatile substances in the liquids of 12%, and the
volumetric loading of organic matter at 5.8 kg/m3 a day. The hybrid generating system comprises
a 25 kW gas engine generator, a 30.24 kWp photovoltaic generator and a storage battery with a
capacity of 192 kWh.
Performance Data
Approximately 19 m3/day of gas are consumed in heating the fermentation tank. Thus, the gas
available to the gas engine generator is 66 m3/day. This, it is estimated, enables a daily 125 kWh
to be generated. It is estimated that the photovoltaic system can generate 33,600 kWh/year
(during daylight hours), a daily average of 92 kWh.
9.D.11 Texas Tech University's Animal Science Farm
Location : Texas; United States of America
Feed material: Farm waste
Description
About five million head of cattle are reared annually on some 200 feedlots in the high plains of
Texas. An integrated anaerobic methane demonstration unit has been constructed at the Texas
Tech University's Animal Science Farm to make use of the waste of a 1,000-head cattle operation
and a 280-sow farrow-to-finish swine operation in New Deal, Texas. The potential energy that
can be produced from cattle on the high plains of Texas approaches 4 million kWh/day.
Objectives of the demonstration include :
1) successful operation and monitoring of a membrane-covered anaerobic pit coupled with a

pond to produce biogas for fueling Stirling thermal engines and driving a flat plate turbine
coupled to an electric generator;
2) production, monitoring and modeling of nutrient cycling throughout an integrated waste
treatment system;
3) demonstration of aquaculture production through synergistic processes.
The data collected will be used to test production models of similar systems that have already
been developed but not completely verified. Project data will be shared with agriculturists,
developers and managers for purposes of advancing industrial anaerobic lagoon systems. The
installation is part of the Western Regional Biomass Energy Program. Contributors include
Environmental Hazard Control Inc. Global Scientific Inc. and Williams and Peters Construction
Company Inc.
Technical Data
Biogas is produced anaerobically in a pit 3.25 m² (35 ft²) in area and 3.05 m (10 ft) deep
and captured by a membrane covering the pit. Pipes connected to the centre of the
membrane cover transfer the gas to a nearby building where it is burned in a series of
heaters to produce hot water. The heated water is passed to;
a pond for production of purple sulphur bacteria and transition to a combined aerobic-
anaerobic environment;
a shallow pond for production of aquatic plants, such as duckweed, for extraction of
nutrients;
a pond for production of fish, principally tilipia.
The water is recycled back to the farm.
Hot water is also pumped through a closed coil back into the anaerobic pit to optimize gas
production and then returned to the heater for recycling. Excess gas can be used to generate steam
for a turbine or to fire a Stirling engine.
Performance Data
The demonstration facility is projected to yield sufficient excess biogas to support a 35 kW

electrical generator.
Economic Data
The use of animal wastes to provide energy for integrated animal feed and aquaculture operations
has the potential to produce several hundred million dollars of revenue in Texas. Aquatic plants
and fish can be used as feed ingredients for confined animal production operations and the
worldwide aquaculture market has expanded dramatically.
The integration of anaerobic energy fermentation systems with aquaculture production can help to
reduce the United States' reliance on imports of aquaculture products.
Additionally, this technology could be moved into Mexico in conjunction with a project now in
place to identify and map natural resources (vegetation, agricultural lands, water and water
quality). Landsat scenes could be used to identify significant water streams or possible sites for
installation of anaerobic digesters and their associated forms of energy production.
Environmental Data
The integrated system has the capability of improving its immediate environment by
extracting nitrogen compounds, capturing gaseous emissions, and enhancing wildlife
habitat in wetlands. The facultative pond helps control odour.
9.D.12 Biogas Recovery from Chicken Manure for Electricity and Heat Production
Location : Nistelrode, The Netherlands
Feed material: Chicken manure
Description
The Rijkers bv poultry farm in Nistelrode has built a biogas plant which uses chicken manure to
generate electricity and to heat the house and poultry house.
Part of the manure is fermented directly and part is dried to a dry matter content of 50%. In order
to make the chicken manure pumpable, pig manure is also added.
The methane gas extracted generates electricity by means of a gas engine and generator. The
waste heat is used to heat the buildings and the fermentation tank.
Technical Data
The manure from approximately 45,000 laying hens is removed daily with a manure removal
system and discharged into an 80 m3 cellar behind the poultry house. Since the manure has to be
pumped it has to be made liquid. This is achieved by adding pig manure, flocculation silt and
water or return fluid from the post-storage of the fermented manure. From the cellar, the manure
is pumped to the fermenter.
The digester itself consists of three compartments: the main digestion compartment (75 m3), a
secondary digestion compartment (35 m3) above it and a channel connecting the two. In the main
compartment, the manure begins to digest. A gas mixture of methane (64%) and carbon dioxide
(36%) is formed, causing the pressure in the bubble above the fermenting manure to rise. The gas
pressure passes part of the manure up through the channel into the secondary digester. When the
liquid in the secondary digester reaches the overflow level, some of it flows out of the digester
and into a storage bunker, while fresh manure is added to the main digester compartment. The gas
valve is then opened and the manure in the secondary digester flows back into the main digester
compartment. This causes the fresh load to be mixed with partially digested manure, and the
process starts again.
The fermented mixture is stored in a silo from which the fluid portion is returned to the mixing
and metering pit. A ballon weighted with a concrete ring floats in the silo containing the
fermented manure. The gas is stored in the ballon for subsequent use by the combined heat and
power plant. The gas drives a gas engine to which a generator is coupled. The heat generated by
the engine is used for the heating system. The system also comprises a boiler fired by biogas or
natural gas. This boiler heats the building and the manure fermenter.
It emerged that optimum production was obtained from a daily supply of 6.1 m3 of chicken
manure, diluted with 2.3 m3 of pig manure, 1.9 m3 of flocculation silt and 2.3 m3 of return fluid.
Performance Data
During the measurement period, daily production of 932 m3 of biogas was achieved. The
composition of the gas was approximately 64% methane and 36% carbon dioxide.
The following estimates were made on an annual basis from 1986 data;
Plant operating hours 7,750 hours/year;

Electricity generated for own use 310,600 kWh/year;
Electricity generated and supplied to the national grid 29,900 kWh/year;
Amount of heat produced 689,750 kWh/year;
Heat used by the fermenter 169,000 kWh/year;
Used for heating farm buildings 163,000 kWh/year;
Heat extracted by the emergency
cooler and not used 358,000 kWh/year.
Biomass mixture:
Chicken manure 1,970 m3/year
Pig Manure 742 m3/year
Flocculation sludge 614 m3/year
Total 3,326 m3/year
Biogas data:
Maximum production 295,545 m3/year
Average production 236,436 m3/year
9.D.13 A centralized thermophillic biogas plant
Location: Ribe, Denmark
Feed material: Cattle manure
Description:
The plant receives approximately 500 wet tons per day of slurry, about 2/3 of which is dairy
manure. The plant has three digesters, each 1,750 cu m insulated steel tank, for a total of 5,250
cu m (1.4 mil gal total). For process operating calculations the plant uses 4,656 cu m of digester
volume which gives a hydraulic detention time of 11 days. The Ribe plant started in 1990 in the
mesophilic temperature range of operation, then increased temperature up to thermophilic range
without any problem. Dairy manure slurry is about 10 percent solids; other slurries are less
concentrated, so the overall mix to the digesters is about 9 percent solids content.
“Degassed” slurry is hauled back to about 20 storage tanks located near the individual farms or
clusters of farms in the same trucks which bring in the slurry. Manure from dairies is picked up
on a schedule depending on volume, and may be once per week or twice per month. It was stated
that the manure should be as fresh as possible, say not more than one or two months old as a
maximum. In response to a question on how the plant would work if the plant was fed only cow
manure, the answer was: “There is no economy in cow manure; must get the other wastes or
make system very cheap.” The plant is allowed to bring in up to 25 percent of industrial organic
wastes which generate tipping fees and produce more gas to sell than does an equivalent volume
of dairy slurry.
The methane content of the biogas on June 11, 1998 was 66.9 percent, but is usually in the 63-64
percent range. Without the industrial waste, it was stated that the methane percentage would be
lower, say 60 percent. H2S in the biogas is limited to 700 ppm. The plant computer screen
monitor showed 200 ppm on June 11. Plant has a system to add a small amount of air to the gas
(new technology) to oxidize H2S, but it is used very infrequently. The gas pressurization system
has never been used, and was a waste of money. Gas is piped at low pressure, about 2 km, to a
large gas plant which has two biogas engine/generators and three larger natural gas
engine/generators. The power plant produces power during peak electric rate periods and uses
waste heat to provide hot water to the town for space heating and domestic hot water produced by
heat exchangers at individual residences. The power plant also has some standby boilers to
provide heat for the town if the engines are down, and has a large water tank to store heat. The
standard of housekeeping at the power plant was very high. All areas of the plant appeared to be
clean and corrosion-free.
The three digesters are run in parallel at thermophilic temperature. The digesters are stirred with
one slow speed (reported to be 20 rpm) stirrer for each tank with motor and gear box mounted on
the top of the tank.
The heat of the digested slurry is captured by heating the incoming slurry. Of the three heat
exchangers in series, the first two are extracting heat from the hot slurry, and the third is using hot
water to give the final boost of temperature to the feed slurry. The plant has experienced struvite
(magnesium ammonium phosphate) formation when slurry cools, and must clean the heat
exchangers with acid once per week. The plant has the capability for direct steam injection into
the digesters, particularly in the winter to maintain digester temperature.
The digesters at the plant have never been cleaned. The take-off pipe apparently has been
sufficient to remove grit on a continuous basis. The plant does clean the feed slurry storage tanks
twice per year.
Strong odors at the plant are from industrial slurries. Air is displaced from the waste holding
tanks when new wastes are added. This air is vented to the atmosphere, but apparently dissipates
before reaching any complaining neighbors. This problem can be fixed, if a problem, and
apparently has been dealt with more aggressively at other plants by venting foul air to combustion
units.
The Ribe Plant and the Blaabjerg Plant have about the same staffing level. The operation of the
plant and of the slurry trucks for collecting and transporting animal manure and returning
digested slurry is performed by four people total. Transport of industrial slurry and operation of
the power plant is in addition to this manpower. The four persons are able to maintain a 7 day per
week, 24-hr coverage of the plant through automation, trouble signals, on-call arrangement
among the four and careful scheduling, such as collecting sufficient slurry by Friday for the
digesters to be fed over the weekend.
Ms. Else Jensen

Ribe Biogas A/S
Koldingvej 19
DK-6760 Ribe, Denmark
Tel: +45-75-410410
Fax: +45-75-423245
9.D.14 Blaabjerg Plant
Location: Norre Nebel Denmark
Feed material: Dairy manure
Description:
The plant receives approximately 400 wet tons per day of slurry, about 60 percent of which is
dairy manure. The plant has two digesters, each 2,500 cu m insulated steel tank, for total volume
of 5,000 m3 (1.3 million gal total). For process operating calculations the plant uses 5,000 m3 of
digester volume which gives a hydraulic detention time of 15 days. The plant started in1996 in
the thermophilic temperature range.
The overall set-up and operation is similar to the Ribe Plant. However, the digesters are bigger.
Also, since the power plant is very close by, hot water from the power plant is used for heating
the digester with heat exchange piping on the internal walls of the digesters instead of with live
steam. Also, fiber separation from the digested slurry is a component of the system. The intent is
to burn the separated fiber in the adjacent power plant with wood and other solid fuels, but the
system was not operational at the time of the visit, and there was indication that the system may
have some technical problems.
The mixing propellers in the digesters rotate at 10 rpm; there are two propellers, 3 m in diameter,
on the center shaft inside the 13.7 m diameter tank. The top propeller blade is one ft. below the
top liquid surface, and the other blade is near the bottom of the tank. Incoming feed is through a
pipe inside the digesters and discharges above the liquid level in the tank. Digested slurry is taken
off near the bottom of the tank. There is also a withdrawal pipe which reaches to the bottom of
the cone and from which a vacuum pump truck may connect and remove grit from the digester.
The methane content of the biogas on June 12, 1998 was 62 percent. H2S in the biogas was 2000
ppm, and through the removal system (air oxidation discussed above) was reduced to 100-200
ppm
The heat of the digested slurry is captured by heating the incoming slurry. Of the three heat
exchangers in series, the first two are extracting heat from the hot slurry, and the third is using hot
water from the power plant to give the final boost of temperature to the feed slurry. The plant has
an acid system to control the struvite problem.
Foul air is collected and burned in a combustion unit.
In delivering digested (“de-gassed”) slurry to the farmers, the operators are careful not to bring in
waste from a pig farm then take back digested slurry in the same truck to the same or another pig
farm. This is for disease control. Pig farmers are very concerned about this. It is all right to go
from “dairy to dairy, but not pig to pig,” so the operators are careful to be sure that the truck
carrying digested slurry to the pig farmer was previously filled with dairy manure, not pig
manure.
There was 400 to 500 cu m of sand in the incoming waste holding tanks after 1 ½ years.
There were two gas engines/generators, each 400 kw.
Burmeister & Scandinavian Contractor

P.O. Box 235
Gydevang 35, DK 3450 Allerød
Denmark
Tel: + 45-48-14 00 22
Fax: + 45-48-14 01 50
9.D.15 Foster Brothers Farm
Location: Middlebury, VT, USA
Feed material: Dairy manure
Description:
Contact was Mr. Robert Foster, but also had discussions with Mr. James Foster and Mr. Jeffrey
Graves. From the site visit: milk cows are on concrete 100 percent of the time and bedded with
saw dust; manure (probably 12 percent solids) is scraped by a small tractor in the barns directly
into a manure wagon which is pulled by tractor over to the digesters and bottom dumped into the
digester feed tank. There also are two steel tanks to store other liquid organic wastes, such as milk
whey, and there has been a practice to feed this additional material into the digesters with good
results in terms of gas production.
Unfortunately, the building covering the feed area, digester and gas holder caught fire in March
1998 and put the system out of operation, except that the digester is continuing to be fed, but not
heated. A new gas bag has been ordered, and repairs are planned this summer. The fire was not
caused by the digestion/energy recovery system, but by a wood stove used to keep people warm
near the two steel tanks used for storing whey or similar liquid waste.
Flow is in parallel through two plug flow digesters; digester cover is the gas bag. There has not
been a crusting problem probably because the manure is thick, not diluted with flush water which
results in solids separation and floating.
The plant is reported to produce 1250 kw-hr/day of electricity, but has not supplied power to the
power grid for years because the price went down. Price started around $0.05 per kw-hr, but has
gone down to about $0.015 per kw-hr. Power is used on the farm.
H2S in the biogas is removed through a home made system with a drum of marble chips,
apparently but unknowingly, a system similar to the Danish plants (the H2S removal mechanism
was not well understood on the farm, but it worked so no one has paid much attention to it).
Heating of the digesters is through hot water pipes near the floor of the digesters. Hot water is
produced from engine cooling and heat exchange on the exhaust gas from the engines.
Digested slurry (probably 9 percent solids) is run through one FAN screw press which has had its
motor and gear box replaced with American models, because of the expense of the German
replacement parts(only German parts left are the screen and screw); dewatered product is used as
a major component for the Foster family soil amendment business which is adjacent and larger in
business volume than the dairy business itself.
Liquid (probably 6 percent solids) after the screw press is piped to and stored in a large earthen
pond and later pumped to the farm fields in the summer, in accordance with regulations, to be
used as fertilizer.
This site visit pointed out the use of the digested manure along with other material for soil
amendment products, all agricultural wastes in accordance with organic certification procedures.
Overall estimate is that cow manure is 50 percent of the products, and that Foster manure is 70
percent of the total cow manure of their soil amendment products, because they do collect cow
manure from another dairy (undigested) and compost this manure along with their own digested
manure. The soil amendment business was up to $2.5 million last year, but lost money, so has
retrenched and is expected to be $1.5 million this year, as compared with the dairy part of the
business which is about $1.2 million per year. Material is purchased from outside to blend with
digested and composted cow manure. For chicken manure, they pay transportation costs only; for
purchase of solids from another dairy they pay $4.90 per CY plus transportation, at a price of $1
per mile for a 25 to 30 CY load; normally they have to pay at least $1.25 per mile or a bit higher
at $1.50 per mile for quality (reliable) service of a 48 ft dump trailer which may hold 60 CY of
fairly dry material, say 30 percent moisture and 1200 to 1400 lbs/CY. When asked about the
market value of digested manure solids as it comes off the screw press, one answer was “maybe
$12 per ton.” Another answer was “$5 per CY loaded out - transportation would be buyer’s
responsibility.”
Robert Foster
Tel: + 1-802-388-0156
9.D.16 Mason Dixon Farm
Location: Gettysburg, PA, USA
Feed material: Cow manure
Description:
Ninety percent of the manure is mechanically scraped (3 m /min.) from the floors into galleys,
and flows by gravity to a holding tank. The remaining 10 percent of the manure is collected by
an old flush system and flows to a settling basin prior to entering the holding tank. Water for the
flush system is recirculated from the settling basin.
The manure slurry flows first through a “loop” digester, and then through two plug flow digesters
in series. A new digester is planned to be added to provide 30 days retention time. The “loop”
digester is a 28 m diameter, cylindrical, covered tank, 4 m. high, with a center wall running from
one side of the tank through the middle of the tank and ending short of the opposite tank wall to
leave a 2 m opening at the end of the wall. Manure slurry enters the tank on one side of the
center wall, travels around the wall to the other half of the tank, and exits not far from the
entrance, thus traveling in a complete loop through the tank. Manure slurry enters and exits the
loop digester through pipes located about 1 m from the top of the tank and near the center wall.
All the digesters have rigid concrete covers.
Heating of the loop digester is accomplished through hot water pipes hung from the center wall.
Hot water is produced from engine cooling and heat exchange on the exhaust gas from the
engines. The heating pipe location causes the manure slurry in the loop digester to move up the
center wall, away from the center wall, down the outside wall of the tank, and across the bottom
toward the center wall. Thus, there is a roll in the tank. The crusting problem which had occurred
before the loop digester was installed has been solved. The solution is attributed to the roll in the
loop digester, but can also be attributed to the increased solids concentration of the feed slurry
resulting from increasing use of mechanical manure scraping instead of flush systems. Manure
will cake on hot water pipes and prevent heat transfer if pipes are hotter than 145 °F. Manure is
heated to 105 °F in the loop reactor only (temperatures and heating not verified).
The biogas produced in the digesters is held in a gas bag which is sealed by liquid around the
skirt (60 ft x 60 ft) and covered by a metal building. There are no treatment processes in place to
remove hydrogen sulfide (H2S) from the biogas. The biogas was once tested and reported to be 55
percent methane.
The biogas is used directly to power an engine/generator to produce electricity. During the two
days of the visit, only one engine was running and indicated 85 kw output. Essentially nothing is
measured except electrical output. A new energy building with new engine/generators is under
construction and planned for completion this summer. Mr. Waybright believes that they will
produce 300 kw when another digester is added to give 30 days hydraulic retention time.
The digested slurry is run through two FAN screw presses (German-made equipment). The
dewatered product is used for soil amendment and is planned for use as cow bedding material.
The liquid is stored in a large earthen pond and pumped to fields as fertilizer.
This site visit pointed out several considerations for a financially successful operation. First, the
efficiency of manure collection was apparent. All manure fed to the digesters was fresh. No
manpower was needed to collect the manure, except for the periodic operation of the remaining
old flush system which is planned to be abandoned in favor of the mechanical scraping system
now collecting 90 percent of the manure.
Second, the owners-operators of the system are capable and inclined to operate, repair and make
the system work without need for expensive outside help. The Mason Dixon owners are
innovative, determined and comfortable with the biological, mechanical, and electrical elements
involved with the system. This situation probably did not exist in the cases of owners of many
past projects which have failed. The fact that Mason Dixon is constructing a new two-story
electrical/mechanical building is confirmation of nearly twenty years of technical and economic
success, and their expectation of continued success in the future.
Third, the liquid stream from the system is conveniently managed without much cost. It flows by
gravity from the screw press to the large (several acres) holding pond from which it is pumped to
the growing fields. The nutrients are recycled to the fields and reduce the need for other
fertilizers.
Mr. Richard Waybright

