You are on page 1of 19

Waste Management & Research (1994) 12, 73-91

A SYSTEMS APPROACH TO MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE


MANAGEMENT: A PILOT STUDY OF GOTEBORG

J. Sundberg, P. Gipperth and C.-O. Wene

Energy Systems Technology Division, Department of Energy Conversion, Chalmers University of


Technology, S-412 96 Gb'teborg, Sweden

(Received 13 June 1992, accepted 13 January 1993)

The proposed systems approach to solid waste management consists of two parts,
first, a comprehensive model, MIMES/WASTE (a Model for description and
optimization of Integrated Material flows and Energy Systems), for analysing the
technical properties of the waste management system, and second, procedures to
make the model into an efficient tool in the planning process. The paper focuses on
the first part by describing the model and the methodology for using it for broad
scope technical analysis of the waste management system. A pilot study for the
G6teborg region in Sweden, illustrating the methodology and the use of the model, is
presented. The MIMES/WASTE model is a systems engineering tool for strategic
planning of municipal waste management systems. The model provides a framework
for consistent evaluation of: (i) a large number of feasible options for developing the
system, (ii) the effects of uncertainties in the system environment and, (iii) various
goals set up for the system (e.g. cost efficiency, environmental control, recycling, and
energy production). Three modes of application are discussed: long-term planning;
short-term planning; and consequence analysis.

Key Words--Waste management, municipal solid waste, systems analysis, municipal


engineering, mathematical models, cost effectiveness, integrated re-
source planning, emissions control.

1. Introduction
Present-day regional and municipal solid waste management involves planning prob-
lems that are radically different from those dealt with previously. The awareness of
environmental problems has forced governments, local authorities and utilities for waste
management to search for new technical and organizational solutions for future waste
management systems.
In many regions, the solid waste problems are becoming acute. Existing landfills will
soon be filled and existing incineration plants, if any, are already fully used. New
capacity, i.e. new sites that are both accessible and technically suitable for landfills as
well as new concessions for waste incineration, is almost impossible to obtain, due to
political and public opposition. In addition to these problems, the amount of municipal
waste continues to increase steadily in m a n y regions, in spite of increased recycling of
newspaper, glass, aluminium cans, etc.
Various legislative initiatives and procedures have been activated within the past few
years in the leading industrial countries, with the aims of encouraging reduction of the
waste produced and increasing reuse and recycling of waste components. However, most
of these efforts have been focused on hazardous wastes, while the large waste streams of
municipal solid waste, MSW (i.e. household waste, industrial waste, construction and
demolition waste and sewage sludge), are handled in much the same way as before.

0734-242X/94/010073 + 19 $08.00/0 © 1994 ISWA


74 J. Sundberg et al.

The new regulations for waste management in Sweden, approved in May 1990, by the
Swedish parliament include the following (The Swedish Association for Solid Waste
Management, 1990):
• From January 1991 every municipality in Sweden is obliged to draw up a solid
waste plan for the handling of all wastes produced in the municipality. Priority shall
be given to: (i) reducing the quantity of waste produced; (ii) encouraging reuse and,
(iii) encouraging recycling.
• Source separation (by households and industries) should be developed in such a
way that:
(1) From 1994 all wastes delivered for final treatment are separated into categories
suitable for proper handling.
(2) Incineration and landfilling of unseparated waste will cease almost completely
by the end of 1993. Methane gas from landfilling shall be recovered for energy
use, or flared.
Several changes throughout the waste management system, in both technology and
organization, are necessary to develop systems that fulfill these new demands. There is
an obvious need for tools for broad scope analysis of the waste management system, not
only for the task of finding environmentally acceptable cost efficient solutions for the
technical system, but also for the task of initiating a learning process (Checkland 1981)
for the actors in the waste management system.
This paper describes a model and a method that takes a systems approach to the
management of regional/municipal solid waste. The systems approach consists of two
parts: (1) a comprehensive model for analysing the technical properties of the system;
and (2) procedures for model use by the system actors. The application of a systems
engineering model to initiate a learning process among the system actors is discussed, for
example, by Wene & Ryd~n (1988).
The concentration here is on the technical analysis, i.e. the first part of the systems
approach. There is a description of the general properties of the Waste Management
System (WAMS) and a model (MIMES/WASTE)* that can be used for broad scope
technical analysis of the system. The type of results that can be obtained from the model
is also explained. MIMES/WASTE is developed from a general model for linked energy
and material flows (Sundberg & Wene 1988; Sundberg 1989).
The MIMES/WASTE model has been designed for the integrated analysis of:
Strategies for source separation;
Options for recycling;
Technical options for processing of solid waste;
Sales to the energy and material markets; and
Options for reducing pollutants and emissions resulting from WAMS.
Previous models for the analysis of solid waste management systems are briefly
discussed and compared in Gottinger (1988) and Liebman (1975). In the late 1960s and
in the 1970s, several model approaches were presented. Most of these models focus on
subsystems of WAMS. One of the most common subsystems in these model studies is the
transport system, where models are used for vehicle routing optimization.
Today, models have to handle more complex systems in order to face present changes
in solid waste management. Some interesting more recent approaches are the RRPLAN-
model (Chapman & Berman 1983) and the HARBINGER-model (Rushbrook 1987).
* MIMES: a Model for descriptionand optimizationof Integrated Material flowsand EnergySystems
Municipal solid waste management 75