1800 Mason dixon Road
Gettysburg, PA 17325
Tel: + 1-717-334-4056
9.D.17 Warrnambool Milk Products: Anaerobic Digestion for Steam and Hot
Water
Location : Warrnambool, Victoria; Australia
Feed material: Dairy Waste
General Description
Warrnambool Milk Products (WMP) is one of Australia's largest cheese making sites, and is
located at Allansford on the outskirts of the city of Warrnambool (population 25,000.) WMP is a
joint venture company established in 1993 and owned by two dairy farmer cooperatives, United
Milk Tasmania and Warrnambool Cheese and Butter Factory Cooperative.
A separate company on the same site, Protein Technology Victoria, which is jointly owned by the
venture partners, takes whey from the cheese making process and converts it into whey protein
concentrate powder by ultrafiltration and spray drying. The whey powder is sold as a high protein
food ingredient.
Dairy wastes typically produce a high strength industrial wastewater. The total Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD.) loading on the bulk volume fermenter (BVF) ranges from 45,000 kg / day to
100,000 kg / day. Before this effluent can be discharged for further treatment at the local
wastewater treatment plant, some pretreatment is required. Both the COD and suspended solids
need to be reduced. This reduces the load on the town's wastewater treatment plant and the trade
waste charges levied on WMP.
Following a change in ownership of the plant, a new Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)
agreed that a new waste treatment process was needed. Various treatment technologies were
considered and it was decided that anaerobic, as an alternative to aerobic, treatment was the most
cost effective process for treating the high COD load of the wastewater.
Technical Data
The project was designed by Kinhill in association with ADI of Canada, who provided the bulk
volume fermenter(BVF). The system was put in place in 1993. It comprises of a lined lagoon of
dimensions 100 metres by 70 metres by 35 metres by 8 metres deep. Associated technology
includes a floating membrane cover (XR5), a gas collection system, a sludge re-circulating
system and a programmable logic controller (PLC) to enable the gas transmission system to work
efficiently. The overall system is conceptually simple, but optimisation of the biological and
biochemical technology is operationally complex, and requires skilled plant supervision.
Operating Characteristics
Wastewater parameter Value

Volume treated (average) kilolitres /day) 1,000 - 3,000
COD of inflow (tonnes per day) 20 - 100
BOD of inflow (milligrams per litre) 10,000 - 25,000
Suspended solids of inflow (tonnes per day) 1.4 - 4

COD of outflow (tonnes per day) 1-3
BOD of outflow (milligrams per litre) less than 400
Suspended solids of outflow (tonnes per day) 1-4
Biogas generated (cubic metres per day) 18,000 - 40,000
Composition of biogas generated:
methane (%) 50
carbon dioxide (%) 50
water vapour (%) n.a.
hydrogen sulfide (parts per mullion) 600
other (%) n.a
Biogas recovered (cubic metres) 18,000-40,000
Performance Data
The system has operated at 98% to 99.75% efficiency for BOD removal and 98% efficiency for
COD removal. Given the system was designed to run on 45 tonnes per day COD and that the
operational loading sometimes reaches 90 tonnes per day, these are considered excellent results.
By contrast, the suspended solids were expected to be 550 mg /litre. They are running at less than
1000 mg / litre which may be due to excess gas production in the quiescent zone of the reactor
keeping the sludge particles suspended.
The captured methane is being used to produce steam for a 4 MW hot water boiler that maintains
a 35°C temperature in the BVF. A 10 MW steam boiler to evaporate the milk for the dryer and a
5 MW hot water boiler for the factory are currently powered by natural gas. They have been
equipped with dual fuel burners, and are awaiting commissioning for the use of the methane
captured on site.
Economic Data
Capital costs for anaerobic treatment processes tend to be higher than for aerobic treatment
processes. Variable costs tend to be lower. Costs are expressed in AU$ (where AU$ is the
Australian Dollar.)
Capital costs
Item Amount ($)

Design and construction of the digester 3,000,000 - 4,000 000
Heat exchanger plus boiler 40,000 - 150,000
Equalisation tank 300,000
Blowers 75,000
Gas flares 70,000
Sludge take-off 40,000
Total 5,000,000 - 6,000,000
Variable costs (typical)
Item Amount ($)

Labour 85,000
Materials 196,799
Trade waste charges 609,000
Other (R&D, sludge disposal, consulting) 474,318
Total 1,465,113
The variable costs per cubic metre of methane recovered without the trade waste charges are
about 15 cents.
Environmental Data
A local planning permit and EPA works approvals were required to construct the system. Because
the system is covered, it did not need the same EPA approvals as an open system would have
required.
9.D.18 Skinnerup On-farm Biogas Plant with Gas Storage
Location : Skinnerup, Denmark
Feed material: Dairy Waste slurry and fish oil sludge
Description
In April 1996 a new on-farm biogas plant of the "Smedemester" type was put into operation near
Thisted in Jutland. The innovative feature of this plant is a total gas storage of 465 m3, allowing
the farmer to produce electricity at the time of the day when it is most valuable. A small 65 m3
gas storage was established from the beginning but a bigger storage (400 m3) was added in July
1996.
12-13 m3 of slurry and 300-500 litres of fish oil sludge is mixed in a prestorage tank every day.
From there it is pumped into a digestion tank (200 m3) six times per day. At the same time a
corresponding quantity of degassed slurry is displaced to a storage tank.
The daily gas production varies from 300 m3 (slurry only) to 970 m3 (boosted with fish oil
sludge). The gas is burned in a motor generator and the electricity sold to the public grid.
Electricity production varies between 600 and 1,870 kWh/day.
The farm is almost entirely heated by biogas which saves about 75,000 litres/year of fuel oil. The
farmer takes advantage of peak load electricity prices by storing the biogas at night and running
the motor generator only during peak hours.
Electricity prices varies as follows: (including a government subsidy (tax refund) of DKK
0.27/kWh)
(Note DKK is the Danish krone).
Electricity Load Price DKK/kWh

peak 0.77
intermediate period 0.64
off peak 0.41
Technical Data
Digestion tank 200 m3

(vertical steel tank)
Process temperature 40 - 48 °C
Average digestion time (1996) 12 days
Biomass consumption (1996):
slurry approx. 370 m3 per month
fatty agricultural waste approx. 12 m3 per month
Gas storage:
Small: gasbag in container 65 m3

Large gas storage in round arch hall 400 m3
Caterpillar motor/generator set 87 kW (electricity)

Accumulator tank for heat 10 m3
Substituted fossil fuels 75,000 litres fuel oil
Performance Data
Calculated annual electricity production 350,000 kWh
9.D.19 Sindrup On-Farm Plant for Animal and Industrial Waste
Location : Sindrup, Denmark
Feed material : Dairy Waste and Food Industry Waste (e.g. Piggery waste and fish oil sludge)
Description
Since 1988 five on-farm biogas plants of the "Smedemester" type have been built in Denmark
with digesters of 150-200 m3. They normally use manure from the individual farm possibly
supplemented by organic waste from the food industry to boost gas production.
The plant in Sindrup consists of a 150 m3 horizontal, insulated steel tank with built-in heating
pipes for process heat. The plant digests pig slurry from the farm without using considerable
amounts of cut straw. Extra gas is produced by adding relatively concentrated liquid agricultural
waste, usually fish oil sludge.
Slurry from the piggery is mixed in the pre-storage tank with fish oil sludge from a separate tank.
From there it is automatically pumped into the steel tank six times per day and digested at 35-
40°C. Formation of a float layer is prevented by slow moving, horizontal stirrers with irregular
rods. When material is pumped into the steel tank from the pre-storage tank a corresponding
quantity of degassed slurry is displaced to a cement storage tank.
The first year's biogas was only used for heat production. Since gas production was high a
Combined Heat and Power plant was installed in 1992.
Over the years annual electricity production has been between 275 and 382 MWh. Heat
production from the gas engine is utilised as process heat and heating for farm buildings
(calculated annual production over the years from 550 to 750 MWh).
The plant digests manure at lower costs than some centralised plants. The economy is good due to
low capital and operational costs, efficient gas utilisation and additional economic benefits from
improved fertiliser value.
Technical Data
Annual consumption (1995):
Liquid manure 4,277 m3

Industrial waste 58 m3
Nominal capacity:
Biogas (app.) 800 m3/day
Electricity (motor generator) 60 kW
Heat 180 kW
Digestion tank 150 m3
Pre-storage tank 20 m3
Process time approx 12 days
Process temperature 35-40 °C
Animal herd:
Cows 550
Pigs 12-13,000 /year
Substituted fossil fuels 110-150 tonnes coal
Gas utilisation (1995):

\Gas production per m3 of feedstock (biomass 171,763 m3/4335 m3 39.5 m3/m3
Gas utilisation is at the same level as some centralised biogas plants.
Performance Data
Production (data from several sources)
1993 1994 1995
Gas production m3 147,881 242,641 171,763
Electricity production kWh 372,469 382,032 268,481
Heat production kWh Not measured
The gas production decreased in 1995 due to experiments.
9.D.20 Ejstruplund Storage Tank Biogas Plant with Soft-Top Cover
Location : Ejstrup; Denmark
Feed Material : Piggery waste
General Description
The first prototype Soft-Top (a PVC membrane mounted on a float ring) plant in Denmark was
put into operation in 1994. The aim of building a storage tank biogas plant is to lower investment
costs by using a standard slurry tank as biogas digester. At Ejstruplund the existing 500 m3 slurry
tank was fitted with a heat spiral at the bottom and a Soft-Top cover which apart from collecting
the gas also prevents dilution by rainwater in the storage tank and emissions of ammonia and
methane. To make the plant independent of industrial waste the plant exclusively digests slurry.
Input to the plant is approximately 5 m3 pig slurry per day with no appreciable cut straw content.
Active digester volume is about 450 m3 apart from spring when the fertilizer is spread over the
fields. Slurry is digested with a long retention time and low process temperature. The first year
process temperature was 20-22°C, the second year it will be reduced to 15°C to find the optimal
process temperature in relation to gas production and process heating.
Slurry is pumped daily from an existing pre-storage tank into the digester. Degassed slurry is
moved to a newly-built storage tank by means of spillover. Gas is accumulated by means of the
gas proof Soft-Top and led from the digester to a gas boiler in a nearby small container which
also contains an oil boiler, the gas blower and a compression control system. The heat produced is
used as process heating and to heat the farm buildings.
Technical Data
Nominal capacity:Biogas 120 m3/day
Annual consumption (1995):

Pig manure 1,714 m3
Digestion storage tank 450 m3
Process temperature (1995) 20 - 22 °C
Degassed slurry storage tank 1,200 m3
Average digestion time (1995) 99 days
Gas utilization (1995):

Gas production per cubic metre biomass 19 m3/m3
Performance Data
Annual gas production (1995) 32,382 m3.
During 1995 the plant has been self-sufficient with heat. Approximately 30% of the heat
production was used for process heating. The oil-boiler was used during the three days when the
degassed slurry was being spread over the fields.
Economic Data
(Note: DKK is the Danish krone).
Investment DKK 550,000
Grant DKK 550,000 (including costs for a measurement and evaluation

programme)
Results 1995 DKK
Value of heat production 19,838
Operation costs 13,500
Revenue 6,338
Interest and depreciation 9,590
Ordinary result before tax -3,252
Ordinary result after tax 6,743
The investment is especially low since the former slurry storage tank was re-used as digestion
tank.
The economy at Ejstruplund on-farm plant is good due to low capital and operational costs, and
additional economic benefits from improved fertilizer value.
Environmental Data
During the first year of operation daily injections of 2% air into the gas in the digestion tank were
introduced. The aim was to reduce the sulphur content of the gas. Within a week hydrogen
sulphide (H2S) was reduced to 200 ppm. Ever since 2% air is automatically injected into the gas.
Long road haulage of manure and fertilizer is not needed at on-farm plants. Petrol /diesel oil are
thereby saved and heavy traffic on small roads avoided.
Appendix – 9E
Biogas for Power Generation and Other Applications
9.E.1 Composition and Uses
The main constituent of biogas is methane (50-80% CH4) together with carbon dioxide (25-50%) and
small quantities of hydrogen sulphide.
At normal atmospheric temperature and pressure biogas has a calorific content of 5500 Kcal/m3 (60 %
methane) and is highly flammable.
The energy potential of biogas is assessed by the quantity of methane present in the gas. The
percentage of methane present in biogas varies depending on a wide variety of process conditions, the
most important of which are; the composition of the feedstock such as C:N ratio and the relative
quantities of proteins, carbohydrates and fats, and the type of process. For instance the percentage of
methane in biogas from digestion of sewage sludge under mesophilic temperature conditions is
typically 60-65%. Biogas from digestion of vegetable wastes and the organic fraction of MSW has
50-55% CH4. Some biomethanation processes can produce high quality biogas containing upto 80%
methane.
The second major constituent of biogas is carbon dioxide (CO2) which, together with methane,
generally constitutes 95-98% of biogas. It is a stable non-flammable gas and does not contribute to the
energy potential of biogas. Small percentages of other gases such as hydrogen sulphide, ammonia and
water vapour are also present in biogas and these gases do not contribute significantly to the energy
potential of biogas. In addition there are usually traces of other gases such as hydrogen, nitrogen and
some hydrocarbons. Of these minor constituents, hydrogen sulphide (H2S) and water vapour are
particularly relevant with respect to practical issues in the use of biogas.
Biogas produced in a biomethanation reactor is saturated with water vapour. The percentage of water
vapour in the biogas is dependent on the ambient temperature of the process and on factors such as the
method of mixing. In mesophilic fully-mixed reactors, the amount of water vapour in biogas direct
from the reactor vessel is approximately 2-3% by volume.
When biogas leaves the reactor, the relative ambient temperature outside the reactor affects its
temperature. Typically, cooling of the gas takes place resulting in condensation of water vapour in
gas pipeline, gas storage vessels and equipment. The resulting condensate will flow by gravity to the
lowest point of the pipeline, and unless there are adequate means of collection and disposal, this
condensate can cause blockages and interfere with normal mechanical operation of the process and
energy generation systems.
Condensate due to cooling biogas also contains traces of gases like hydrogen sulphide in dissolved
form. The generation and appropriate disposal of condensate must be adequately dealt with in the
process and mechanical design of a biomethanation system.
The amount of hydrogen sulphide present in biogas depends mainly on the composition of the
feedstock, especially the relative quantity of proteins and other sulphur containing compounds. H2S
in biogas may vary from less than 100 ppm to levels as high as 5,000 ppm, depending on the type of
wastes being digested. For instance, the concentration of H2S in biogas derived from digestion of
sewage sludge ranges typically from 100 – 1000 ppm. In contrast, the typical H2S level in biogas
from digestion of animal slurries may range from 1,000 to 5,000 ppm.
During the combustion of biogas, hydrogen sulphide is converted to sulphur dioxide (SO2), which is
highly soluble and dissolves in water vapour to produce sulphuric acid. At high temperature and
MWH Appendix 9E- 1

moisture inside the combustion chamber, combustion gases may be highly corrosive, and this is an
important factor affecting many practical uses of biogas.
Taking into account the presence of CO2 and other gases which do not contribute to the energy
potential, the average calorific value of biogas from the majority of applications, such as from
treatment of sewage sludge and animal wastes and industrial wastewaters ranges from 5000-5750
Kcal/m3. A typical value given for biogas containing, nominally, 60% CH4, 38% CO2 and 2% other
gases is 5325 Kcal/m3 at normal temperature and pressure.
Biogas has a wide variety of uses and has been a practical source of energy for over a hundred years.
For instance, it is recorded that biogas produced in sewers in Victorian England was used as a fuel to
power street lamps.
Biogas is also highly explosive when mixed with air in a confined space therefore its utilization must
be carefully controlled. One method of control is the zoning of plant and equipment according to the
potential presence of biogas (hazardous zones), which determines the electrical status (explosion-
proof) of equipment to be used in that zone.
In most cases biogas is used at the site of production, but in some cases gas is distributed by pipeline
for use in the community. Distribution of uncleaned biogas to individual houses in villages is
practised in some countries with warm climates. At some of the larger Central Anaerobic Digestion
(CAD) plants in Denmark, biogas is upgraded (cleaned) to the standard required for pipeline quality
natural gas and is added to the natural gas distribution network.
One of the important considerations in the use of biogas is the volume of gas storage required. Biogas
from a digester system is produced continuously but many methods of energy use are intermittent and
vary during the day (e.g. cooking, lighting and powering engines for work). This requires an
intermediate gas storage facility, which is also used to provide a reasonably constant low-pressure
supply. In most low-technology biomethanation systems, gas storage is incorporated as part of the
reactor. Most biomethanation systems in temperate countries utilise one or two different methods of
gas storage: the bell-over-water gas holder; and the gas storage bag of which there are a variety of
types.
The double membrane type of gas holder can provide the largest storage volumes and is gaining
popularity. Compared to bell-over-water gas holders in which gas usage pressure is provided by the
weight of the gas bell, the double membrane gas holder systems require the continuous use of air
pumps to provide gas pressure, resulting in constant and significant parasitic electrical energy
demand.
9.E.2 Low Technology Applications
The most common use of biogas occurs in the very large number of domestic biogas plants in warm
climates, mainly India and China. These systems process mainly animal wastes, operate at ambient
temperature and do not require an input of process heat. Thus all the biogas produced is available for
use and is mainly utilised in relatively low technology applications; of which the most common are:
• lighting;
• cooking; and
• as a fuel for internal combustion engines used for a variety of tasks including
pumping, electricity generation, milling, etc. (These engines are often unmodified
diesel engines using a typical mixture of 90% biogas and 10% diesel)
MWH Appendix 9E- 2

In these systems the gas is stored and used at low pressure, the efficiency of conversion is relatively
low, and the H2S content of the gas is tolerated by the relative simplicity and robustness of the
equipment.
9.E.3 Medium to High Technology Applications
Process Heat Use in Boilers
In controlled biomethanation systems in which the temperature is maintained above ambient

(generally at mesophilic or thermophilic temperatures), the most common use for biogas is generation
of process heat in boilers. A wide variety of boiler equipment is available for use.
In general, boilers can tolerate hydrogen sulphide, so gas cleaning is not required prior to use,
although the gas should be as moisture-free as possible. Cast iron heat exchangers are least
susceptible to corrosion and operation at high temperatures is also beneficial. In colder climates where
flue gases condense, corrosion will occur and stainless steel are generally used.
At a smaller scale, conventional boilers designed for fuel such as liquified petroleum gas (LPG) or
natural gas are sometimes converted for use with biogas. In most cases, due to the need to provide
start-up and standby heating, boilers are configured as multiple-fuel systems able to use fuel oil, LPG
or natural gas as a secondary start-up/standby fuels. Smaller boilers are usually naturally aspirated and
use gas at low pressure directly from the storage vessel but, in most cases above 50kW output, the gas
is pressurised by centrifugal pumps or fans and the boilers have forced-air ventilation. Conversion
efficiency of such boilers is typically in the range of 75-85%.
In temperate countries, biogas which is surplus to the process heating requirements of the digestion
system is often used in separate boilers to generate hot water for other uses. This includes domestic
heating, cooking, hot water and space heating for industrial uses.
Flares
The treatment of sewage sludge in temperate countries is usually carried out through a mesophilic
fully mixed process in which the feedstock is the sludge, typically with a dry solids concentration of
4-6%. In the majority of these systems the biogas is used in boilers solely for maintaining process
temperature, and the surplus biogas, usually amounting to 10-50% of production is flared to the
atmosphere. This may appear to be wasteful, but in those cases where the feed sludge is less than 4-
5% in dry solids, the heat available from combined heat and power (CHP) would not be sufficient to
maintain process temperature.
Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Systems
Currently the most efficient method of energy conversion and utilization of biogas is through CHP
systems. CHP is now commonly used in temperate countries for decentralised power generation
using natural gas as a primary fuel. Alternative fuels which can be used include oil, LPG and biogas.
Thousands of CHP systems are in operation worldwide at biogas plants and at landfill sites, ranging
from small units of 10kW capacity to large systems of over 1MW capacity. Compared to boilers,
CHP units can achieve overall conversion efficiencies of more than 90%, with the larger systems
yielding up to 38% of electricity conversion efficiency.
MWH Appendix 9E- 3

High Speed Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines
Methane is a high-octane fuel. Most CHP systems in operation worldwide involve high-speed high-
compression engines, typically converted diesel engines. The following data illustrates a typical
energy balance of a CHP system operating on biogas from a medium sized sludge digestion plant.
Quantity of gas available (m3/day) 5000

Calorific Value (K cal/m3) 5500
Total energy content of biogas (kW) 1279
Average gas consumption rate by CHP unit (m3/h) 208
Electric efficiency (%) 30
Thermal efficiency (%) 55
Electrical power output (kW) 384
Useable thermal power (kW) 703
Total useable energy (kW) 1087
Total efficiency (%) 85
Thermal output of engine cooling system (kW) 422
Thermal output of exhaust/oil heat recovery system (kW) 281
In most cases a CHP unit is designed to operate continuously. In some cases however operation is for
a limited period each day to maximise returns from peak generating periods, and this requires extra
gas storage capacity.
The operating and maintenance costs of this type of CHP system are significant. Internal combustion
engines require frequent maintenance involving regular oil and filter changes and replacement of
component parts, and the engines generally have a limited lifetime which is typically around 20,000
hours in total. One of the reasons contributing to this is the presence of hydrogen sulphide in the
biogas and this is a significant problem for internal combustion CHP systems. Hydrogen sulphide
causes corrosion of wearing surfaces such as bearings, and most CHP systems designed for use on
biogas are specially converted to enable increased tolerance to hydrogen sulphide. Nevertheless, this
is usually only to levels below 200 ppm. Since hydrogen sulphide concentrations in biogas are usually
greater than this, often by a substantial margin, these concentrations must be reduced prior to use in
CHP systems.
In order to improve the economics of CHP processes using reciprocating internal combustion engines,
a variety of alternative power systems are being developed.
Sour-Gas Engines
Some internal combustion engines will tolerate high concentrations of hydrogen sulphide and still
have long lifetimes. These engines are usually designed to run at low RPM. Maintenance costs are
low but overall conversion efficiencies for these engines are substantially lower than the high-speed
engines . For example, a 100 kW sour-gas two-stroke valve-less single-cylinder engine typically
operates at speed between 200-600 RPM, with low combustion pressure allowing operation on biogas
with lower calorific content. The electrical conversion efficiency is lower than 25%.
MWH Appendix 9E- 4

Steam
Instead of direct conversion of the chemical energy in biogas to primarily mechanical and thermal
energy in internal combustion engines, biogas may also be used to generate steam. This can then be
used to provide combined heat and power in a piston steam engine. There are several advantages to
using a steam engine to generate CHP and these include:
- higher tolerance to hydrogen sulphide (i.e. steam boilers will tolerate higher levels of H2S
than will internal combustion engines)
- lower maintenance costs (i.e. less oil/filter and parts replacement, and longer lifetime)
The main disadvantages are lower conversion efficiencies to electricity and higher capital costs.
However, the efficiency of this type of steam engine has been greatly increased. For instance, a 500
kWe Spilling steam engine needs approximately 5 t/hr of steam (inlet pressure 28 barg, temperature
350 °C, back pressure 0.5 barg). The operating costs are approximately 25% that of a typical internal
combustion engine and the expected lifetime is more than 30 years.
Some small reciprocating steam engines are also being developed. At the other end of the scale, in
large-scale steam CHP systems, steam is generated in a high-pressure steam boiler and used in a
turbine to generate electricity.
Dual Fuel Engines
In case there is a shortfall in biogas generation it is desirable to have additional alternate fuel
available for power generation. The option used before was to use a dual fuel engine i.e.
basically an engine designed for diesel, which can use biogas to supply part of the fuel
requirement. A dual fuel engine is basically a diesel engine with a conversion kit to run the
engine with diesel and biogas (or any other suitable gas). This works on the diesel cycle.
Gaseous fuel is added to the air, which is included at air intake manifold or before
Turbocharger. This mixture of air and gas is compressed in the cylinder just as air
compressed in normal IC engine. At the end of compression, diesel is injected through a
conventional fuel system. This pilot injection acts as a source of ignition. The percentage
substitution of diesel by gas depends on the type and composition of gas used and engines
design. The only disadvantage of this type of engine is that, it always requires diesel as a part
of its total fuel supply. The amount of diesel required ranges from 7% for lean burn engine to
as high as 40% for small indigenous engines. This continuous use of diesel represents not
only a problem for operations but also a continuous financial drain.
Some other aspects of interest in the selection of proper engine are as follows:
• Dual fuel engines will allow generation of power when biogas is not available.
• Use of fuel oil and biogas as dual fuel is not offered by any engine manufacturer.
• If use of diesel exceeds 10% then interest subsidy from MNES is not available.
• Dual fuel engines tend to be modified diesel engines with use of diesel as ignition source.
The only disadvantage of gas only engines seems to be inability to produce power when
biogas is not available.
MWH Appendix 9E- 5

Pure Gas Engines
These are internal combustion engines coupled with alternator. The mixture of air and gas are
compressed in the combustion chamber and ignited by spark plug. The mechanical energy
developed is converted into electrical energy by the alternator. Biogas is very well suited for the
operation of gas engines, since the knock-resistant methane and the high amount of CO2 contained in
it permit a methane number of over 130. These engines are designed with state of the art
technology running on 100% biogas further, this genset can be controlled and monitored
automatically.
The spark – ignited gas engine has lesser level of emission over a gas-diesel (dual-fuel) engine. The
lean-burn engine principle adopted in the gas engines results in extremely low NOx emissions,
therefore the additional secondary treatment of exhaust gas can be avoided. The combustion
chamber configuration of gas engines can be specially developed to ensure efficient
combustion. The other advantage of gas engine is generally used as a combined heat and power. In
comparison to gas turbines, combined heat and power plants with gas engines has a higher electrical
efficiency and lower capital investment. The overall conversion efficiency of a gas engine depends on
the following two factors
• Requirement of thermal energy at the plant site

• Operating hours
Imported engines tend to be of the high compression ratio, slower speed variety and have
high efficiency of around 40%. On the other hand the indigenous engines operate at low
compression ratio and high speed and have low efficiency of around 32%. Offsetting this
lower efficiency is the much lower capital cost of indigenous engine.
The following are some of the possibilities of utilization of waste heat recovered from the gas
engines:
• To generate hot steam, which can be used in various applications
• To produce Chilled air/fluid through absorption chillers.
• In case of biomethanation plants the waste heat can be used to heat the digesters
Stirling Engines
The high maintenance costs and limited lifetime of high-speed reciprocating engines operating on
biogas has driven the development of other power systems which are more tolerant to hydrogen
sulphide. An example is the Stirling external combustion engine, the principle of which has been
known for many years. The basis of operation is a closed cycle (similar to a refrigerator) where a
pressurised working gas (such as helium or nitrogen) is alternately heated in a hot cylinder and then
compressed in a cold cylinder. The heat input from the combustion of fuel in the combustion chamber
(similar to that of a boiler), is transferred to the working gas through a heat exchanger. The
expansion/contraction cycle of the working gas is mechanically harnessed to generate electricity,
while the waste heat is recovered.
Because the mechanical system of such an engine is not exposed to the combustion gases, the system
is much more tolerant to impurities in the biogas, and will also work with a variety of other fuels.
Stirling engines are still in the development phase and are currently available only as small co-
generation units. Conversion efficiency to electricity is low; i.e.
Overall conversion efficiency (%) 87

Conversion to electricity (%) 19
Conversion to thermal energy (%) 68
MWH Appendix 9E- 6

Gas Turbines
Gas turbines are being developed for use in CHP systems but these are less efficient, except at large
scale of around 1 MW. The advantage of a gas turbine compared to an internal combustion engine is
lower maintenance costs and a longer lifetime.
Microturbines
Microturbines are small combustion turbines approximately the size of a refrigerator with outputs of
25 kW to 500 kW. They evolved from automotive and truck turbochargers, auxiliary power units for
airplanes, and small jet engines and are comprised of a compressor, combustor, turbine, alternator,
recuperator, and generator.
Microturbines offer a number of potential advantages compared to other technologies for small-scale
power generation. These advantages include a small number of moving parts, compact size, light-
weight, greater efficiency, lower emissions, lower electricity costs, and opportunities to utilize waste
fuels. They have the potential to be located on sites with space limitations for the production of
power. Waste heat recovery can be used with these systems to achieve efficiencies greater than 80%.
The individual manufacturer’s contacted were as follows:
1. Jenbacher, Austrian, gas only engine represented by COGEN, Pune

2. Anglo-Belgian Corporation, Belgian, dual fuel engine
3. Cummins India Ltd., Indian, both dual fuel and gas only engines
4. Greaves Ltd., Indian, both dual fuel and gas only engines
5. Wartsilla, French dual fuel engine
6. Caterpillar, American, gas only engine and dual fuel engine
7. M.W.M. German, dual fuel as well as gas only.
8. Hyundai – Ulstein – Bergan, Korean, gas only.
9. Alstom
Fuel Cells
While the principle of fuel cells has been known for 100 years, the arrival of this technology in the
energy market is also relatively recent, due to the development of new materials. A fuel cell produces
electricity and heat by chemical rather than mechanical means by converting the chemical bond
energy of hydrogen (in methane) and oxygen directly to produce water, electricity, and heat.
In the fuel cell, a catalyst on the anode converts the hydrogen ions in the fuel gas into negatively
charged electrons and positively charged ions. The electrons flow through an external load to the
cathode. The hydrogen ions migrate through the electrolyte to the cathode where they combine with
oxygen and the electrons to produce water. Since individual cells only produce a small voltage, the
cells are arranged in series to provide the required level of power.
Recent technological developments have reduced the capital cost of fuel cells, and there are now a
small number operating worldwide at wastewater treatment plants and landfill sites, generating
electricity from biogas. Since fuel-cells also generate heat, they can substitute for conventional CHP
systems in biomethanation plants which require process heat. Fuel-cells operate chemically and have
several advantages over the use of internal combustion engines. These include:
- higher conversion efficiencies to electricity (up to 50%)
MWH Appendix 9E- 7

- greater reliability and less downtime
- lower operation and maintenance costs
- longer operating lifetime
- low level emissions
- tolerant to hydrogen sulphide
There are currently five different types of fuel cell – most of which are still in the development stage.
These are:
Fuel Cell Type Operating Temperature Conversion Efficiency

(to electricity)
Alkaline (AFC) 150 °C 40-50%

Phosphoric Acid (PAFC) 200 °C 40-45%
Molten Carbonate (MCFC) 650 °C 50-57%
Solid Oxide (SOFC) 1000 °C 45-50%
Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) 50-150 °C 30-40%
Of these types, only the alkaline fuel cell is not suitable for use with biogas, and only the PAFC has
reached commercial viability. One of the reasons is the high operating temperatures required. In the
case of PEM systems, the constraining issue is the high cost of the platinum catalyst.
The conversion efficiency to electric power is typically 5% greater than for a similar size internal
combustion CHP system, but overall efficiency is less. The main disadvantage is the capital cost.
Information from International Fuel Cells states: “The installed cost is approximately $4500/kw. Site
start-up and unit testing costs are approximately US$15,000 per unit. The 200 kW product costs
approximately US$850,000 per unit, excluding installation. Multi-unit installations run between
US$775,000 to US$800,000 per unit”.
Although currently capital costs are substantially higher than conventional CHP systems, it is clear
that the rapidly increasing development and use of fuel cells will reduce costs and further increase
efficiency.
Production and Use of Thermal Energy from CHP
The majority of CHP systems currently use internal combustion engines. These CHP systems convert
most of the gross energy of biogas (55-60%) to hot water obtained from cooling of the engine and
recovery of heat from exhaust gases (with engine cooling being approximately two thirds of the total
heat output).
In temperate countries, substantial amounts of process heat are required to maintain digester
temperature in order to raise the temperature of the incoming waste and overcome system temperature
losses, especially in winter. Thus there is a natural use for the thermal energy produced from CHP
systems.
One of the important aspects of a CHP installation is matching of the constant heat output from the
CHP system to the changing heat demand of the digester (which varies according to ambient
temperature conditions). During the warm ambient temperatures of summer, excess heat is produced
by the CHP over and above digester heat requirements. This heat must be alternatively used or
disposed of. In temperate countries with a wide variation between winter and summer ambient
MWH Appendix 9E- 8

temperatures there is a considerable seasonal variation in the amount of process heat required and
excess heat is usually disposed to atmosphere via a heat-dump radiator. Heat dump radiators require
electrical power, increasing the parasitic electrical load of the system and reducing nett electrical
output. In warm climates where efficient recovery of heat is not required for process heat, the CHP
system need not incorporate heat recovery from exhaust gases, thus minimising the amount of surplus
heat that must otherwise be disposed.
Thus it is often difficult to find a use for all the excess heat from a CHP system, especially in warmer
countries and during the summer season of temperate countries, thus resulting in a loss of efficiency.
Of course conventional fossil-fuel power stations also have this problem.
In order to overcome this and maximise the energy potential of the biogas, some countries such as
Denmark distribute the excess heat from biomethanation plants to urban district heating schemes, or
utilise one of a number of other energy distribution strategies.
9.E.4 Use as a Vehicle Fuel
General
Biogas has been used as a vehicle fuel for many years. During World War II for instance, some public
vehicles in the United Kingdom operated on biogas, with gas stored in low-pressure gas bags on the
roof of the vehicles. There is currently increasing interest in the use of biogas as a vehicle fuel and
there are several instances in which biogas from large sewage works and landfill sites is being refined
and used as a fuel for public utility vehicles such as buses.
There are two main problems relating to use of biogas as a vehicle fuel. Thus, with an average
calorific content of only 23 MJ/m3, on a volumetric basis biogas has a very low energy content
compared to petrol or diesel at approximately 36 MJ/litre. Therefore, for practical purposes, the
biogas must be compressed prior to use as a fuel for transport. Also, because carbon dioxide typically
comprises 35-40% of biogas and contributes nothing to the calorific value, it is advantageous to
remove this prior to compression in order to improve the energy content of the biogas. When cleaned,
biogas is essentially the same as natural gas, which is increasingly becoming used as a vehicle fuel in
some countries.
Also, since high pressure increases the susceptibility of mechanical equipment to corrosion caused by
H2SO4, hydrogen sulphide must be efficiently removed before compression.
Compression of Methane for Storage and Transport
This requires a significant amount of electrical energy. The direct electrical energy (kW) required to
compress methane to levels typically necessary in storage systems is approximately 5% of the gross
energy content (kW) of the gas. When conversion losses of hydrocarbon fuels to electricity are
included, this energy loss increases to over 30%.
Storage systems usually comprise a bank of high-pressure cylinders at a maximum pressure of 350
bar. Vehicles containing high-pressure cylinders can refuel from this high-pressure storage and fuel
transfer takes place simply by the pressure differential.
Due to the lack of commercial re-fuelling stations dispensing biogas in most countries, the range for
vehicle operation on biogas is generally limited to the area in the vicinity of the processing plant.
However, some countries (e.g. Holland, New Zealand) have extensive networks of CNG (compressed
natural gas) stations which allows greater flexibility. Alternatively, vehicles may have dual fuel (gas-
petrol) systems.
MWH Appendix 9E- 9

9.E.5 Gas Cleaning Systems
Removal of Hydrogen Sulphide from Biogas for Use in CHP Systems
Internal combustion CHP systems require reduction of hydrogen sulphide concentrations in the
biogas. The most common methods are as follows.
Iron Oxide Filters
Hydrogen sulphide may be removed from the gas stream by passing through a filter system containing
iron oxide. The iron oxide may be in various forms such as mixed with wood chips, or in pellets.
Hydrogen sulphide combines readily with iron oxide in the absence of oxygen to form iron sulphide.
Subsequent exposure of iron sulphide to air (oxygen) causes re-oxidation of the iron sulphide to iron
oxide. This mechanism thus allows the filter medium to be regenerated (in an exothermic reaction
producing heat) for a limited period, but replacement of the medium is required periodically. As the
medium breaks down, there may be some reduction in H2S removal efficiency.
Dosing the Reactor with Salts such as iron (Ferric) Chloride
Ferric chloride is a compound widely used in effluent treatment. When added to a biogas reactor, it
combines with sulphur during the digestion process, thus producing insoluble particles of iron
sulphide and preventing its conversion to hydrogen sulphide. This is a low capital cost method of
biogas cleaning, suitable for situations where ferric salts can be obtained cheaply. Although suitable
for reduction of high levels of H2S, this method has lower limits of hydrogen sulphide removal, with
practical removal limits in the region of 100-200 ppm.
Biological Removal of Hydrogen Sulphide
This process entails removal of H2S by sulphide-oxidising bacteria (thiobacillus). These bacteria are
autotrophic (i.e. they use the carbon dioxide present in the biogas for their carbon requirements) and
also require only small quantities of oxygen. Two methods are in common use, for both of which the
control of additional air is important to avoid production of an explosive mixture (6-12% biogas in
air).
Addition of Air to the Digester
A controlled volume of air (typically 5% of gas production) is added to the digester gas space. The
method relies on formation of a layer of sulphur-oxidising bacteria on the surface of the digesting
wastes, thus allowing the use of mechanical mixing systems that do not disturb the surface of the
digesting wastes, but precluding the use of gas recirculation mixing systems.
Gas Scrubbing method was developed in Denmark and is now commonly used on Danish CAD
(centralised anaerobic digestion) plants, and can be used with any type of mixing system. A separate
gas scrubbing process is installed in which biogas is passed through a vessel filled with filter media on
which bacteria grow. Air is proportionately added to the gas stream in such a way that all the oxygen
is utilised by the bacteria, thereby reducing hydrogen sulphide levels in the biogas (but adding trace
amounts of nitrogen). Digestate is periodically pumped over the media, with this providing a food
source for the bacteria
Removal of Hydrogen Sulphide to Low Levels
Compared to the requirements for the use of biogas in CHP systems (100-200 ppm hydrogen sulphide
as an upper limit for this impurity), the biogas required for compression and use as a vehicle fuel must
have H2S concentrations reduced to less than 10 ppm.
MWH Appendix 9E- 10

Methods of achieving this have been discussed earlier. Of these, the method of dosing digesters with
ferric chloride is not suitable in this case due to an inability to reduce concentrations to the low levels
required.
Probably the most frequently used method is that of activated carbon filters. Here hydrogen sulphide
is catalytically converted to sulphur which is absorbed by the carbon. The optimum conditions are an
operating pressure of 7-8 bar and temperatures of 50-70 °C.
Removal of Carbon Dioxide
Water Scrubbing
Carbon dioxide will dissolve to a significant extent in water at relatively low pressures. The most
frequently used method is water absorption in which, following removal of hydrogen sulphide, the
biogas is compressed to approximately 7 bar and passed through a water column under pressure. At
this pressure carbon dioxide will readily dissolve in the water. This system will typically remove over
95% of the CO2. The water is usually recirculated since it may be re-used following a period of
exposure to normal atmospheric pressure, which releases the dissolved carbon dioxide to atmosphere.
In this method, the cleaned product gas is saturated with water vapour, which must first be condensed
prior to compression.
Carbon Molecular Sieves
Carbon molecular sieves are used for industrial separation of gases and for cleaning of biogas for use
as a vehicle fuel. Following removal of hydrogen sulphide under pressure and using different mesh
sizes of the sieves, carbon dioxide in the biogas may be temporarily absorbed onto the activated
carbon. The carbon dioxide can be discarded when the pressure is released. This method can produce
gas containing over 96% methane and with very low concentrations of water vapour.
Membrane Systems
Carbon dioxide may also be removed by membrane systems. Such systems are increasingly being
used for industrial gas separation and cleaning, and are now used in most large scale processes (over
500-1000 m3/hour) in which biogas is refined for use as a vehicle fuel. In this case, high-purity carbon
dioxide may also be recovered for sale for industrial use. There are two types of membrane systems:
High pressure membranes
Membranes made of acetate-cellulose and which may be designed to selectively allow certain
molecules to pass through. High gas pressures are necessary and this requires significant amounts of
electrical energy. In these systems the efficiency of methane recovery is typically around 80% as
there is approximately 20% methane remaining in the final carbon dioxide stream. Membrane
lifetimes are typically three years. Capital and operating costs are high.
Gas liquid absorption membranes
This is a new low-pressure separation process in which a microporous hydrophobic membrane

separates the gaseous phase from the liquid phase. Molecules of carbon dioxide flowing in one
direction diffuse through the membrane and dissolve in the liquid containing an amine solution
flowing on the other side of the membrane. This solution can be regenerated by heating, releasing
pure CO2 which can in turn be recovered and sold for industrial use. This method will produce over
96% pure methane from low-grade biogas. The normal operating pressure is only 1 bar and thus
capital and operating costs are reduced.
MWH Appendix 9E- 11

Appendix 10 A
Incineration Technologies And Developers
The information which follows regarding developers and technologies is extracted from various
sources (see references) and does not express Montgomery Watson’s views or endorsement in
any way.
1. Energy Products of Idaho (EPI)

Type of System /Technology: Bubbling-type fluid bed
EPI is a limited partnership company with headquarters in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. EPI specializes
in designing and fabricating fluid bed combustion systems.
The EPI incineration system uses a bubbling-type fluid bed concept that accepts a prepared 10-cm
top size RDF. Within the bed, RDF particles are exposed to a vigorously turbulent hot
environment that promotes rapid drying, gasification and char burnout. In the bed EPI’s
proprietary design features provide continuous removal of oversized noncombustible materials.
The hot gases from the bed are passed through a boiler to generate the high-pressure, superheated
steam that is used either to produce electricity or for process applications.
The combustion technology offered by EPI is presently at the point of commercial availability.
EPI has installed five furnaces in the U.S., with capacities of more than 50 ton/day, burning RDF
fuel.
Energy Products of Idaho Tel: +1+215-248-5244
8014 Germantown Road Fax: +1+215-248-2381
Philadelphia, PA 19118 USA
MWH Appendix 10A- 1