The RRPLAN model is developed to handle several planning problems of the regional
waste management system. It has a wide scope with a system boundary similar to
MIMES/WASTE which permits integrated analysis of options and strategies in WAMS.
However, in comparison with MIMES/WASTE, RRPLAN uses a simpler description
for waste streams and processing equipment. Emissions are not included. An advantage
of RRPLAN is the option to use declining prices and limited size markets for the
material recovery. This option has not yet been studied for MIMES/WASTE.
Another general model that also has a wide scope, similar to the one above, is the
HARBINGER model. This model is made up of eight sub-models. Six of them are used
to prepare inputs and two for analysing different strategies. Since no time-based
optimization routines are used in the model, strategies have to be compared and
analysed through several simulations. Also, the waste streams are limited by the number
of component fractions that can be considered, and this reduces the capacity of the
model for analysis of source separation and its impact on emissions in downstream
processes. An option that is not available in MIMES/WASTE is the detailed analysis of
the transport system that is in the transport network sub-model. This sub-model derives
the shortest times through the road system for the waste collecting vehicles.
The MIMES/WASTE model has been used in two pilot studies, one of the G6teborg
region (700,000 inhabitants) by Gipperth & Sundberg (1990), and one of the municipality
Bor~s (100,000 inhabitants) by Bergqvist & Carlsson (1988). The pilot study of G6teborg
is presented in this paper. A larger and more detailed study of the G6teborg region has
recently been started together with some of the major actors in the regional system.
The following section describes the general modelling principles and the methodology
and modes of application. Section 3 describes the MIMES/WASTE model and how the
model couples the material and energy flows. Finally, a pilot study of the G6teborg
region is presented. The aim here is to illustrate how the model can be used and what
types of results it provides.

2. Methodology
2.1 The boundaries o f the waste management system
Figure 1 indicates the most important factors in the environment of the Waste
Management System (WAMS).
WAMS is an open system that exchanges energy, material and information with its
environment, across the system boundaries. It is important to identify an efficient system
boundary that fits the defined problem and where possible, to study the interactions
between the system and its environment through a limited set of environmental factors.
With the boundaries chosen here, one can identify seven important factors in the
WAMS environment:
(i) The quantity and mixture of incoming waste and the degree of source separation.
In the present application, the upstream boundary is set at the point of output
waste flows from households and industries.
(2) The demand for recycled materials on the markets.
(3) The availability of new sites for landfills.
(4) The demand and wholesale prices for electricity and low temperature heat for
district heating.
(5) The price and availability of auxiliary energy supply, e.g. oil, electricity, diesel etc.
76 J. Sundberg et al.

Waste
0 Sources
O Quantity
Technology o Mixture Environmental
development O Source separation restrictions

Energy ~ Energy
markets Markets
WASTE
O Electricity MANAGEMENT O Electricity
SYSTEM

-I /
O Fuel Itrsp} / I 0 District
heating
0 Oil
0 Biogas, etc

\\
//////
> Emissions,
drainage
Material
Markets Landfill
0 Paper
O Metals
O Compost
O Glass, etc
Fig. 1. The environment of the waste management system.

(6) Environmental restrictions, e.g. on emissions from incineration and on drainage


from landfills.
(7) Availability, cost and technical properties of new technologies.
The boundary of WAMS, as described above, is not fixed, due to method or model
limitations. Depending on the nature of the problem investigated, a wider or a narrower
system can be used for WAMS and handled by the computer model, if preferred. For instance,
MIMES/WASTE has already been used in longitudinal studies of specific waste streams.