2. Pedco Incorporated
Type of System /Technology: Rotary Cascading Bed Combustors (RCBC)
Pedco Incorporated has its headquarters in Cincinnati, Ohio. The firm has developed rotary
cascading bed combustors (RCBC). The Pedco RCBC is, in essence, a robust solid-fuel burner
and heat-recovery system. Among other solid fuels, such as coal or wood chips, it can burn
prepared MSW. Pedco’s basic business is the design of combustion systems using the RCBC
concept.
The RCBC burner comprises a rotating, horizontal, cylindrical combustion chamber. A bundle of
boiler tubes projects into one end of the chamber. The rotational speed of the chamber is high
enough to keep a substantial fraction of the bed material continually airborne. This activity
produces an environment similar to that of a fluid bed but, in this case, a mechanically fluidized
bed. The hot falling solids cascade across the whole diameter so that the boiler tubes are
submerged in hot fuel and bed material. The hot solids recycle preheats the combustion air,
drying and igniting the incoming fuel.
Pedco has two furnaces operating in the U.S.- a development unit at North American Rayon
Corporation and a specialized unit based on Pedco design principles used by a commercial
hazardous waste management firm near Houston, Texas. The plants are reported to have shown
acceptable reliability, environmental emissions, and basic operability and maintainability
characteristics.
Pedco Incorporated Tel: +1+513-784-0033
216 East 9th Street, 5th Floor Fax: +1+513-241-7958
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 USA
MWH Appendix 10A- 2

3. Wheelabrator Environmental Systems Inc.

Type of System /Technology: Reciprocating grates with waterwall boilers
Wheelabrator Environmental Systems Inc. is a unit of Wheelabrator Technologies Inc., and is one
of the pioneer developers of energy and recycling technologies.
The company has designed and constructed a waste-to-energy facility in Gloucester County, New
Jersey, in the U.S. In this facility, the waste is transferred by overhead cranes from the storage
area to the feed hopper of each combustion unit. The waste is moved on to a reciprocating grate
through the furnace, where combustion temperatures exceed 2500 °F. Air from the reception area
is blown in above and below the grates to fuel a complete combustion process in the furnace and
to maintain negative pressure over the reception area, thus preventing the escape of dust and
odors. A waterwall boiler above the grate area produces superheated steam which is used to drive
a turbine-generator, which in turn produces electricity.
Wheelabrator Environmental Systems Inc. have also built waste-to-energy plants in other parts of
the United States.
Wheelabrator Environmental Systems Inc. Tel: +1+603-929-3000
Liberty Lane Fax:
Hampton, NH 03842 USA
MWH Appendix 10A- 3

4. Ogden Waste to Energy Inc.

Type of System /Technology: Martin reverse reciprocating stoker grate
Ogden Waste to Energy, Inc. (OWTE) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ogden Energy Group,
and designs, builds, owns and operates waste-to-energy facilities. It has an exclusive technology
agreement with Martin GmbH of Germany, for North, Central and South America (excluding
Brazil), and in Israel. The technology has been in operation for more than 30 years in more than
170 operating facilities.
An Ogden Martin waste-to-energy facility features the proprietary Martin reverse reciprocating
stoker grate on which refuse is burned. Furnace combustion temperatures reach up to 2,000 °F
and convert water into high pressure/high temperature steam (860 psig/830 degrees Fahrenheit) to
drive a turbine which generates electricity. The combustion temperature and operating efficiency
of an Ogden facility destroys odors, breaks down and oxidizes organic compounds and destroys
certain otherwise persistent organic contaminants.
The most recently completed facility by OWTE is in Montgomery County, Maryland. This 1800
ton-per-day waste-to-energy facility is capable of producing up to 63 MW of electricity and is the
first project to accept all of its waste via a custom railway system. This facility employs
environmentally sensitive pollution control systems, specialized equipment for nitrogen oxides
reduction, and a mercury abatement system, as well as scrubbers and baghouses for particulates
and a lime injection system for acid gas removal.
Ogden Corporation Corporate Headquarters Tel:
Two Pennsylvania Plaza Fax: +1+212-868-3558
New York, NY 10121 U.S.A.
MWH Appendix 10A- 4

5. The Barlow Group, Inc.

Type of System /Technology: Patented Inclined Fluidized Bed combustion
Barlow Projects, Inc. (BPI) was established in 1994 to develop waste-to-energy projects using a
proprietary mass burn combustion technology developed by the Barlow Group, Inc. BPI's target
market includes two primary segments; existing WTE facilities that have a significant need for
combustion and emissions control upgrades, and new projects sized between 100 and 500 tons
per day. BPI will design, build and operate these facilities and will participate in both publicly
and privately owned projects.
The heart of a Barlow waste-to-energy facility is the patented Inclined Fluidized Bed combustion
system (IFB). The IFB process represents the latest development for combustion systems in the
industry. This mass burn design does not require any fuel preparation and has no moving parts
exposed to the combustion zone. Waste is agitated and moved through the combustion zone via a
patented pneumatic process. The IFB is designed and built in standard size modules. Each
module is shop fabricated and delivered to the facility site for final assembly.
The Barlow Group, Inc. Tel: +1-970-226-8557
2000 Vermont, Suite 200 Fax: +1-970-226-8559
Fort Collins, Co 80525 USA
MWH Appendix 10A- 5

Appendix 10-B
Municipal Waste Combustion and Tires-to-Energy Facilities in U.S.
MWH Appendix 10B- 1

MWH Appendix 10B- 2

MWH Appendix 10B- 3

Appendix 10-C
Experience With Up-Take of Incineration Technology in Selected Regions of the

World1
10-C-1 Africa
Incineration and waste-to-energy (WTE) remain little-used options for MSW in Africa. One
energy recovery plant was recently constructed in Tanzania with foreign assistance. If
successful in the long run, this experience would show how efficient and safe operations at
such a facility can be sustained with local resources. Local capacity to sustain safe and
efficient operations at such facilities is a key consideration in weighing the appropriateness of
this technology for African cities. These considerations include local technical capacity to
maintain and service the facility, the availability of basic spare parts, the scheduled
replacement of pollution control equipment, and the effective implementation of a monitoring
programme to protect public health from plant emissions.
The Senegalese have conducted research into refuse-derived fuel (RDF). However,
implementation of this system faces the same considerations listed above for incinerator
technology in general. The high cost of pre-processing RDF poses an additional obstacle to
its safe and cost-effective implementation in Africa.
Medical waste incinerators are used in the major hospitals of cities in South Africa. However,
across most of Africa, many such facilities have no environmental controls and often
comprise nothing more than combustion of medical and chemical wastes in an oven or open
pit. High capital and operating costs make incineration and WTE inaccessible technologies
for most African cities. Another limiting factor is the lack of infrastructure to support this
technology. This includes human and mechanical resources as well as institutional controls.
Furthermore, incineration in Africa would not be feasible if the waste stream is indeed 70%
(wet basis) putrescible organic content, as is widely assumed. Under these conditions,
incineration is likely to be an energy-consuming rather than energy-producing option.
Characterisation of the MSW stream would first be necessary to establish the feasibility of
incineration and WTE from MSW in Africa. To date, such city-specific information is
largely unavailable.
1
UNEP International Environmental Technology Center document
MWH Appendix 10C-1

10-C-2 Asia – East / Pacific

Incineration processes are capital-intensive and skilled manpower is required for operation
and maintenance. Up-to-date, full-scale incinerators are currently in service only in cities of
the more industrialised countries such as Australia, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, South
Korea, and Taiwan. High capital investment, high operating and maintenance costs, and
stringent air pollution control regulations have severely limited the use of incineration for
disposal. These constraints are likely to intensify, rather than abate.
Singapore operates three plants, all of the same design, incinerating 90% of the daily 5,800
ton of MSW collected. No sorting of wastes is carried out before the MSW is fed to the
incinerators (except that bulky wastes are crushed). The wastes are mixed and burned using
rotating roller grates. Auxiliary oil burners are used to start up the combustion process.
Combustion is self-sustaining in some cases, while at other times wood is added. In general,
the combustible fraction of MSW is high and in some instances has been raised by moisture-
reducing compaction at transfer stations. Total electrical energy recovered from the plants is
about 60 MW (250 to 300 kwh/ton MSW incinerated), and some of this is used to run the
incinerator operations.
Incineration plants in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are of similar design to those of
Singapore. Hong Kong has closed its incinerators because they could not meet air pollution
standards, but new plants are under consideration. Authorities in South Korea are concerned
about local opposition to incinerators and are exploring ways to resolve such conflicts. Plans
there call for the incinerated portion of the waste to rise from 3% in 1994 to 20% by 1999.
There are many incinerators in Japan: Tokyo alone has 13. Some MSW incineration facilities
in Japan are of two stages: pyrolysis, followed by thermal combustion. Some Japanese cities
have made their MSW incinerators the centre of community complexes with indoor gardens,
meeting halls, second-hand shops, and offices of NGOs.
Incineration will remain popular in cities such as Singapore, Hong Kong, Taipei, and Tokyo
as there is a lack of landfill sites. There is, however, considerable controversy about
greenhouse and other gases released by incineration.
In the developing countries of Asia, however, there have been many problems with imported
incinerators. Some are not operated at a high enough temperature to destroy pathogens, and
may also contribute to air pollution due to lack of environmental controls. The high moisture
content and low calorific content of MSW in these countries means that at present
incineration is not an efficient process for waste disposal.
Bangkok has installed conventional incineration plants at two of its landfill sites mainly for
the incineration of hazardous wastes collected; one has recently been shut down. There is
ongoing consideration of incineration in Thailand, but there is also local opposition.
China has one or two incinerators in cities like Shenzheng and Leshan. The one in Shenzheng
was purchased second-hand from Hong Kong, when that city decided it could not be
retrofitted to meet anti-pollution standards, but it has proved too expensive for Shenzheng to
run. Nevertheless, Beihai, Shenyang, Guangzhou, Beijing, and Shanghai have all begun
constructing pilot plants, with foreign assistance. One reason given is that, although the
MSW is not currently suitable for incineration, engineers want to gain operational knowledge
for the future.
Surabaya, Indonesia has an imported incinerator that can only operate at two-thirds of its
design capacity because the wastes need to be dried on-site for five days to make them
incinerable. Even without air pollution control mechanisms, the cost of incinerating the waste
MWH Appendix 10C-2

in this instance is roughly 10 times greater than the cost of sanitary landfilling in other
Indonesian cities.
In cities of developing countries in the Asia-Pacific region open burning of refuse is common
at landfill sites, to reduce volume. This is especially the case where the authority cannot
afford bulldozers to compact the deposits.
Often refuse is burned by households at sundown as a means of disposal and to generate

smoke to drive away mosquitoes in developing countries. This contributes to air pollution in
cities and towns, particularly as there is now much plastic in the household wastes. Some
authorities encourage this backyard burning as it reduces the amount of MSW they have to
collect.
MWH Appendix 10C-3

10-C-3 Asia – South and West

Waste in the low-income economies is generally low in paper, plastic, and other combustibles
as compared to high- or middle-income economies (although source separation programmes
will bring about some changes in this respect in the future). As a result, large-scale
incineration requires auxiliary fuel. Trained manpower is usually not available to operate and
maintain a controlled combustion incinerator or waste-to-energy (WTE) plant. High capital
costs and stringent maintenance requirements are further discouragements.
Almost all large cities, however, have experimented with incinerators. The first failure of a
municipal waste incinerator in the region was in Calcutta in the late 19th century; the most
recent was in Delhi in the early 1980s. There is an abandoned plant in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
In the cities of Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia several incinerators are still operating as
other disposal options are not available. Beirut is debating building a WTE plant, and some
Saudi Arabian cities are considering converting existing incinerators to recover energy. No
examples of successful and operating WTE plants have been reported.
Incinerators are in use in hospitals in the higher- and middle-income economies in the central
part of the region. These incinerators are installed and maintained by private companies and
monitored by the local environmental authority. A few hospitals and clinics in the northern
area and the Indian subcontinent also use incinerators to dispose of their waste, but most of
these cannot attain a high enough temperature to be safe.
MWH Appendix 10C-4

10-C-4 Latin America and the Caribbean

Virtually no incinerators operate in Latin America or the Caribbean, although there have been
a number of feasibility studies. To date, however, the costs of this technology are far too high
to be considered by local governments as an appropriate waste management technology.
One municipal incinerator did operate in Mexico City; however, the facility was closed in
1992 because it could not meet emission standards. MSW incinerators were also tried in São
Paulo and Buenos Aires, but they are not operative at the present time. In these cases
operation and maintenance costs were too high. Other cities, such as Santiago, have assessed
the feasibility of implementing an incinerator but concluded that such an application was not
economically viable. Barbados has one tiny (one ton/day) incinerator for processing wastes
originating in the port. Private financing for this facility was arranged by the company that
provided the incinerator; the government is now repaying the loan.
MWH Appendix 10C-5

Appendix 10-D
Overview of Current Status of Incineration Technology in India
10-D-1 Overview of Incineration Technology in India
In India, incineration technology is generally not viable for MSW due to low calorific value
and smaller volumes available for a central facility. The technology for incineration is not
available indigenously and import options are highly capital intensive. Despite all this
incineration will remain an option for future and experience gained in this venture will be
very useful. In the meanwhile, incineration on smaller scale with or without energy recovery
will continue to be a viable option in a number of locations for power generation based on
agro residues like rice husk, ground nut shells etc. Some examples of incineration plants in
India have been discussed below.
10-D-2 The Delhi Incineration Experience:
During 1980s a design and construction contract was signed between Danish firm Volund
Miljoteknik A/S and the Government of India to set up an incineration plant at New Delhi at a
cost of Rs. 220 million or US$ 6.9 million (May 94). The 300 TPD plant was set up using
Danish technology with assistance from Danida. The plant comprised two Volund 150 tons
per day rotary kiln incineration units, rated to produce 385 °C steam and driving a condensing
turbine. It was also expected to generate 3.7 MW power for local grid. The operational
experience was not satisfactory. The desired calorific value of garbage could not be
maintained as a result of prior segregation due to market mechanisms and scavengers.
10-D-3 MSW to RDF at Chennai:
UCAL RDF Limited, Chennai has developed a technology for the conversion of MSW into a
clean burning fuel. The continuous process consists of step-wise removal of all non
combustible matter in MSW. The isolated combustible component is compacted to obtain
RDF. They are executing a project for 5 MW RDF based power plant being setup at Chennai.
UCAL RDF Limited has been commissioned to reactivate the 3.7 MW. Delhi based
incineration power plant. They are also working on an RDF plant at Vijaywada with a
capacity to handle 200 tonnes per day of municipal solid waste.
Newam Power Company Limited and the Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation
Limited (TIDCO) are jointly setting up a project at Perungudi, Chennai to process 600 tonnes
per day of MSW and convert it into 200 tonnes per day of RDF with 24% moisture content,
11% Ash , 42% volatile matter, 23% fixed carbon, 65% Volatile matter and calorific value of
3410 kcal/kg which can be used directly as a fuel. The estimated project cost is Rs. 19 crores.
The subsidy from MNES is Rs. 1.5 crores. The capital cost of power generation is expected
to be Rs. 4 crore per MW.
The process for the conversion of garbage into fuel includes the following steps:
• The raw garbage is collected by pay loaders and taken by conveyors to the rotary drier.
• Metals are removed from the dried garbage by magnetic separation.
• The combustible portions are pneumatically separated by density differentiation.
• The combustible portion of the garbage is converted into pellets in the pellet machine.
• The pellets are then fed to the boiler to generate steam.
• The steam is fed into the turbine to generate electricity.
• The electricity thus generated is fed to the Electricity Board Grid.
MWH Appendix 10D-1

The raw material will be made available by the Corporation of Chennai at Rs. 10 per tonne.
The Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board has given 10 acres of land on
long lease to the company. The technology has been sourced from M/s. Henley Burrowes and
Co. Ltd. Worcestor, UK.
10-D-4 Hazardous Waste Incinerator, Sandoz (India) Limited:
Sandoz (India) Limited has developed a Hazardous Waste Incinerator in collaboration with
School of Energy, Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirappaly, Tamil Nadu. The Research and
Development work commenced in 1988 with the objective of developing a cost effective and
appropriate technology for incineration of about 150 to 200 tonnes of toxic waste per annum.
In a pilot plant installed at the University, more than 300 tonnes of different type of wastes
have been test incinerated.The collaboration project resulted in design of a commercial
incinerator which was installed at Sandoz India’s Kolshet Works, Thane in December 1993.
Commissioning trials were concluded in the first quarter 1994 and the plant is now fully
operational and giving desired performance.
10-D-5 MSW to RDF plant , Hyderabad:
M/s SELCO International Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh has installed a MSW pelletization
plant of 700 TPD capacity based on pelletisation technology developed by the Department of
Science and Technology (DST). The pellets would be used as an industrial fuel initially and
ultimately for 6 MW power generation. The properties of the RDF fluff and pellets are given
below:
RDF-FLUFF RDF-PELLETS
PHYSICAL
Shape Irregular Cylinder
Size (long/dia) mm 10 to 15 / 3 to 10 8 to 40 / 8 to 60
Bulk density Kg/m3 400 approx. 600 to 700
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS
Moisture 3-8% 3-8%
Ash Content 12 - 20 % 12 - 20 %
Volatile matter 50 - 65 % 50 - 65 %
Fixed Carbon 12 - 18 % 12 - 18 %
ULTIMATE ANALYSIS
Moisture 3 - 8% 3 - 8%
Mineral matter 15 - 25 % 15 - 25 %
Carbon 35 - 40 % 35 - 40 %
Hydrogen 5-8% 5-8%
Nitrogen 1 - 1.5 % 1 - 1.5 %
Sulphur 0.1 - 0.2 % 0.1 - 0.2 %
Oxygen 25 - 30 % 25 - 30 %
Gross Calorific value 3000 - 3500 K cal / Kg. 3000 - 3500 K cal / Kg.
At present the RDF fuel is successfully used in various industrial boilers / furnaces.
M/s.SELCO International is now engaged in setting up a 6.6 MW power plant at Elikatta(V),
Shadnagar, Mahaboobnagar (Dist) based on moving grate boiler system at a total cost of
Rs.40 crores (site visit by MWH on October 12,2002).
MWH Appendix 10D-2

10-D-6 Fluidized Bed Combustion of Municipal Solid Waste, Hyderabad:
RDF Power Projects Limited are in the process of establishing a power plant based on
municipal solid waste at Hyderabad. The power plant to be set up at a cost of Rs. 40 crores
will process 700 metric tonnes of Municipal Solid Waste per day and produce 9 MW of
power. RDF Power Projects Limited have a technical and financial tie-up with M/s Power
Therm Limited and M/s Lohning International Pvt. Ltd, Australia
The proposed process, the Lohning Brothers system is a new system for waste disposal which
uses the heat produced from rubbish to create electricity. It has very low emission levels
which are below the current world standards. More than 10 high temperature fluidized bed
combustion plants based on this technology have been built in Australia and overseas for
various types of wastes. The process contains the Waste Pre-Treatment systems, Effluent
Treatment System, Liquid Treatment System, etc.
Ferrous and iron ferrous metals and glass will be automatically sorted out from the incoming
waste. Aqueous rubbish such as vegetables and fruits can be squeezed by screw press to
remove the water. This type of sorting shredding and dewatering technique results in the
calorific value of the refuse entering the furnace to rise to a much higher level. This fact
together with the activity of the Spouted Fluidized Bed Combustor to burn waste with upto
65% moisture means no auxilliary fuel is required for combustion. The combustion unit
includes a computerised control system.
In the furnace an effective burning is achieved by adjusting the combustion conditions. This
is automatically controlled and monitored. Waste heat recovery and steam generation for
local use and power production can be combined with the Spouted Fluidised Bed Combustor
Unit. The heat generated by the waste combustion process is sent to a boiler to produce steam
and the steam is then fed to a turbine generator thereby producing electricity.
The Australian process has made improvements to the fluidised bed combustion method of
the Spouted Fluidised Bed Combustion (SFBC) system which is identifiable with fluidised
bed technology applied commercially and popularly overseas over the past 50 years.
However its system is different from conventional fluidized bed combustors because of the
active bed produced by the high pressure of sparge tubes.
There is no electric power consumption from the public utility. The plant is designed to
combust the municipal waste and generate electricity of which around 10% is used within the
plant to sell consumption.
10-D-7 DIEG Process :
Vasantdada Sugar Institute , Pune has developed a process for distillery spentwash called
DIEG (Drying Incineration Energy Generation).A prototype system has been commissioned
at Krishna SSK Ltd., Maharashtra. (Details are covered in Section 3.3 of R & D Report i.e
section on R & D Achievements of major National Institutions).
10-D-8 Fluidized Bed Soda Recovery System at Shreyans Paper:
Shreyans Paper, Ahmedgarh (Punjab) has 80 TDP paper production capacity based on
bagasse and straw (wheat/rice). Black liquor from cooking agricultural residues has high
silica content and cannot be concentrated to high solid contents to enable its burning in
conventional recovery systems. Shreyans Papers has installed a fluidized bed soda recovery
system. Weak black liquor is concentrated to 25-35% in sextuple effect evaporators to avoid
MWH Appendix 10D-3

hard scale formation and it is further concentrated to 40 - 45% by flue gas in Venturi Scrubber
and Cyclone system. Concentrated black liquor is the feed for the Fluidized Bed Reactor
(FBR) burning 75 ton solids per day
The weak black liquor from agricultural residues has the characteristic following :
a. Total dissolved solids : 8.5 to 9.8%

b. Residual active alkali : 1.85 gm/l as NaOH
c. pH : 11.2
d. Organic compounds (by loss of ignition) : 72%
e. Inorganic compounds (by difference) : 28%
f. Carbon © : 38%
g. Silica (SiO2) : 4.2%
h. Sodium (Na) : 18.5%
i. Hydrogen : 4.2%
j. Gross calorific value (Dry) : 3300 Kcal/kg
Heavy Black Liquor (concentration 40 – 45%) is pumped to a specially designed feed gun,
which sprays the liquor either with compressed air or steam into the upper free gas space (free
board) of Fluidized Bed Reactor. In the free board water is evaporated by the hot gases
generated by combustion. As the partially dried liquor solids falls into the fluidized bed, the
burning of black liquor solids takes place and the temperature of the fluidized bed is
maintained at 680 – 700oC. Organic material is converted to carbondioxide and water vapour
while the inorganic part is converted into sodium carbonate in pellet form, silica goes with
sodium carbonate pellets and can be segregated in green liquor clarifier. The latter is
causticized using lime and NaOH recycled for pulping. In this system chlorides content
should be maintained below 1% to avoid lump formation in the bed.
The fluidized air blower being the heart of the fluidized bed reactor requiring 500 BHP is
preferably run by steam turbine on co-generation principle with inlet steam pressure of 42
kg/cm2 and exhaust steam pressure of 8 to 9 kg/cm2. The exhaust steam will be utilised in the
pulp mill and in ejector of ME Evaporator. 2.5 MW Turbo generator has been installed to
take care of extra load created by Fluidized Bed Recovery System as well as to reduce power
purchased from State Electricity Board.
Salient Features are :
• Chemical Recovery is more than 85%