2.2 The model as a planning instrument

The MIMES/WASTE model is a one time-step model. It is designed to facilitate finding


new solutions for future waste management systems that are cost efficient and environ-
mentally acceptable. It can also be used to analyse the consequences of specific changes
that are suggested for the system or of proposed waste management plans.
The three modes of model applications are long-term planning, short-term planning
and consequence analysis. The modes can be used independently or in combination, for
the above mentioned purposes. The differences between the modes are shown in Table 1.
For long-term planning, system studies are performed by scenario analysis in order to
handle the uncertainties in the system environment. The result is, consequently, not one
"optimal solution" for the future WAMS but several optimal solutions for different
boundary conditions, each answering questions of a "what i f . . . ? " character. Together,
Municipal solid waste management 77

TABLE I
Model modes

Modelling
Model modes technique Objective Options

Long-term planning Optimization Minimumsystem cost Flows and process*


(LP/NLP) (variableand fixed costs)
Short-term planning Optimization Minimumsystem cost Flows*
(LP/NLP) (variablecosts only)
None
Consequence analysis Simulation NA Flows and processest
* Internally controlled by the system objective.
t Externally introduced by the modeller. LP, linear programming. NLP, non-linear programming.
Options: Alternatives to the existing system (flows and processes) that can be included.
Flows: All flows of both energy and materials can be optional by both rate and route.
Processes: New processes (technology) may be used. When they are used, investments or re-investments are
included.
NA, Nol applicable.

these solutions are used to form a strategy for the development of the system. Examples
of long-term planning problems that can be analysed by the model are:
Introduction of new technology (e.g. bio-gas plants, composting plants);
Introduction of emission fees and differentiated waste fees;
Options for heat and/or electricity production;
Strategies for source separation.
In the next mode, short-term planning, the new investments option is excluded. This
mode describes how the waste streams of WAMS should be utilized using existing
technology in order to minimize costs. For example, at what price for recycled newsprint
does burning become a cost efficient option? What fees should be used for construction
waste, if the combustible fractions are separated at the construction sites?
The difference between consequence analysis and the other two modes is that the use
of processes and flows are fixed, instead of being a result of the optimization. This mode
shows whether given assumptions for the system inputs (input waste, separation,
restrictions etc.) are feasible and, if so, what consequences these assumptions have for
waste flows and emissions in downstream processes. This mode can be used to evaluate a
proposed plan from the viewpoints of technical, economic and environmental feasibility,
or to calculate certain variables, for instance, the total amount of nitrogen oxides that is
emitted from the system.

3. The model
The systems approach to municipal waste management, described in this paper, is built on
the modelling concept of MIMES. MIMES offers a general concept for modelling large
and complex systems of both material and energy flows, i.e. methods for systems
identification and representation, model formulation, systems optimization and simula-
tion. The model is generic, applicable to different kinds of systems and problems
(Sundberg 1989). For the analysis of waste management systems the modelling concept is
78 J. Sundberg et al.

Selection of mathematical
Choice of variety solution technique

REMS I DEVICES I[ EQUATIONS t ALGORITHM


Graphic Component ] Mathematical Solution
representation I descriptions representation method

l
SYSTEM
f I+o,+++p
Fig. 2. The general structure of the MIMES modellingconcept.

denoted MIMES/WASTE. The extension WASTE refers to the methodological aspects


discussed in the previous section and the ready-built structure for graphic representations
and component descriptions, which is further described under "choice of variety" below.
The modelling concept, as illustrated in Fig. 2, consists of two major steps. A general
discussion of the two-step process of model building is found in Wene (1989). The first
step, here named '+choice of variety", deals with the problem of how systems should be
represented in the model. The task in this part is to select valuable information from the
real system and to describe it in the model, i.e. to identify an efficient system boundary
and to define which technologies and flows should be included in the study, as well as to
decide the level of aggregation for the study. Moreover, the coupling of flows in the
processes is defined here. From a user's view, this is the part where most work is done.
The second part of the model, named "selection of mathematical solution tech-
niques", concerns the mathematical representation of the system and the methods used
to find different types of solutions to these representations. The mathematical routines
are automatically handled by the computer.
Following the modelling structure shown in Fig. 2, the parts of MIMES are briefly
described below:

3.1 S.vslem
The model is designed for systems of linked energy and material flows, of which the
WAMS is a typical example. Accordingly, it is not limited by a specific system or by
specific technologies. Two important factors that make this possible are: (i) a general
framework for technology descriptions, and (ii) flexible aggregation levels for model units.

3.2 R E M S
A graphic representation of the system modelled is necessary for handling the com-
plexity of large systems in a comprehensive way. In energy systems engineering, network
diagrams are used to show the flow of energy carriers from energy sources via energy
conversion technologies to the final consumer. The diagrams are called Reference
Energy Systems (RES). This technique has been developed to represent linked energy
and material flows in Reference Energy and Material Systems (REMS). An example of a
REMS diagram for waste management is found in section 4. The graphic representation
Municipal solid waste management 79
(a) +- +ol +
(b) (c)
~ ~.
i

M+!

E,~
~. E~
E;.
'
DEVICE
E+. E;

Fig. 3. (a) Input and output flows,(b) material flowsthrough a device,(c) energyflowsthrough a device.
M, Material flow;E, energyflow;H, enthalpyflow; +, input flow; -, output flow.

identifies the system boundaries, and defines the scope and detail of the technical
analysis of the system. It is also an important tool for evaluating the model results
together with the actors in the system.