• Smooth and trouble free operation of the plant
• It occupies minimum floor area
• Initial investment is low as well as gestation time is very low
• No smelt formation, therefore the chances of explosion are eliminated
• Carryover with flue gas is controlled by Wet Scrubbers.
• It is suitable for any cellulosic raw material being used for paper making
• No auxiliary fuel is required
• Power generation potential
10-D-9 Energy Recovery from Bagasse by Co-generation :
India, as the world’s largest producer of sugar, has an attractively viable option in sugarcane.
Crushed sugarcane, or bagasse, a waste product of the sugar industry, has the potential to
provide five to ten percent of India’s power needs. In 1997-98 India produced 12.8 million
MWH Appendix 10D-4

tons of sugar, and nearly 70 million tons of bagasse1. Bagasse can be used in "cogeneration"
power plants wherein both steam and electricity are produced. Considering the results of
various studies conducted by government and private sources [like Ministry of Non-
Conventional Energy Sources (MNES), USAID/Winrock International/IDEA Inc., Tata
Energy Research Institute (TERI) and Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency
(IREDA)], the market potential for cogeneration from the Indian sugar industry is assumed to
be of 3,500 MW.
In 1996, realizing the urgent need for promoting cogeneration, the Indian Ministry of Non-
conventional Energy Sources (MNES) of the Government of India instituted a comprehensive
National Bagasse-based Cogeneration Program with a package of financial incentives to
bagasse cogeneration project developers to use advanced technologies, to encourage surplus
power production in sugar mills.
Some of the recent cogeneration projects in the sugar industry received technical and financial
assistance from USAID under the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Prevention (GEP) Project to help
India in its efforts to clean the environment. The program focuses on demonstration and
commercialization of bagasse-based cogeneration plants that rely on supplemented biomass
fuels rather than on fossil fuels. Sugar mills that received USAID assistance include: Thiru
Arooran Sugars Limited, EID Parry (India) Limited, The Dhampur Sugar Mills, Dharani
Sugars and Chemicals Limited and the Godavari Sugar Mills.
State-wise potential of bagasse based co-generation projects is given below:
States Cogeneration potential

Maharashtra 1000
Uttar Pradesh 1000
Tamil Nadu 350
Karnataka 300
Andhra Pradesh 200
Bihar 200
Gujarat 200
Punjab 150
Others 100
(Source: MNES Annual Report, 1999-2000)
Thiru Arooran Sugar Ltd. (TASL) at Tirumandankudi, Tamil Nadu:
Thiru Arooran Sugar Ltd. (TASL) Tirumandankudi plant was one of the three projects
selected for evaluation of its cogeneration potential by USAID. Government of Tamil Nadu
also initiated an innovative scheme for promotion of bagasees cogeneration in June 1993.
This policy framework and USAID’s technical assistance enabled TASL to establish its first
large-scale bagasse-based cogeneration project in the country. It commissioned a 16.68 MW
cogeneration plant in Tirumandankudi in 1995 and added another 9.74 MW in 1996. USAID
provided a grant that resulted in another 18.68 MW cogeneration plant being commissioned at
Kollumangudi in 1997. As of January 2000, TASL had a total installed capacity of 47.1 MW
with an export potential of 23.4 MW during the sugar season and 33.0 MW during the off-
season.
1
ELECTRICITY FROM SUGARCANE WASTE, by G. V. Joshi
Source: http://www.india-syndicate.com
MWH Appendix 10D-5

While bagasse is the primary fuel in both these cogeneration plants, off season requirements
of fuel, over and above the saved and purchased bagasse, are being met by lignite until such
time that an alternative biomass resource becomes available .
Shree Doodh Gana Krishna Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit, Karnataka :
The Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL), in June 2001, entered
into power purchase agreements (PPAs) with three non-conventional energy projects,
including two mini-hydel projects, with a total capacity of 31 MWs.
The first PPA was for a 24-MW bagasse based co-generation power plant of Shree Doodh
Gana Krishna Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit, Chikkodi at Nanadi village of Belgaum
district. The plant will generate 97 MUs [Million Units (million kWh)] of power every year.
All the three projects were expected to be commissioned in 18 to 24 months. As per the PPA,
the KPTCL will buy power from these companies at a rate of Rs 3.16 per unit as against its
average power purchase cost (conventional energy) of Rs 1.60 per unit.
The co-generation unit would create a win-win situation for the sugar factory as well as the
cane growers as this would help the factory make additional profits which would help pay the
dues of canegrowers on time.
Besides this, The Triveni Sugar Group (Uttar Pradesh),Godavari Sugar Mills(Karnataka),The
Vasantdada Farmers Co-operative Sugar Factory at Sangli(Maharashtra), The Jawahar
Farmers Co-operative sugar factory at Hupari, near Kolhapur (Maharashtra), -based Shree
Dutta co-operative sugar factory, Shirol (Maharashtra) and Rajarambapu Patil co-operative
sugar factory, Sakharale (Maharashtra) have immediate plans to implement cogeneration
facilities to realise the potential benefits.
MWH Appendix 10D-6

Appendix 11-A
Patented Gasification and Pyrolysis Technologies
It is beyond the scope of this Appendix 11-A to present an exhaustive list and to discuss in detail all
the available technologies and processes of gasification and pyrolysis. However, we have attempted to
compile from various existing sources a list of processes and technologies currently in existence and
being used. Partial lists of various technologies and gasifier manufacturers are given in the Appendix
11-B and Appendix 11-C. It should also be noted that this list does not necessarily express
Montgomery Watson’s view or endorsement of any of the listed technologies. Further investigations
are required, using site-specific criteria, to select a particular process for use in any particular
application.
“IEA Bioenergy” and “CADDET Renewable Energy Programmes” (1998) have identified around
forty advanced thermal conversion plants for various waste feedstocks in the report “Advanced
Thermal Conversion Technologies of Energy from Solid Waste”. Similarly, in “Pyrolysis &
Gasification of Waste - A Worldwide Technology & Business Review” recently published by the
environmental consulting company Juniper, there is detailed discussion of over sixty processes and
technologies.
In 1996 “National Renewable Energy Laboratory” (NREL) undertook a detailed technology

evaluation of thermal processes for the treatment of municipal solid waste. During the project over
forty firms were initially contacted and subjected to set screening criteria. A final seven processes
were investigated further, with two of these being novel thermal processes and five being gasification.
This Appendix is primarily prepared based on information provided by process developers, from
available literature, or from information available on the Internet.
Considering the above approach and limitations, the following sixteen projects have been selected to
demonstrate variations in gasification and pyrolysis technologies.
1. TPS Termiska Processer AB (TPS) Technology

2. Proler International Corporation
3. Thermoselect Inc.
4. FERCO Gasification Process
5. PulseEhnanced™ (ThermoChem)
6. RENUGAS Gasification Technology
7. Biomass IGCC Sydkraft AB and Foster Wheeler Energy International Inc.
8. Foster Wheeler Acfb Gasification Process
9. STORE and ARP Processes
10. Texaco Gasification Process (TGP)
11. Biosyn Process
12. Plasma Gasification
13. BG-Systems™ Gasifier
14. The Rotating Cone Technology
15. Waterwide™ Lineal Hearth Gasification and Closed coupled gasifier
16. Thermogenics Gasification Systems
MWH Appendix 11A- 1

A brief write-up of available information on each of the above representative advanced thermal
conversion technologies is presented below, in the following format:
Developer
Treatment Technology
Developmental Stage
Description
Projects / Demonstrations
Contact Information
MWH Appendix 11A- 2

11.A.1 TPS Termiska Processer AB(TPS) Technology
Developer: TPS Termiska Process (TPS)
Treatment Technology: Circulating fluid bed gasifier with dolomite cracker
Developmental Stage:
The product of the TPS effort is well developed and demonstrated technology for gasification of RDF
with subsequent conversion to electricity. The technology offered by TPS is presently close to the
point of commercial availability.
Description:
The main focus of TPS is on small-to-medium scale electricity production plants using biomass and
refuse-derived fuel as feedstocks. Their technology involves starved-air gasification of RDF in a
combined bubbling and circulating-bed (cracker). Fuel gas generated at the plant is either burned in a
boiler to generate electricity or used as a fuel in an adjacent lime kiln operation.
7.2 MJ/h prototype began in 1986. Pilot Plant is in Greve-en-Chianti, Italy
Erik Rensfelt, and Lars Waldheim

Studsvik AB S.611 82
Nyköping, Sweden
Tel: +46-155-22-1385, +46-155-22-1382
Fax: +46-155-26-3052
E-mail: erik.rensfelt@tps.se, Lars.waldheim@tps.se
Web: www.tps.se/
MWH Appendix 11A- 3

11.A.2 Proler SynGas Process
Developer: Proler International Corporation
Treatment Technology: Rotary reactor gasifier and cyclic ash vitrifier
The process is being demonstrated in a 1.8-Mg/h (2-t/h) plant in Houston, Texas.
Description:
The Proler SynGas Process is a patented technology that reforms hydrocarbon-containing wastes into
a reactor gas. Although the process was originally developed for the gasification of automobile
shredder residue (ASR), limited runs have demonstrated its suitability for gasifying municipal solid
waste. The process accepts pre-shredded material and produces a fuel gas suitable for power
generation. The residues are discharged in the form of commercially useful vitrified by-products as
well as wastes acceptable for landfills.
Proler pilot plant, Houston, Texas, USA
Proler International Corp.

4265 San Felipe, Suite 900
Houston, Texas 77027, USA
Tel: +1-713-963-5944 & 1-713-627-3737
Fax: +1-713-627-2737
E-Mail:
Web:
MWH Appendix 11A- 4

11.A.3 Thermoselect® Gasification System
Developer: Thermoselect Inc.
Treatment Technology: Raw waste gasifier
Thermoselect as of 1996 was not interested in selling the technology. However, they are prepared to
enter into the following arrangements: 1) Provide a licensed facility to an owner on a turnkey basis,2)
Enter into a joint operating venture with an owner,3) Work with a developer, community, finance
group, or technology provider
Description:
Thermoselect SA is a privately held Swiss company created to commercialize the Thermoselect

process, for which over 31 patents have been issued. The process is a fully developed method of
gasifying municipal solid waste and industrial raw wastes without apparent adverse impact on the
environment. The residue is converted into what are described as commercially useful by-products. A
standard design has been developed for a two-line, nominal 480-Mg/d system housed in an industrial
building. Large capacity systems are offered by adding multiples of the “standard” modules.
Projects / Demonstrations:
The Thermoselect demonstration facility is located at Fondotoce, Italy.
Thermoselect, Inc.
Columbia Center Suite 230
210 W. Big Beaver Road
Troy, MI 48084, USA
Tel: +1-810-689-3060
Fax: +1-810-689-2878
MWH Appendix 11A- 5

11.A.4 FERCO Gasification Process
Developer: Battelle has licensed its BHTGS for the North American market to
Future Energy Resource Corporation (FERCO) in Atlanta, Georgia.
Treatment Technology: Circulating fluid bed gasifier and combustor
A commercial-scale demonstration is at Burlington Electric’s McNeil generation station in

Burlington, Vermont, using whole tree wood chips.
Description:
The Battelle High Throughput Gasification System (BHTGS) is an indirectly heated, two-stage
process that uses circulating fluidized bed (CFB) reactors. In a high-throughput gasifier, refuse-
derived fuel or other biomass feedstocks are gasified in a CFB to a medium-heating value gas (500 to
600 Btu/sft³ ), using steam without oxygen as the fluidizing medium. Residual char is consumed in an
associated CFB combustor.
Burlington Electric’s McNeil generation station in Burlington, Vermont, USA.
Inge B. Frentheim, President & CEO

FERCO
3500 Parkway Lane, Suite 440
Norcross, GA 30092,USA
Tel: +1-770-662-7800, +1-770-662-7807
Fax: +1-770-662-7807
E-Mail: ferco@future-energy.com
Web: www.future-energy.com
Battelle Columbus
505 King Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43201-2693, USA
Tel: +1-614-424-4958
Fax: +1-614-424-3321
MWH Appendix 11A- 6

11.A.5 PulseEnhanced™
Developer: Manufacturing and Technology Conversion International, Inc.

(MTCI) licensed to ThermoChem Inc.
Treatment Technology: Pulse-heated circulating fluid bed gasifier
Plans for a commercial plant to handle up to 655 t/d RDF at a landfill site have reached the design
stage in 1996. Testing of RDF has been done on a 7-kg/h unit only. Although they have achieved
remarkable progress in scaling-up their system for black liquor, successfully demonstrated scale-up
from the pilot plant to a larger size would be prudent before this system can be expected to be
commercial.
Description:
The Manufacturing and Technology Conversion International, Inc. (MTCI) Steam Reforming Process
is an indirectly heated fluidized bed reactor using steam as the fluidizing medium. Under license from
MTCI, ThermoChem, Inc. (TC) has the exclusive right to apply its PulseEnhanced™ heater and
steam-reforming technology to a variety of applications.
In 1991 and 1992, a 15 t/d demonstration unit was operated using rejects from a cardboard recycle
paper mill in Ontario, California. This same unit, relocated to TC’s test facility in Baltimore, has since
processed coal, wood chips, and straw.
At a pulp mill in New Bern, North Carolina, MTCI and TC have built a five-heater fluid-bed steam
reformer that can process 120t/d black liquor. A unit of similar size has been built in Tamilnadu,
India to process organic solids from several food industries.
ThermoChem, Inc.
13080 Park Street
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670, USA
Tel: +1-310-941-2375
Fax: +1-310-941-2732
MWH Appendix 11A- 7

11.A.6 RENUGAS® Gasification Technology
Developer: IGT (Institute of Gas Technology), Department of Energy (DOE)

initiative with principal industrial partner, Future Energy Resources
Company (FERCO)
Treatment Technology: IGT RENUGAS® single pressurized bubbling-fluidized-bed gasifier
Demonstration stage
Description:
IGT developed the RENUGAS® gasification technology specifically for the conversion of biomass to
low (5 MJ/Nm3)—or medium (15 MJ/Nm3)—heating-value gas (Lauet al., 1993). Biomass is fed to a
single pressurized bubbling-fluidized-bed gasifier vessel for efficient transfer of energy released by
endothermic volatilization and gasification reactions. The process has been tested during more than
250 hours of steady-state operation at feed rates up to 10.9 Mg/day (12 TPD) and at pressures up to
3.45 MPa (500 psia) in a 0.292 m (0.96 ft) diameter by 3.1 m (10.2 ft) high-fluidization zone.
Hawaii RENUGAS Project

The project is a multi-phase effort located at Hawaii Commercial and Sugar Company's (HC&S) Paia,
Maui, Hawaii, sugar mill. In the first phase, the Pacific International Center for High Technology
Research (PICHTR) directed the construction and commissioning operations of the gasifier. Other
team members were HC&S, the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute (HNEI), and IGT. A total of about
110 hours of operation at pressures up to 165 psia and feed rates up to 39 Mg per day (40 tons per
day) were achieved. This phase of the project was completed early in 1996.
Institute of Gas Technology

1700 South Mount Propect Road
Des Plains, Illinois 60018-1804, USA
Tel: +1-708-798-0591
Fax: +1-708-768-0600
MWH Appendix 11A- 8

11.A.7 Biomass IGCC Sydkraft AB and Foster Wheeler Energy International Inc.
Developer: Sydkraft AB and Foster Wheeler Energy International Inc.
Treatment Technology: Pressurized circulating fluidized bed gasifier
R & D. Start-up phase was completed during spring 1996 and the plant is now available for research
and development work. A demonstration program was launched in1996, which continued until June,
2000.
Description:
The gas generated is burned in the combustion chambers and expands through the gas turbine,
generating 4 MW of electricity. The gas turbine is a single-shaft industrial gas turbine. The fuel
supply system, fuel injectors and the combustors have been redesigned to suit the low calorific value
gas (5 MJ/nm³).
The plant is located in Värnamo, Sweden, and the technology used in the power plant is based on
gasification in a pressurized circulating fluidized bed gasifier. The gasification technology is
developed in co-operation between Sydkraft AB and Foster Wheeler Energy International Inc.
Foster and Wheeler Development Corp.

12 Peach Tree Hill Road
Livingston, NJ 07039, USA
Tel: +1-201-535-2332
Fax: +1-201-535-2242
Sydkraft AB
SE-205 09, Malmö, Sweden
MWH Appendix 11A- 9

11.A.8 Foster Wheeler Acfb Gasification Process
Developer: Foster Wheeler
Treatment Technology: Atmospheric Circulating Fluidized-bed gasification
Demonstration/ commercial scale demonstration
Description:
The atmospheric CFB gasification system consists of a reactor, a uniflow cyclone to separate the
circulating bed material from the gas, and a return pipe for conveying the circulating material to the
bottom of the gasifier. From the uniflow cyclone, hot product gas flows into the air preheater, which
is located below the cyclone.
Lahden Lämpövoima Oy Kymijärvi power plant, Lahti, Finland.

Tel: +1-201-535-2332
Fax: +1-201-535-2242
E-mail:
Web: www.fwc.com
MWH Appendix 11A- 10

11.A.9 STORS and ARP Processes
Developer: Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation
Treatment Technology: Sludge to Oil Recovery System (STORS) and Ammonia Recovery
Process (ARP)
The STORS and ARP processes have been previously demonstrated. The STORS technology has
been successfully tested on a pilot scale basis at the Battelle facility in Hanford, Washington. The
ammonia recovery technology has been successfully tested on a bench scale basis in Columbus, Ohio,
and on a pilot scale basis at a wastewater- treatment plant in Staten Island, New York.
Description:
The STORS process is designed to treat primary sludge at a rate of 5 dry tons per day. The ARP
system will treat the water effluent from the STORS process to remove ammonia and recover it as
ammonium sulfate. Design data from the pilot system operation will demonstrate the process viability
and will aid in refining the designs for their commercial application.
The commercial application of the STORS process is the volume reduction of municipal sludge
disposed at landfills. The commercial application of the ARP design includes both the treatment and
recovery of ammonia from water effluent from the STORS process and the treatment of ammonia in
the water effluent from municipal sludge dewatering operations.
STORS Process
The Sludge to Oil Recovery System (STORS) and Ammonia Recovery Process (ARP) pilot
demonstration facility located at the Colton Municipal Facility in Colton, California.

Tel: +1-201-535-2332
Fax: +1-201-535-2242

11.A.10 Texaco Gasification Process (TGP)
Developer: Texaco's Montebello Research Laboratory (MRL) South El Monte,

California
Treatment Technology: Refractory-lined reactor
The TGP has operated commercially for nearly 45 years on feeds such as natural gas and coal, and
non-hazardous wastes such as liquid petroleum fractions, and petroleum coke. Texaco’s gasification
process is currently licensed in the U.S. and abroad. The TGP was evaluated under the EPA SITE
Program in January 1994 at Texaco's Montebello Research Laboratory (MRL) in South El Monte,
California.
Description:
TGP was conducted under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program. The TGP is a commercial gasification process that converts
organic materials into syngas, a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide. The feed reacts with a
limited amount of oxygen (partial oxidation) in a refractory-lined reactor at temperatures between
2,200 degrees and 2,650 degrees F and at pressures above 250 pounds per square inch gauge (psig).
Texaco reports that the syngas can be processed into high-purity hydrogen, ammonia, methanol, and
other chemicals, as well as clean fuel for electric power. The TGP can process a variety of waste
streams. Virtually any carbonaceous hazardous or non-hazardous waste stream can be processed in the
TGP as long as adequate facilities are provided for pretreatment and storage.
Texaco maintains three pilot-scale gasification units, ancillary units, and miscellaneous equipment at
the Montebello Research Laboratory (MRL), where the SITE demonstration was conducted. Each
gasification unit can process a nominal throughput of 25 TPD of coal.
Texaco, Inc., Montbello Research Lab

329 North Durfee Ave.
El Monte, CA 91733, USA
Tel: +1-310-908-723
Fax: +1-310-692-4625
E-Mail:
Web: http://www.texaco.com
Richard B. Zang
Texaco Inc.
2000 Westchester Avenue
White Plains, NY 10650, USA
Tel: +1-914-253-4047
Fax: +1-914-253-7744

11.A.11 Biosyn process
Developer: Kemestrie Inc. and its partners
Treatment Technology: Bubbling fluidized-bed gasification
Pilot project
Description:
The technology can be applied to organic residues from any source, such as sorted urban waste, peat-
moss and straw, as well as wastes from various industries, such as wood, oil, rubber and agro-food.
Waste must be sorted beforehand to remove metal, glass and inorganic matter. To maintain high
performance, inorganic matter concentrations should be kept low.
Pilot unit GRTPC, at Université de Sherbrooke, Canada
Mr. Nicolas Abatzoglou, Director, Energy and Environment

Kemestrie Inc.
4220 Garlock, Sherbrooke, Queec
J1L 2P4, Canada
Tel: + -819-569-4888
Fax: + -819-569-8411
E-Mail: kem@interlinx.qc.ca
Web: www.enerkem.com

11.A.12 Plasma Gasification
Developer: RCL USP's Plasma Partner
Treatment Technology: USP Plasma Gasification using plasma arc
Developmental Stage: Not known
Description: Not available
Houston Northcutt Blvd., Suite 3

Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina 29464
Tel: +1-843-509-8919
Fax: +1-843-856-2329
E-Mail: info@usplasma.com
Web: http://www.usplasma.com/Contact_Us/contact_us.html

11.A.13 BG-Systems™ Gasifier
Developer: BG Technologies LLC
Treatment Technology: Fixed-bed, down-draft gasifier
Commercial scale including several plants built in India. 400 installations ranging from pumping
water to industrial power to thermal energy systems for industrial drying and steam generation or used
in burners to generate heat for drying applications.
Description:
BG-Systems converts a variety of woody and agricultural biomass feedstocks into a clean combustible
gas mixture through a high temperature pyrolysis process. The gas, normally called "producer gas",
consists of three combustible gases: hydrogen, carbon monoxide and methane.
Applications:
• Power generation: Industries producing wood or agricultural wastes such as saw mills, palm
oil factories, and rubber plantations.
• Drying/baking: Agro-process industries requiring scrubbed gas for direct application on food
products such as tea drying, coconut drying and bakeries.
• Process heat: Industries where the unscrubbed hot gas can be burned in boilers, furnaces, and
kilns.
Gujarat Energy Dev. Agency, India (500kW wood from energy plantation), Eastern Shore Wood
Products, USA. Customer contact: Tom Johnson, +1-410-742-5540. Several other 10-500kW plants
worldwide.
10480 Little Patuxent Parkway, Suite 400

Columbia, MD 21044, USA
Tel: +1-410-740-3025
Fax: +1-208-728-8983
E-Mail: bgsystem@bgtlc.com

11.A.14 The Rotating Cone Technology
Developer: BTG Biomass Technology Group B.V.
Treatment Technology: Rotating cone technology
After having demonstrated the rotating cone technology on a scale of 50 kg/hr, BTG is designing a
project that is aimed at scaling-up of the pyrolysis technology to a scale of 200 kg biomass per hour.
The project is a last preparatory step before commercialization of the technology.
Description:
The rotating cone reactor is a gas-solid contactor that has been developed at the University of Twente
(Chem. Eng. Sci., 5109, 1994).
Models Available
BTG 50P - 50 kg/hr biomass throughput

BTG 200P - 200 kg/hr biomass throughput
Project: Scaling-up of the rotating cone reactor to 200 kg biomass per hour
Partners: Kara Engineering Almelo B.V.(NL), CIEMAT (SP) and Univ. Rostock (GE)
Project: Development of advanced fast pyrolysis processes for power and heat
Partners: Aston Univ. (UK), BHF-IWCT (GE), Hicks Hargreaves Ltd (UK), Kara Engineering
Almelo B.V. (NL) and Ormrod Diesels (UK)
Project: Design and operation of a bench scale bio-oil production unit
Partners: KARA Engineering Almelo B.V.
Biomass Technology Group BV

Pantheon 12, 7521 PR Enschede
The Netherlands
Tel: +31-53-4862287
Fax: +31-53-4325399
E-Mail: wagenaar@btg.ct.utwente.nl
Mr. K. Reinders
KARA Energy systems BV
Plesmanweg 27, 7602 PD Almelo
The Netherlands
Tel: +31-546-876580
Fax: +31-546-870525
E-Mail: kaa@kara.nl

11.A.15 Waterwide™ Lineal Hearth Gasification and Closed Coupled Gasifier
Developer: Renewable Energy Corporation Ltd.(formally Combustion

Consultants Ltd.)
Treatment Technology: Waterwide close coupled gasifier
Many of Waterwide plants have been installed worldwide in the last twenty years. Many of these are
the earlier, smaller plants, which are still in operation.
Description:
The Waterwide Lineal Hearth Gasifier was developed in the 1970’s. The key to the Waterwide
technology is the Close Coupled Gasification, this method controls emissions during combustion
rather than after combustion process. Final burnout is at very high temperature in a cyclonic system,
which ensures all smoke and volatile matter is eliminated.
The company has designed a standardized range of factory-built modules. These modular plants are
fully automated, and the machines have no moving parts in the high temperature zone.
Combustion Consultant Ltd.

37 Parkhill Road, R.D. 2
Hastings
New Zealand
Tel: +64-6-875-0734
Fax: +64-6-875-0098
E-Mail: enquires@waterwide.co.nz
Web: www.waterwide.co.nz

11.A.16 Thermogenics Gasification Systems
Developer: Growth and Development Corporation, and Thermogenics, Inc.
Treatment Technology: Several styles of gasification systems
Commercially available
Description:
GDC, Inc. (headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia), with its teaming partner Thermogenics, Inc.
(headquarters in Albuquerque, NM), are privately owned corporations specializing in development of
integrated waste-to-energy systems based on patented gasification and water purification
technologies.
Thermogenics Gasification Systems are suitable for direct use in standard internal combustion
engines.
Projects/ Demonstrations: Not available
Admiral Daniel J. Murphy USN (Ret.) Chairman and CEO,

Growth and Development Corporation, Inc.
5422 Wycklow Court
Alexandria, VA 22304, USA
Tel: +1-703-671-0335
Fax: +1-703-671-9824
E-Mail: gdcusa@gdcusa.com
Web: http://www.acepos.com/index.htm

Appendix 11-B
A Partial List of Various Processes and Technologies1
1. ABB 36. Peat

2. AAE 37. PKA
3. Alcyon 38. PRME
4. Andco Torrax 39. Proler
5. Ande 40. Pyrovac
6. B9 Energy 41. Resorption
7. Balboa 42. RGR Ambiente
8. Battelle / Ferco 43. Sacone
9. Beven Recycling 44. Serpac
10. BG Systems 45. Siemens
11. Brightstar Synfuels 46. Takuma
12. BPI 47. Technip
13. Compact Power 48. ThermoChem
14. Conrad/ Kleenair 49. Thermogenics
15. Dynamotive 50. Thermoselect
16. Ebara 51. Texaco
17. Energy Developments 52. Thide
18. EPI 53. TPS
19. Enerkem 54. Traidec
20. Ensyn 55. Uhde
21. ESI/ Enersludge 56. Von Roll
22. Foster Wheeler 57. Waste Conversion
23. GTS Duratek/ Proler Systems/Nathaniel
24. Hebco 58. Waste Gas Technology (UK) Ltd
25. Heuristic Eng./ Envirocycler 59. Waste to Energy/ Ventec
26. JND Kara 60. Waterwide
27. Kvaerner ChemRec 61. Wellman
28. Lurgi
29. Mitsui
30. MTCI/Thermochem
31. Nexus
32. NKK
33. Nippon Steel
34. Noell
35. Organic Power
1
Main source: Pyrolysis & Gasification of Waste, A Worldwide Technology & Business Review,
published by Juniper Consultancy Services Limited
MWH Appendix 11B- 1

Appendix 11-C
Partial List of Gasifier Manufacturers1
Name Country Gas heating

value
(MJ/Nm3)
TK Energi AS Denmark
Babcock Borsig Power, Austrian Energy Austria 10 - 13
Baxi A/S Denmark
Procone Vergasungssysteme GmbH Switzerland 5
Meurer Maschinen Germany 4
PPS Pipeline Systems GmbH Germany
Babcock Borsig Power, Austrian Energy Austria 2.5-6.0
UET -Umwelt- und Energietechnik GmbH Germany 4.4-8.5
Gas Energietechnik Germany
Rheinbraun Germany
NOELL-KRC Energie- und Umwelttechnik GmbH Germany
Maskinfabrikken REKA Denmark
Ensofor SA Switzerland 4.1
Danieli Ambiente S.R.L. Italy
C.C.T. SPA Italy >1200 kcal/kg
Condens Oy Finland
Carbona Oy Finland 4.5-5.6
Krupp Uhde GmbH Germany >5.0
VER GmbH Germany 4.1
Costich Company United States
Imbert GmbH für Energie und Umwelt Germany 4.4
Easymod Energiesysteme GmbH Germany 5-6
AHT Pyrogas Vertriebs GmbH Germany 4.5
Lurgi Energie und Umwelt GmbH Germany 4.2-5.9
TPS Termiska Processer AB Sweden 4-6
Kvaerner Pulping AB Power Division Sweden
Kemestrie's Inc - BIOSYN Canada
1
Source: ©1999-2000 Gasifier Inventory. Generated: 05-Jul-2000
Questions? Comments? Contact the Gasifiers Inventory by calling +31 53 489 2897, faxing to +31 53 489 3116
or mailto:info@gasifiers.org.
MWH Appendix 11 C- 1
Name Country Gas heating

value
(MJ/Nm3)
Heuristic Engineering INC. Canada 100 BTU
Pyroban Ltd United Kingdom
Sur-Lite corporation United States
Chevet France
Wellman Process Engineering Ltd United Kingdom 4.9
Third Generation, Ltd United Kingdom
Thermogenics United States
Thermochem Inc (MTCI) United States
PRIMENERGY, Inc United States ~6.0
Cratech United States
CLEW- Thermal Technologies, Inc. United States
Chiptec Wood Energy Systems United States
Brightstar Synfuels Co. United States
BG Technologies, LLC United States
B9 Energy Biomass Ltd United Kingdom 5.1
MELIMA Markus Meier Switzerland
Ansaldo Vølund A/S Denmark
Foster Wheeler Energia Oy Finland 5
Rural Generation Ltd United Kingdom
Stork Thermeq B.V. Netherlands 4-5
KARA Energy Systems BV Netherlands 4.0-5.5
Xylowatt SA Switzerland 4-5
Ventec Waste to Energy Ltd United Kingdom
Battelle Columbus Laboratories, BCL United States
Martezo France 4-5
MWH Appendix 11 C- 2
Appendix 11-D
Gasification Related Useful Documents
1. Mahrling, P.; Vierrath, H. (June 1989). Gasification of Lignite and Wood in the Lurgi
Circulating Fluidized-Bed Gasifier. EPRI GS-6436. Frankfurt am Main, Germany. Lurgi
GmbH. Available from Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.
2. Anderson, R.O. (1993). Ms6001FA - An Advanced Technology 70 MW-Class 50/60 Hertz
Gas Turbine. Available from General Electric Company, Schenectady, NY.
3. Gas Turbine World 1992-93 Handbook (1993). Fairfield, CT: Pequot Publishing Inc.
4. Breault, R.; Morgan, D. (October 1992). Design and Economics or Electricity Production
from an Indirectly Heated Biomass Gasifier. TR4533-049-92. Columbus, OH: Battelle
Memorial Institute. Work performed by Tecogen Inc., Waltham, MA.
5. Wiltsee, G. A. (November 1993). Strategic Analysis of Biomass and Waste Fuels for Electric
Power Generation. EPRI TR-102773. Sevenson Ranch, CA: Appel Consultants, Inc.
Available from Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.
6. Ebasco Environmental. (October 1993). Wood Fuel Cofiring at TVA Power Plants. Contract
3407-1. Sacramento, CA: Ebasco Services Inc. Available from the Electric Power Research
Institute, Palo Alto, CA.
7. Bain, R. (January, 1992). Material and Energy Balances for Methanol from Biomass Using
Biomass Gasifiers. Golden, Colorado: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
8. Feldmann, J.; Paisley, M.A. (May 1988). Conversion of Forest Residues to a Methane-Rich
Gas in a high-throughput Gasifier. Columbus, Ohio: Battelle Columbus Laboratory.
9. Weyerhauser et al. (June 1995). New Bern Biomass to Energy Project, Phase 1 Feasibility
Study. NREL/TP-421-7942. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Work
performed by Weyerhauser, Inc.
10. Anderson, R. O. (1993). MS6001FA - An Advanced Technology 70 MW-Class 50/60 Hertz
Gas Turbine. Available from General Electric Company, Schenectady, NY.
11. 100-MW Nevada IGCC Operational Next Year. (July-August 1995). Gas Turbine World. pp.
30-32
12. Corman, J.C. (September 1986). System Analysis of Simplified IGCC Plants. DOE/ET-14928-
2233. Morgantown, WV; Morgantown Energy Technology Center. Work performed by
General Electric Company Corporate Research and Development, Schenectady, NY.
13. Electric Power Research Institute. (June 1993). TAG - Technical Assessment Guide. EPRI
TR-102276-V1R7 Volume 1: Rev. 7. Palo Alto, CA.
14. Simons Resource Consultants and B. H. Levelton and Assoc. Ltd. (December 1983). ENFOR
Project C-258, A Comparative Assessment of Forest Biomass Conversion to Energy Forms.
Report to Energy, Mines, & Resources Canada. v. III pp.4-38
15. Northern States Power et al. (May 1995). Economic Development Through Biomass Systems
Integration - Sustainable Biomass Energy Production. NREL/TP-421-20517. Golden, CO.
Work performed for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the Electric Power
Research Institute by Northern States Power, Minneapolis, MN.
16. Craig, K.R., Bain, R.L., Overend, R.P., (October 1995). "Biomass Power: Where Are We,
Where Are We Going, and How Do We Get There? The Role of Gasification." Proceedings
of EPRI Conference on New Power Generation Technology. San Francisco, CA.
MWH Appendix 11 D- 1
17. Craig, K.R., M.K. Mann, R.L. Bain. (October 1994). "Cost and Performance Potential of
Advanced Integrated Biomass Gasification Combined Cycle Power Systems." Published in
"ASME Cogen Turbo Power '94, 8th Congress & Exposition on Gas Turbines in
Cogeneration and Utility, Industrial and Independent Power Generation." Portland, OR. ISBN
No. 0-7918-1213-8
18. Double, J.M.; (1988). Design, Evaluation and Costing of Biomass Gasifiers. Doctoral Thesis
19. Weyerhauser. (1992). Gasification Capital Cost Estimation Obtained from mark Paisley in
personal correspondence, August, 1994. Battelle Columbus Laboratory.
20. Battelle. (January 1993). Operation and Evaluation of an Indirectly Heated Biomass Gasifier
Phase Completion Report. Contract YM-2-11110-1. Golden, CO. National Renewable Energy
Laboratory
21. Levelton, B.H., Sawmill and Small Scale Combustion Systems, Published in Proceeding of
"Energy Generation and Co-Generation from Wood." p. 80-26.
22. Gas Turbine World 1992-93 Handbook (1993). Fairfield, CT: Pequot Publishing Inc.
23. Esposito, N. T. (June 1990). A Comparison of Steam-Injected Gas Turbine and Combined
Cycle Power Plants: Technology Assessment. EPRI GS-2387-4. Palo Alto, CA: Electric
Power Research Institute. Work performed by Jersey CP&L, Morristown, NJ.
MWH Appendix 11 D- 2
Appendix 11-F
Experience of Gasification Technology in India
11.F.1 Biomass Gasification:
In India, Gasification of biomass is being promoted by the Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy

Sources. Ministry is promoting three main uses of biomass. These are improved cookstoves, biomass
gasification system for power generation, water pumping and biomass based power generation.
The Programme on Biomass Gasification is being implemented with the following objectives:
Development and promotion of conversion and utilization technologies, such as biomass briquetting
and gasification, for various end-use applications in rural and urban sectors;
R&D on biomass production and gasification.
The National Programme on Biomass Gasification provides for financial support of upto 30-60%
depending upon the capacity of target groups i.e., socially oriented projects or individual/
entrepreneurs. Greater focus has been laid on promotion of village electrification as well as on
industrial and commercial applications. Grid connected gasifier based power generation systems have
also been taken up for promotion and the first of such projects – a 500 kW system based on wood
grown in Govt. owned energy plantations has been commissioned.
The Gasification Programme is one of the first biomass power programmes to have been initiated by
the Ministry. The Programme intends to promote development, demonstration and commercialization
of biomass gasifier based systems for water pumping, mechanical power and thermal applications
and, generation of electrical energy for captive industrial applications or for rural electrification. A
network of research institutions has been built up over the years for developmental work on various
facets of biomass gasification. Some of the activities are development of application packages; testing
and evaluation; characterization of biomass materials; etc. Present generation of biomass gasifier-dual
fuel engine power packs can use a variety of woody biomass materials for power generation upto 500
KW (electric) with around 80% diesel displacement. More versatile gasifiers, using powdery biomass
are also reported to have been successfully tried. Rice husk, coconut shells, etc. are some other
materials reported to have been successfully tried in gasifiers. The gasifiers are almost exclusively of
down draft, atmospheric pressure design and are primarily designed for firing woody biomass. Some
preparation, especially sizing and moisture control of biomass, is necessary before firing into the
reactors. The cooling/cleaning systems have also evolved considerably and at present gas qualities
suitable for operation of dual fuel engines are being guaranteed. On the engine side, fully indigenous
manufacturing capabilities exist, in the capacities of interest. Around 1744 gasification systems
aggregating to 40 MW equivalent capacity has so far been installed in the country.
India is among the world leaders in biomass gasification technology. Though developmental efforts
started only in early eighties, today there are atleast six manufacturers who offer state-of-art units of
upto 500 Kwe. Technology for these systems has been developed and commercialized indigenously,
either with the support of Government or Central Research Institutions, or by the private sector
manufacturers themselves. Biomass Gasifiers manufactured in the country have been exported to
USA, countries in Asia, Europe and Latin America.
11.F.2 Proposed Power Plant from MSW in Chennai by EDL
Work on the construction of the 14.85 MW power plant from Municipal Solid Waste at Chennai is
expected to start in the first quarter of 2002. EDL India Pvt. Ltd., has undertaken to set up the plant
on a build-operate-own-basis, the plant is expected to start functioning during 2002-03. The company,
MWH Appendix 11F- 1

was working towards attaining the financial closure for the project which was expected to cost around
Rs. 180 crore, with a debt equity ratio of 70:30. The equity component will be met by EDL Australia
(of which EDL India is a subsidiary) and its associates. The plant will be set up adjacent to the MSW
dump at Perungudi (about 1,100 tonnes of garbage per day) in the southern outskirts of the city, on a
15 acre plot of land leased to the company for 15 years by the Chennai Corporation. On its part, the
corporation will collect and supply 600 tonnes per day of garbage.
The municipal waste would be initially pre-treated by autoclaving with steam at 130 to 1500C to
sterilise the waste and produce a pulp-like material.
The remaining pulp would fed be into a gasifier operating at 1100 0C in the absence of oxygen.
There is no creation of dioxins since the process is not exposed to air and there is no combustion or
incineration. Dioxins are facing criticism from environmental groups across countries for causing
disruption of the human endocrine system.
The process breaks down the garbage into molecules of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen. This
will again be reformed to a synthesis gas, which will be used to fuel the power plant.
According to EDL, out of every tonne of garbage that will be fed into the plant 80 per cent will come
out as electricity, 10 per cent will be recycle material and 10 per cent will go for further reprocessing.
Since there would be no combustion, there would be no ash at the end of the process. The remaining
char is safe enough to be used as a soil additive for agriculture.
EDL Australia is in the process of setting up a similar plant in Wollongong, Australia which will be
able to process 1.5 lakh tonnes of waste to generate electricity for 20,000 households.
11.F.3 Indirect Gasification Process (Esvin Advanced Technologies Ltd., Chennai,

Tamil Nadu)
For Distillery Spentwash :
EsvinTech Ltd. has developed a package system for distillery spentwash involving Indirect
Gasification of the concentrated spentwash to produce a fuel gas and to recover the inorganics in dry
powder form in a fluidized bed gasifier.
The innovative features of Esvin Tech’s indirect gasification technology are the following:
The inorganics in the spentwash is recovered from the fluidised bed in the dry powder form which can
be directly used as fertiliser.
It converts all the organic matter in the spentwash to clean medium-calorific value gas.
The sulphur in the spentwash is recovered as sodium sulphide in contrast to pollution of air through
SO2 as in the case of incineration.
The inherently low NOx emissions make the pulse combustor an environmental friendly device.
A part of the gas generated in the process is refired in the pulse combustor to make the system fuel
self-sufficient.
MWH Appendix 11F- 2

A net export gas is available from the system, which can be refired in an utility boiler to raise steam
and in turn produce power or alternately the gas produced can be fired in a gas turbine directly to
make the effluent treatment plant to work as a cogeneration system.
The system is modular in nature and has high turn-down ratio, hence offering good operational
flexibility and also makes it an ideal system for capacity expansions.
Trials have been successfully completed in the demonstration plant consisting of a complete full-scale
module of the gasification system (capable of handling spentwash from 30 KLD distillery) at SPB,
Erode to validate the design basis for commercial prototype installations. The optimum size of the
distillery has been determined to be 60 KLD for a self-sufficient system giving a good balance of
steam and power generation and requiring no auxiliary fuel to sustain the process.
The efforts of Esvin Tech to provide a package system for handling distillery spentwash with minimal
generation residual secondary pollutants would certainly meet statutory stipulations. These
technologies should be readily acceptable to some of the large distilleries in the country who can
tackle their environmental pollution problems and benefit from economies of scale of operations, even
though the former includes an additional intermediate step of drying. In summary, distilleries now
have the option of implementing pollution control projects in a phased manner tackling each of the
residual pollutants by add-ons or alternatively a single-step technology for addressing the major
environmental problems of disposal of spentwash.
For Small Agro-based Paper Mills:
An innovative Indirect Gasification Technology jointly developed by Esvin Advanced Technologies

Limited (Esvin Tech) and their American Principals M/s Manufacturing and Technology Conversion
International (MTCI) Inc. claims to have made a breakthrough in handling straw based liquors
(emanating from Agro-based paper mills using straw pulping process) which are difficult to handle
through conventional combustion system. A full scale Demonstration Plant has been set up in South
India in 1993 with the funding assistance of USAID offered through their PACT and EMCAT
Programmes. Large quantities of Rice Straw Liquor were treated in this demo unit to establish the
technical feasibility of the system to handle such spent liquor. This demo plant has been further
perfected with the funding assistance from Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF), Govt. of
India under their Cleaner Technology Division. Figure 1 Shows the schematic diagram of ESVIN
Gasification process evolved for caustic recovery from rice straw based paper mill black liquor.
MWH Appendix 11F- 3

11.F.4 Power From Solid Wastes Using Cyclone Gasifier
Scientist at the Combustion Gassification Propulsion Laboratory, Indian Institute of Science have
developed cyclone gassifiers which can utilise organic matter such as leaves, vegetable wastes and
other materials which on dry basis have calorific values comparable to other biomass like wood for
either thermal or electrical power generation. Any combustible powdered material in reasonably dry
form (moisture level of 15%) can be gassified to obtain producer gas in the cyclone gasifier.
Clean gas is produced which can be directly used in an IC engine

Extra energy required for briquetting is avoided
Material with high ash content can be handled.
Transportation of wastes for long distance is avoided.
The cyclone gasifier system consists of a cyclone reactor along with the feeding system, the ignition
system, the gas cooling and cleaning system or a gas burning system depending on whether the gas is
used in an IC engine or for thermal applications. The cleaned gas has a calorific value of 4.5 – 5
MJ/Nm3 and has a dust and tar level under 100 ppm. This gas can be used in a diesel engine to replace
80% of the diesel. This route is economical and recommended when the power level is about 1 MWe
or less.
At higher levels the gas can be utilised in a boiler to raise steam and generate power through the steam
turbine route. This does not require cooling and cleaning of the gas.
Cyclone gasifiers have been satisfactorily used with rice husk, sugarcane trash, saw dust and other
materials.
MWH Appendix 11F- 4

Appendix 12 A
EC – Landfill Regulation
Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste

Official Journal L 182 , 16/07/1999 p. 0001 – 0019
Text:
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 1999/31/EC

of 26 April 1999
on the landfill of waste
The council of the european union, has adopted this directive
Article 1: Overall objective
1.With a view to meeting the requirements of Directive 75/442/EEC, and in particular Articles 3 and 4
thereof, the aim of this Directive is, by way of stringent operational and technical requirements on the
waste and landfills, to provide for measures, procedures and guidance to prevent or reduce as far as
possible negative effects on the environment, in particular the pollution of surface water,
groundwater, soil and air, and on the global environment, including the greenhouse effect, as well as
any resulting risk to human health, from landfilling of waste, during the whole life-cycle of the
landfill.
2. In respect of the technical characteristics of landfills, this Directive contains, for those landfills to
which Directive 96/61/EC is applicable, the relevant technical requirements in order to elaborate in
concrete terms the general requirements of that Directive. The relevant requirements of Directive
96/61/EC shall be deemed to be fulfilled if the requirements of this Directive are complied with.
Article 2: Definitions
2 (g)” Landfill” means a waste disposal site for the deposit of the waste onto or into land (i.e.
underground), including
- internal waste disposal site (i.e landfill where a producer of waste is carrying its own waste
disposal at the place of production ), and
- a permanent site (i.e more than one year ) which is used for temporary storage of waste.
But exceeding :
- facilities where waste is unloaded to permit its preparation for further transport for recovery,
treatment or deposal elsewhere, and
- storage of waste prior to recovery or treatment for a period less than three years as a general
rule, or
- storage of waste prior to disposal for a period less than one year;
Article 3: Scope
1. Member States shall apply this Directive to any landfill as defined in Article 2(g).
2. Without prejudice to existing Community legislation, the following shall be excluded from the
scope of this Directive:
MWH Appendix 12A- 1

- the spreading of sludges, including sewage sludges, and sludges resulting from dredging
operations, and similar matter on the soil for the purposes of fertilisation or improvement,
- the use of inert waste which is suitable, in redevelopment/restoration and filling-in work, or for
construction purposes, in landfills,
- the deposit of non-hazardous dredging sludges alongside small waterways from where they have
been dredged out and of non-hazardous sludges in surface water including the bed and its sub soil,
- the deposit of unpolluted soil or of non-hazardous inert waste resulting from prospecting and
extraction, treatment, and storage of mineral resources as well as from the operation of quarries.
Article 4: Classes of landfill
Article 5: Waste and treatment not acceptable in landfills
Article 6: Waste to be accepted in the different classes of landfill
Article 7: Application for a permit
Article 8: Conditions of the permit
Article 9 : Content of the permit
Article 10: Cost of the landfill of waste
Article 11: Waste acceptance procedures
Article 12: Control and monitoring procedures in the operational phase
Article 13: Closure and after-care procedures
Article 14: Existing landfill sites
Article 15: Obligation to report
Article 16: Committee
Any amendments necessary for adapting the Annexes to this Directive to scientific and technical
progress and any proposals for the standardisation of control, sampling and analysis methods in
relation to the landfill of waste shall be adopted by the Commission, assisted by the Committee
established by Article 18 of Directive 75/442/EEC and in accordance with the procedure set out in
Article 17 of this Directive. Any amendments to the Annexes shall only be made in line with the
principles laid down in this Directive as expressed in the Annexes. To this end, as regards Annex II,
the following shall be observed by the Committee: taking into account the general principles and
general procedures for testing and acceptance criteria as set out in Annex II, specific criteria and/or
test methods and associated limit values should be set for each class of landfill, including if necessary
specific types of landfill within each class, including underground storage. Proposals for the
standardisation of control, sampling and analysis methods in relation to the Annexes of this Directive
shall be adopted by the Commission, assisted by the Committee, within two years after the entry into
force of this Directive.
The Commission, assisted by the Committee, will adopt provisions for the harmonisation and regular
transmission of the statistical date referred to in Articles 5, 7 and 11 of this Directive, within two
MWH Appendix 12A- 2

years after the entry into force of this Directive, and for the amendments of such provisions when
necessary.
Article 18 : Transposition
1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
to comply with this Directive not later than two years after its entry into force. They shall forthwith
inform the Commission thereof.
When Member States adopt these measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be
accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making
such a reference shall be laid down by Member States.
2. Member States shall communicate the texts of the provisions of national law which they adopt in
the field covered by this Directive to the Commission.
Article 19 : Entry into force
This Directive will enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the
European Communities.
Article 20: Addressees
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Luxembourg, 26 April 1999.
ANNEX I
General Requirements for All Classes of Landfills
1. Location
2. Water control and leachate management
3. Protection of soil and water
4. Gas control
5. Nuisances and hazards
6. Stability
7. Barriers
ANNEX II
Waste Acceptance Criteria and Procedures
This work by the technical Committee, with the exception of proposals for the standardisation of
control, sampling and analysis methods in relation to the Annexes of this Directive which shall be
adopted within two years after the entry into force of this Directive, shall be completed within three
MWH Appendix 12A- 3

years from the entry into force of this Directive and must be carried out having regard to the
objectives set forth in Article 1 of this Directive.
1. General principles
2. General procedures for testing and acceptance of waste
3. Guidelines for preliminary waste acceptance procedures
4. Sampling of waste
ANNEX III
Control and Monitoring Procedures in Operation and After-Care Phases
The purpose of this Annex is to provide the minimum procedures for monitoring to be carried out to
check:
• that waste has been accepted to disposal in accordance with the criteria set for the
category of landfill in question,
• that the processes within the landfill proceed as desired,
• that the environmental protection systems are functioning fully as intended,
• that the permit conditions for the landfill are fulfilled.
1. Meteorological data
2. Emission data: water, leachate and gas control
3. Protection of groundwater
A. Sampling
B. Monitoring
C. Trigger levels
4. Topography of the site: data on the landfill body
MWH Appendix 12A- 4

Appendix 12 B
USEPA – Landfill Regulation
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle D approach uses a combination of
design and performance standards for regulating MSW landfills. USEPA’s Subtitle D rule, published
October 9, 1991, also establishes facility design and operating standards, groundwater monitoring,
corrective action measures, and conditions (including financial requirements) for closing municipal
landfills and providing post-closure care for them. A phased implementation of the regulations began
on October 9, 1993. A current version of 40 CFR Parts 257 and 258 should be consulted to determine
the applicable deadline dates for each type and size of municipal landfill. State programs for landfill
regulation are required by Sub-title D to incorporate the federal regulations into the state codes.
Recommended practices described in this chapter are consistent with Subtitle D rule requirements.
State regulations under Subtitle D may be flexible to accommodate local conditions.
RCRA creates a framework for federal, state, and local government cooperation in controlling the
disposal of municipal solid waste. While the federal landfill rule establishes national minimum
standards for protecting human health and the environment, implementation of solid waste programs
remains largely the responsibility of local, state, or tribal governments. Under the authority of RCRA,
the USEPA regulates the following:
• Location Restrictions: airport safety, flood plains, wetlands, fault areas, seismic impact
zones, unstable areas
• Design Criteria: liners and groundwater protection
• Groundwater Monitoring and Corrective Action: groundwater monitoring systems,
groundwater sampling and analysis, detection monitoring, assessment monitoring, assessment
of corrective measures, selection of remedy, implementation of corrective action program
• Closure and Post-Closure Care: closure criteria, post-closure care requirements
• Financial Assurance Criteria: financial assurance for closure, financial assurance for post-
closure care, financial assurance for corrective action
• Operating Criteria: procedures for excluding hazardous waste, cover materials, disease
vector controls, explosive gasses control, air criteria, access requirements, run-on/run-off
control, surface water requirements, liquids restrictions, record keeping.
State and Local Requirements
State regulations vary widely, but usually landfill engineering plans are submitted to the appropriate
state-level regulatory body for review and approval. State standards are ordinarily more extensive than
RCRA standards and ad-dress concerns specific to a particular geographic region. Procuring the
various permits required to open and operate a landfill may take several months to several years,
especially if there is public controversy regarding the site. Five-to-seven-year planning and permitting
periods are becoming more common. State or local governments may require:
• a solid waste landfill plan approval

• a conditional-use zoning permit
• a highway department permit (for entrances on public roads and in-creased traffic volume)
• a construction permit (for landfill site preparation)
• a solid waste facilities permit
MWH Appendix 12B- 1

• a water discharge/water quality control permit

• an operation permit (for on-going landfill operations)
• a mining permit for excavations
• building permits (to construct buildings on the landfill site)
• a fugitive dust permit
• an air emission permit
• a closure permit.
Other federal agencies have established standards that will also affect the identification of potential
sites. For example, Federal Aviation Administration Order 5200.5 establishes a zone within which
landfill design and operational features must be used to prevent bird hazards to aircraft. Owners or
operators proposing to locate a new landfill or a lateral expansion within a five-mile radius of a
public-use airport must notify the affected airport and the FAA.
MWH Appendix 12B- 2

Appendix 12 C
India – Landfill Regulation
Regulation for Indian Landfill Sites
Site Selection
1. In areas falling under the jurisdiction of "Development Authorities' it shall be the responsibility of
such Development Authorities to identity the landfill sites and hand over the sites to the concerned
municipal authority for development, operation and maintenance. Elsewhere, this responsibility shall
lie with the concerned municipal authority.
2. Selection of landfill sites shall be based on examination of environmental issues. The Department
of Urban Development of the State or the Union territory shall co-ordinate with the concerned
organisations for obtaining the necessary approvals and clearances.
3. The landfill site shall be planned and designed with proper documentation of a phased construction
plan as well as a closure plan.
4. The landfill sites shall be selected to make use of nearby wastes processing facility. Otherwise,
wastes processing facility shall be planned as an integral part of the landfill site.
5. The existing landfill sites which continue to be used for more than five years, shall be improved in
accordance of the specifications given in this Schedule.
6. Biomedical wastes shall be disposed off in accordance with the Bio-medical Wastes (Management
and Handling) Rules, 1998 and hazardous wastes shall be managed in accordance with the Hazardous
Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989, as amended from time to time.
7. The landfill site shall be large enough to last for 20-25 years.
8. The landfill site shall be away from habitation clusters, forest areas, water bodies, monuments,
National Parks, Wetlands and places of important cultural, historical or religious interest.
9. A buffer zone of no-development shall be maintained around landfill site and shall be incorporated
in the Town Planning Department's land-use plans.
10. Landfill site shall be away from airport including airbase. Necessary approval of airport or airbase
authorities prior to the setting up of the landfill site shall be obtained in cases where the site is to be
located within 20 km of an airport or airbase.
Facilities at the site
11. Landfill site shall be fenced or hedged and provided with proper gate to monitor incoming
vehicles or other modes of transportation.
12. The landfill site shall be well protected to prevent entry of unauthorised persons and stray animals.
13. Approach and other internal roads for free movements of vehicles and other machinery shall exist
at the landfill site.
MWH Appendix 12C- 1

14. The landfill site shall have wastes inspection facility to monitor wastes brought in for landfill,
office facility for record keeping and shelter for keeping equipment and machinery including pollution
monitoring equipments.
15. Provisions like weighbridge to measure quantity of waste brought at landfill site, fire protection
equipments and other facilities as may be required shall be provided.
16. Utilities such as drinking water (preferably bathing facilities for workers) and lighting
arrangements for easy landfill operations when carried out in night hours shall be provided.
17. Safety provisions including health inspections of workers at landfill site shall be periodically
made.
Specifications for land filling
18. Wastes subjected to land filling shall be compacted in thin layers using landfill compactors to
achieve high density of the wastes. In high rainfall areas where heavy compactors cannot be used
alternative measures shall be adopted.
19. Wastes shall be covered immediately or at the end of each working day with minimum 10 cm of
soil, inert debris or construction material till such time waste processing facilities for composting or
recycling or energy recovery are set up as per Schedule I.
20. Prior to the commencement of monsoon season, an intermediate cover of 40-65 cm thickness of
soil shall be placed on the landfill with proper compaction and grading to prevent infiltration during
monsoon. Proper drainage berms shall be constructed to divert run-off away from the active cell of the
landfill.
21. After completion of landfill, a final cover shall be designed to minimize infiltration and erosion.
The final cover shall meet the following specifications, namely :-
(a) The final cover shall have a barrier soil layer comprising of 60 cms. of clay or amended soil with
permeability coefficient less than 1 x 10-7 cm/sec.
(b) On top of the barrier soil layer, there shall be a drainage layer of 15 cm.
(c) On top of the drainage layer, there shall be a vegetative layer of 45 cm to support natural plant
growth and to minimize erosion.
Pollution prevention
22. In order to prevent pollution problems from landfill operations, the following provisions shall be
made, namely :-
(a) Diversion of storm water drains to minimize leachate generation and prevent pollution of surface
water and also for avoiding flooding and creation of marshy conditions.
(b) Construction of a non-permeable lining system at the base and walls of waste disposal area. For
landfill receiving residues of waste processing facilities or mixed waste or waste having
contamination of hazardous materials (such as aerosols, bleaches, polishes, batteries, waste oils, paint
products and pesticides) minimum liner specifications shall be a composite barrier having 1.5 mm
high density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane, or equivalent, overlying 90 cm of soil (clay or
MWH Appendix 12C- 2

amended soil) having permeability coefficient not greater than 1 x 10-7 cm/sec. The highest level of
water table shall be at least two meter below the base of clay or amended soil barrier layer;
(c) Provisions for management of leachates collection and treatment shall be made. The treated
leachates shall meet the standards specified in Schedule - IV;
(d) Prevention of run-off from landfill area entering any stream, river, lake or pond.
Water Quality Monitoring
23. Before establishing any landfill site, baseline data of ground water quality in the area shall be
collected and kept in record for future reference. The ground water quality within 50 meters of the
periphery of landfill site shall be periodically monitored to ensure that the ground water is not
contaminated beyond acceptable limit as decided by the Ground Water Board or the State Board or
the Committee. Such monitoring shall be carried out to cover different seasons in a year that is,
summer, monsoon and post-monsoon period.
24. Usage of groundwater in and around landfill sites for any purpose (including drinking and
irrigation) is to be considered after ensuring its quality. The following specifications for drinking
water quality shall apply for monitoring purpose, namely :-
IS 10500: 1991 Desirable limit

S. No. Parameters
(mg/I except for pH)
1. Arsenic 0.05
2. Cadmium 0.01
3. Chromium 0.05
4. Copper 0.05
5. Cyanide 0.05
6. Lead 0.05
7. Mercury 0.001
8. Nickel -
9. Nitrate as NO3 45.0
10. pH 6.5-8.5
11. Iron 0.3
12. Total hardness (as CaCO3) 300.0
13. Chlorides 250
14. Dissolved solids 500
15. Phenolic compounds (as C6H5OH) 0.001
16. Zinc 5.0
17. Sulphate (as SO4) 200
MWH Appendix 12C- 3

Ambient Air Quality Monitoring
25. Installation of landfill gas control system including gas collection system shall be made at landfill
site to minimize odour generation, prevent off-site migration of gases and to protect vegetation
planted on the rehabilitated landfill surface.
26. The concentration of methane gas generated at landfill site shall not exceed 25 per cent of the
lower explosive limit (LEL).
27. The landfill gas from the collection facility at a landfill site shall be utilized for either direct
thermal applications or power generation, as per viability. Otherwise, landfill gas shall be burnt
(flared) and shall not be allowed to directly escape to the atmosphere or for illegal tapping. Passive
venting shall be allowed if its utilisation or flaring is not possible.
28. Ambient air quality at the landfill site and at the vicinity shall be monitored to meet the following
specified standards. namely :-
S. No. Parameters Acceptable levels

(i) Sulphur dioxide 120 --/m3 (24 hours)
Suspended Particulate
(ii) 500 --g/m3 (24 hours)
Matter
Not to exceed 25 per cent of the lower explosive limit
(iii) Methane
(equivalent to 650 mg/m3)
Ammonia daily average
(iv) 0.4 mg/m3 (400 --g/m3)
(Sample duration 24 hrs)
1 hour average : 2 mg/m3
(v) Carbon monoxide
8 hour average : 1 mg/m3
29. The ambient air quality monitoring shall be carried out by the concerned authority as per the
following schedule, namely:-
(a) Six times in a year for cities having population of more than fifty lakhs;
(b) Four times in a year for cities having population between ten and fifty lakhs.
(c) Two times in a year for town or cities having population between one and ten lakhs.
Plantation at Landfill Site
30. A vegetative cover shall be provided over the completed site in accordance with the following
specifications, namely :-
(a) Selection of locally adopted non-edible perennial plants that are resistant to drought and extreme
temperatures shall be allowed to grown;
(b) The plants grown be such that their roots do not penetrate more than 30 cms. This condition shall
apply till the landfill is stabilised;
(c) Selected plants shall have ability to thrive on low-nutrient soil with minimum nutrient addition;
MWH Appendix 12C- 4

Closure of Landfill Site and Post-care
31. The post-closure care of landfill site shall be conducted for at least fifteen years and long term
monitoring or care plan shall consist of the following, namely :-
(a) Maintaining the integrity and effectiveness of final cover, making repairs and preventing run-on
and runoff from eroding or otherwise damaging the final cover;
(b) Monitoring leachate collection system in accordance with the requirement;
(c) Monitoring of ground water in accordance with requirements and maintaining ground water
quality;
(d) Maintaining and operating the landfill gas collection system to meet the standards.
32. Use of closed landfill sites after fifteen years of post-closure monitoring can be considered for
human settlement or otherwise only after ensuring that gaseous and leachate analysis comply with the
specified standards.
Special provisions for hilly areas
33. Cities and towns located on hills shall have location-specific methods evolved for final disposal of
solid wastes by the municipal authority with the approval of the concerned State Board or the
Committee. The municipal authority shall set up processing facilities for utilization of biodegradable
organic wastes. The inert and non-biodegradable waste shall be used for building roads or filling-up
of appropriate areas on hills. Because of constraints in finding adequate land in hilly areas, wastes not
suitable for road laying or filling up shall be disposed of in specially designed landfills.
MWH Appendix 12C- 5

Appendix 12 D
UK– Landfill Tax
UK Landfill Tax and Environmental Bodies (1999)
As part of move towards environmentally focused taxation in the UK, a landfill tax of £7 per tonne for
active waste and £2 per tonne for inactive waste was introduced, through provisions made in the
Finance Act 1996, on 1 October 1996. In the March 1998 budget, the standard rate was raised to £10
per tonne, which took effect from 1 April 1999, whilst the lower rate for inactive waste was frozen at
£2 per tonne. In the March 1999 budget the standard rate was given a yearly increase, or 'landfill
escalator', of £1 per tonne per year for a period of 5 years (culminating in a rate of £15 per tonne in
2004/5). Inert wastes used in the restoration of landfill sites and quarries are to be exempt from 1
October 1999. Much of the income from the tax helps to pay for reductions in employers' labour costs,
by funding a reduction in the main rate of employers' National Insurance contributions (this reduction
being announced in the 1995 budget, and taking effect from April 1997). As such, the landfill tax is a
good example of 'green' taxation, in that it shifts the burden of tax from labour onto the consumption
of resources.
For environmental organisations, a potential bonus lies in the detail of the Landfill Tax, as set out in
the Landfill Tax Regulations 1996. This is the provision for landfill operators to claim a credit for up
to 20% of their tax liability, if it is voluntarily donated to approved Environmental Bodies (EBs)
through the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme. Up to £100 million a year could be made available for
approved environmental purposes, provided landfill operators provide some cash support as well, in
the ratio of £1 cash to release a credit for £9 from their tax liability. In essence, if you can gain £1000
cash support from a landfill operator, they can claim back £9,000 from their landfill tax liability
which they would pay directly to you to make your project worth £10,000.
Criteria for approval are set out in the Landfill Tax Regulations, which describes a number of
approved purposes (or 'object' ) within which EBs can work. The approved objects, given in section33
(2) of the regulations, include:
• The provision of education, information or research and development to encourage the use of
sustainable waste management practices such as waste reduction and recycling (object C).
• The creation of wildlife habitats or conservation areas in the vicinity of a landfill site (object
D).
• Remediation, restoration and amenity improvement of past waste management sites or other
industrial activities which, in their present state, are not able to support economic or social
activity (objects A and B).
• Maintenance, repair or restoration of religious, historic or architecturally interesting
buildings in the vicinity of a landfill site (object E).
It is object C of the regulations which relates directly to waste management. Recent amendments to
object C has meant that, from 1 January 2000, approval may be given to activities which encourage
the development of products from waste, or markets for recycled waste.
Two key points of the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme to recognise are:
1. donating landfill operators are not allowed to gain direct benefits from their donations, and;
2. it does not remove from landfill operators the legal duties they have to remediate sites under
present environmental legislation.
MWH Appendix 12D- 1

In reality, unlocking a potential £100 million for environmental projects would rely on landfill
operators providing up to £10 million in hard cash each year. While this is very unlikely to happen,
some landfill operators will recognise the potential for levering up cash for projects as part of their
own investment in community activities. As such, £224 million (representing 73% of the maximum
potential credits of £305 million) has been claimed in credits since commencement of the Scheme in
October 1996 up until April 2000. In this connection, a number of national environmental
organisations are negotiating projects with the major waste management companies that operate
landfill sites. Much potential also exists for local projects to contact local and regional landfill
operators, especially with a view to match funding Local Projects Fund applications and
Environmental Action Fund grants.
The job of identifying landfill operators to support your work should be treated in the same way as
you would approach any private company for support - with researched and targeted proposals based
on need. However, remember that in some cases, part of your approach will involve promoting the
ideas behind EBs to a landfill operator that may be quite new to the world of project sponsorship and
community affairs. The challenge is great but the rewards could be even greater.
MWH Appendix 12D- 2

Appendix 15-A
Pre-Treatment and Recovery of Valuable Materials from Municipal Solid Waste
It is necessary to separate out reusable and recyclable material from MSW either at the source of
generation or at a material recovery facility (MRF). A list of unit operations used for the purpose of
recovering valuable materials from MSW is given in Table 15A.1.
Table 15A.1: Unit Operations for Pretreatment and Sorting of MSW
Unit Operation Function

Shredding
Hammer Mills Size reduction/all types of wastes
Flail mills Size reduction, also used as bag breaker/all types of wastes
Shear shredder Size reduction, also used as bag breaker/ all types of wastes
Glass crushers Size reduction/ all types of glass
Wood grinders Size reduction and trimmings/ all types of wood wastes
Screening Separation of over and under sized material, trommel also
used as bag breaker/ all types of wastes
Cyclone separator Separation of light combustible materials from air
stream/prepared wastes
Density separation Separation of light combustible materials from air stream
(air classification)
Magnetic separation Separation of ferrous metal from commingled wastes
Densification
Bailers Compaction into bales/paper, cardboard, plastics, textiles,
aluminum
Can crushers Compaction and flattening/aluminum and tin cans
Wet separation Separation of glass and aluminum
Weighing facilities Operational records
Unit operations used for the separation and processing of separated and commingled wastes are
designed (1) to modify the physical characteristics of the waste so that waste components can be
removed more easily, (2) to remove specific components and contaminants from the waste stream,
and (3) to process and prepare the separated materials for subsequent uses.
Flow diagrams must be developed for the separation of the desired materials and for processing the
materials, subject to predetermined specifications. A process flow diagram for a MRF is defined as
the assemblage of unit operations, facilities and manual operations to achieve the following specific
goals. (1) identification of the characteristics of the waste materials to be processed, (2) specifications
for recovered materials, and (3) the available equipment and facilities. A typical process flow diagram
for a MRF employing manual and mechanical separation of materials from MSW is illustrated in
Figure 15A.1.
MWH Appendix 15A -1

Figure 15A.1 Process Flow Diagram for separating and recovering valuables from municipal
solid waste
Source: Integrated solid waste management Tchobanoglous G, Theisen H and Vigil S.A. , McGraw Hill (1993)
The major separation equipment consists of shear shredder, trommel screen, vibrating screen,
magnetic separator, air classifiers, cyclone and a system of conveyors. There is a wide choice of such
equipment from several vendors, who supply all material handling and separation units for mineral,
cement, coal, fertiliser and allied industries/applications. Selection of the various equipment and
accessories for the separation/ recovery of materials from municipal solid waste involves a judicious
exercise of selecting and matching process/duty requirements from locally available designs and
specifications of standard units.
MWH Appendix 15A -2

Appendix 16-A
List of Plant and Machinery for MSW Biomethanation Plant
A. Plant and Machinery
Sr. No. Equipment

1 Conveyors (Inter-stage)
a. Lift Conveyor
b. Sorting belt
c. Uptake belt
d. Reject Belt
e. Shredded Sieved Material Belt
2 Pumps
a. Drain Pit Pump
b. Filter Pump
c. Drain Pump
d. Fresh Water Pump
e. Sludge Pump
3 Bunker (fabricated Item)
4 Refining Sieve
5 Chain Conveyor
6 Dosing Screw Conveyors(2, 3, 4 m)
7 Waste Gas Burner
8 Flocculation System
- Floc. Prep. Unit
- Dosing Pump
- Flocculator
9 Pressure Relief Valve
10 Mixing unit
- In MSW section
- In Compost section
11 Piping & Valves(Gas Liquid Composting)
12 Container for compost
13 Sediment Trap & others
14 Screw Conveyors (8, 10,12 m lengths)
15 Gas Holder (Fabricated steel)
MWH Appendix 16A-1

Sr. No. Equipment

16 Gas Holder Hardware
17 Dosing Unit
18 Storage Tank
19 Hydraulic Unit for Feed Pumps
20 Biogas Boosters
21 NaOH dosing system
22 Pressure Relief Valve Rupture Type
23 Aerators
24 Clarifier
25 Housing
26 Structural Support
27 Rotary Screen
28 Flame arrestors
29 H2S Scrubber
30 Temperature indicators (Dial Type)
31 Pressure gauges (pumps, blower)s
32 Gas Flow Meter (each Reactor)
33 Fresh Water meter
34 MCC Electricals
35 Gas Supply
36 Waste Heat Recovery Boiler
36 Centrifuge (capacity10 Cum/Hr)
38 Vibrating Screen
39 Homogenisation Drum
40 Oil Storage Tank
41 Blowers for Maturation Sec.
42 Diesel Storage Tank
43 Magnetic Belt
44 Trucks and Forklifts
MWH Appendix 16A- 2

B. Particulars of Indigenous Machinery
Sr. No. Equipment

1 Ventilation System (Power Plant)
2 Piping fittings, valves, pumps, ducting for utilities and exhaust gas system
3 Instrumentation
4 DM Plant
5 Crane
6 DG Set (300 KVA capacity)
7 NGR
8 Transformer 3.3/11KV (ONAN type, with On Load Tap changer
9 Station Transformer 3.3/0.43 KV off circuit tap changer
10 3.3KV & 11 KV Switchgear
11 Cables (HT & LT)
12 415V, Switchgear
13 P.M.C.C.
14 Potential and current transformer in switchyard
PT (75 VA burden)
CT (75 VA burden)
15 Battery and battery charger
16 Lightning arrester
17 Master Control Panel
18 Switchyard including metering unit
19 Overhead Line - 11 KV,
20 MCC Electricals
C. Details of Imported Plant & Machinery
Sr. No. Equipment

1 Feed Pumps
2 Press
3 Engine with Alternator #
4 Spares for genset
MWH Appendix 16A- 3

Addendum for Technical Memorandum on Waste-to-Energy Technologies
1. Capital cost data for four gasification technology options for MSW gasification systems has
been compared. As discussed during the Banagalore meeting, "Evaluation of Gasification and
Novel Thermal process for the Treatment of MSW, National renewable energy Laboratory,
Colorado, USA, August 1996" is the data source used for this purpose and same is
reproduced below.
S.No Technology Reference

1 Termiska Processor Table 4.1
2 Proler Table 5.1
3 Battelle Table 7.1
4 Thermochem Table 9.1
The above cost data have been suitably amended by using appropriate correction factor
(Process Industry economic- An International Perspective by David Brennan, Institution of
Chemical Enginneers, 1998) to take into account engineering, equipment and construction
costs for a preliminary estimate of similar projects to be proposed for India. The correction
factor for engineering, equipment and construction are 0.6,0.99 and 0.49 respectively
The Table Addendum 2-1 gives a preliminary estimate of gasification technology options for
India based on the above analysis.
S.No Technology Engineering Equipment Construction Total

US $ INR US $ INR US $ INR Million INR
Crores Crores Crores US $ Crores
1 Termiska 13125000 39.38 153800000 761.31 3750000 9.19 170.675 809.87
2 Proler 13300000 39.90 153825000 761.43 167.125 801.33
3 Battelle 2892000 8.68 77640000 384.32 80.532 392.99
4 Thermochem 482000 14.53 86891000 430.11 91.733 444.63
The total plant capacity and expected net power generation potential of the Four above
mentioned technologies are presented in Table Addendum 2-2.
S.No Technology Plant Capacity Net Power Cost / MW

1 Termiska 1760 54.85 14.76
2 Proler 1370 51.43 15.58
3 Battelle 935 28.05 14.01
4 Thermochem 935 32.34 13.75
Therefore, the average cost / MW for gasification technology is Rs 14.53 Crores.
MSW gasification projects presently promoted in India (Chennai, Mumbai Projects) involve
Capital investment of Rs 12.12 and 11.42 Crores per MW which is 15 to 20 % less compare
to the average cost of similar projects estimated by NREL,USA.
MWH Addendum 2- 1
2. A detailed cost breakup of MSW biomethanation project coming up at Lucknow was

reviewed in an effort to ascertain the cost of major steps – MSW Preparation / Upgradation,
Biomethnation and Power generation. The cost of pretreatment steps could not be
apportioned since most costs other than the main equipment like Civil, Mechanical, Piping,
Instrumentation etc., are given for the total project.
3. In view of the cost estimates illustrated above, the capital cost included in Table 16.1 and
16.2 of the Technical Memorandum on WTE Technologies for MSW gasification projects
can be considered to be reliable.
4. The data in Table 16.1 for Biomethnation projects at Lucknow and Incineration project at
Hyderabad has been revised and details of the Vijayawada project has been included based on
inputs received from MNES for these projects.
MWH Addendum 2- 2
Figure 15.3: Mass Balance Diagram – Biomethanation Technology - Capacity 500 TPD (Thermophillic High Solids Dry Basis)
MSW Manual Conveyor Trommel Screen Conveyor Ballistic Conveyor Magnetic
Inspection separator Separation
496 300
500 300
(<40mm)
83 to (Landfill) 1 (Recyclable)
PRE -TREATMENT
(>180 mm) 146 83
Homogenising
Large Particles Drum
Conveyor
299
4 (Landfill) 50 63 TPD
(Landfill / Recyclable) 40-180mm (Landfilling / Recyclable)
Air
52500 Nm3/d Biogas
POWER GENERATION Flare Gas Storage Dual Fuel Engine Power
(500 m3) (5.0 MW)
Exhaust Gas
Water Waste Heat Recovery Steam 171
205 m3/day
ANAEROBIC DIGESTION Biogas Cleaning System

3760
375 Digester feed
Digester
4 x 5540 m3
Recirculation 3290
Dewatering
Unit
Sewage/ Fresh Water

Air
175 Wastewater
3
165 m /D
200
10
<12mm
Vibrating Aerobic Maturation Compost 125 Units: TPD
Screen
210 170
POST -TREATMENT
>12mm
40 Recyclable AIR+EXCESS HEAT FROM HEAT RECOVERY
Note : Organic Fraction of MSW 36 % (Wet basis)
MWH Addendum 1 - 1
Figure 15-6. Mass and Energy Balance for 500 TPD MSW Gasification System based on SWERF
EXHAUST
16
(WASTE HEAT RECOVERY)
15
RAW
WATER
9 WATER
BOILER
TREATMENT
10 11 13 12 14 6
2 21 23 25
1 INERT PLUG SCREW
MSW PROCESSING GASIFICATION GAS POWER 30
REMOVAL FEEDER
2 4 7 20 COOLING 24 GENERATION
8
5
INERT LANDFILL
3
RECYCLE
MWH Addendum 1 -2
Figure 15-7. Mass & Energy Balance for MSW WTE Facility with Fluidized Bed Incineration – (Capacity 500 TPD)
500
498 Conveyor 302 301 Screw Press
MSW Manual Trommel Screen Ballistic Magnetic
Inspection Conveyor separator Separator
<40mm - 302
Landfill
40-180 mm
82
146 (Recyclable) 118 m3/D
PRE TREATMENT 1 Wastewater
Homogenizing 82
>180 mm
Drum
Large Particles 64
2 (Landfill) (Landfill/Recycling)
50 (Landfilling / Recyclable)
Fluidized Bed
Power Steam Turbine Incinerator/Boiler RDF Pellets Pelletiser
(6.2 MW) (25 % efficiency) (70 % efficiency) 183
RDF INCINERATION/POWER (CV 4000 kcal / kg)
Ash
POST TREATMENT 25
Multiple
Scrubber ESP Cyclones
Stack
UNITS -TPD
MWH Addendum 1-3

Revised Section 15.3

A summary of Power generation potential utilizing MSW by different technologies is given in
Table 15.4
Table 15.4 Summary of Energy Generation Potential of MSW WTE technologies
S.No Technology Energy Generation Potential

(MW/100 TPD Unsorted MSW)
1 Biomethanation 1
2 Gasification 2
3 Incineration of RDF 1.2
4 Landfill with Gas Recovery 0.4
Note: Organic Fraction of MSW is equivalent to 36 % (Wet Basis)
Power generation potential of Indian MSW is 1 MW/100 TPD. This is comparable to the potential of 1.1 to
1.2 MW/100 TPD unsorted MSW considered abroad for biomethanation process.
Generally, gasification of MSW leads to 70-80 % of the energy inherent in the feedstock to be recovered as
energy in the product (gas, oil or solid). The net energy output of a gasification plant will be 2.0 MW per
100 tonnes of unsorted MSW processed.
The use of RDF pellets, derived from MSW, has the potential to generate upto 1.24 MW electricity per 100
TPD of unsorted MSW.
Power generation potential for LFG will be 0.4 MW per 100 TPD unsorted MSW.
A sewage treatment plant (capacity 10 MLD) has the potential to generate 1,050 Nm3/day of biogas, which
in turn can be used to generate 150 kW power. This plant also has a potential to save upto 53 kW power
compared to conventional activated sludge process.
MWH Addendum 1 -4

Case Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

National Master Plan for Development of Waste-to-Energy in India

Technical Memorandum on Waste-to-Energy Technologies

2. The most significant waste-to-energy technologies are based on biological or thermal

• Biomethanation involves the biodegradation of organic wastes under strict anaerobic

• Suspended growth reactor systems

7. An extensive literature review of biomethanation technology indicated that several variations

Gasification and Pyrolysis

• System Configuration (0-30)

MONTGOMERY WATSON ES III

• System auxiliaries (0-30)

Pre-treatment (0-20), post-treatment (0-10).

• Environmental Aspects (0-30)

• Resource Recovery (0-30)

• Commercial Aspects (0-30)

Capital Cost (0-12), Operational Cost (0-12), Track Record (0-6).

Technology Score Rank

• Biomethanation has emerged as a mature and widely accepted WTE technology on a

D. Mass and Energy Balance

E. Cost Analysis Upcoming/Proposed

29. Evaluation of the applicability of the technologies of biomethanation, gasification/pyrolysis,

8 Waste-To-Energy Technologies – Overview

8.2 Alternate Energy Resources

8.3 Technology Options

MWH Chapter 8-1

Nature & Characteristics of Feedstock

MWH Chapter 8-2

Effectiveness of a technology will be determined by its flexibility in responding to a variety of wastes,

MWH Chapter 8-3

• Capital and Operating Costs

By-products produced in waste-to-energy processes present two-fold economic considerations. The

MWH Chapter 8-4

MWH Chapter 8-5

Table 8-1. Characteristics of Indian Urban and Industrial Liquid Wastes

Source: Adapted from various sources

MONTGOMERY WATSON Chapter 8-6

Table 8-2. Characteristics of Indian Urban and Industrial/ Farm Wastes

Sr. Waste Sector Moisture Total Inerts Organics Thermal Energy

MONTGOMERY WATSON Chapter 8-7

• Pollution prevention/ reduction

• Municipal solid waste

• Aqueous industrial and municipal (sewage) wastes

MWH Chapter 9-1

The feedstock generally undergoes pre-treatment prior to biomethanation. Pre-treatment of industrial

9.2 Principles of Biomethanation

A simplified schematic diagram of the major biochemical transformations during anaerobic

MWH Chapter 9-2

9.3 Biomethanation Systems: Aqueous Wastes

9.3.1 Suspended Growth Systems

The system offers several process advantages as illustrated below:

• Process can provide uniform environment throughout the reactor

B. Anaerobic Contact Reactor

MWH Chapter 9-3

• Suitable for wastes with high concentration of organics

• Biomass settleability is critical

D. Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) Reactors

MWH Chapter 9-4

9.3.2 Attached Growth Systems

C. Fluidised Bed Bioreactors

MWH Chapter 9-5

9.3.3 Hybrid Reactors

9.3.4 Wastewater Characteristics

• Source and nature of wastewater

MWH Chapter 9-6