3.3 Devices
The devices in MIMES are the nodes in the network of energy and material flows. They
represent technical equipment or subsystems for the treatment of energy and/or material
flows. They are treated as "black boxes" and are described, accordingly by the relations
between input and output flows. MIMES offers a set of device options and flow options
for the device descriptions. These options define: (i) possible flow paths through the
device, (ii) the relations between flows, and (iii) the control of flows.
Figure 3(a) shows how a device is illustrated in the REMS flow diagram with material
flows shown vertically and energy flows horizontally. Figures 3(b) and (c) illustrate the
possible directions for material and energy flows. The coupling between all these flows is
defined by the device and flow options, as mentioned above. A purpose-built program,
DEVED, can be used for designing devices for MIMES (Sundberg 1989).

3.4 Equations
The equation part of the MIMES modelling concept consists of a set of generic
equations, linear and non-linear. The REMS and device analysis provide the basis for
selecting and specifying equations to obtain an algebraic representation of the system.
The selection and specification of equations can be formalized through the DEVED
program. The system of equations is solved by the following algorithm.

3.5 Algorithm
For the mathematical optimization and simulation, MIMES uses non-linear program-
ming (NLP) and linear programming (LP) algorithms. The main option is NLP. Since
some systems may be described and modelled by purely linear equations, the option to
use standard LP algorithms is available. From a mathematical point of view, linear
80 J. Sundberg et al.

equation systems are to be preferred. The main advantages of using LP are the ease of
handling large equation systems and the speed in solving them. However, non-linear
equations must be used for the applications on WAMS. In the pilot study of G6teborg,
30 out of a total of 1100 equations are non-linear. In MIMES, optimization and
simulation are handled by the programming package GAMS (Brooke et al. 1988).*
The computer implementation of MIMES is written for PC-386/486 machines
running under DOS. Problems produced and solved with MIMES are shown to be both
easy and fast to solve on such a system.
For a detailed description of the model approach and the model design of M IMES the
reader is referred to Sundberg (1989).

4. Examples from a pilot study


The pilot study of the waste management system for the region of G6teborg was
conducted in cooperation with the regional waste management enterprise (GRAAB).
The main focus of the study was to examine the incentives for separating the
compostable components of household waste and the combustible components of
construction and demolition waste. New technologies for the compostable components,
a biogas plant and a composting plant, were studied. The combustible components can
be used as fuel for heat and power production in the existing incineration plant. The
main issue of the study was to analyse how the new technologies can cooperate and/or
compete with the present incineration plant in the waste management system of
G6teborg. The MIMES/WASTE model was used to optimize the system. Optimizations
have been made for different assumptions about maximum possible source separation,
NO, emission fees, and total amount of waste to be processed.

4.1 The present situation

There are nine comrnunities within the G6teborg region with a total of 700,000
inhabitants, covering an area of 2500 km-'. G6teborg is the largest community with
400,000 inhabitants. The regional waste management enterprise, GRAAB, is owned
jointly by all the communities.
The G R A A B enterprise handles most of the downstream operations for solid waste,
such as incineration and landfill. Within the communities, the local authorities are
responsible for the collection of solid waste from households, commercial and industrial
enterprises, construction and demolition sites, etc. There are six transfer stations within
the region, where the solid waste is transferred from the communities to the subsystem
operated by GRAAB.
The incineration heat and power plant, just outside G6teborg, is the main facility in
the system. The plant processes 300,000 tonnes of solid waste annually. Up to 80,000
tonnes of industrial waste can be handled in a pre-processing unit, where undesirable
material is removed. This gives the components intended for burning a higher and more
stable heating value and a lower content of heavy metals.
At present, the incineration plant delivers about 700 GWh/y of heat to the district
heating system, which is operated by G6teborg Energi. In 1990, this was 20% of the total
heat required by the district heating system. The plant produces 90 GWh/a of electricity,
* GAMS (General Algebraic Modelling System):A mathematical frameworkfor optimization that includes
matrix generation and a set of optimization algorithms. The main solver used for MIMES is the
NLP-algorithm MINOS (Brooke et ol. 1988).
Municipal solid waste management 81

of which 5 0 G W h is sold and 4 0 G W h is consumed internally. In 1989, a flue-gas


cleaning system was built, which cleanses the flue gases of hydrochloric acid, heavy
metals, dust and dioxins. By using the latent heat in condensing vapour, the cleaning
system increases the energy yield from the waste by 25%.
The REMS flow diagram in Fig. 4 gives further details on the regional waste
management system. The vertical lines denote waste flows and they are described in the
model as mass flows with a specific energy content. Horizontal arrows to and from a box
denote energy flows, for example fuel requirements for transport. The mass flows shown
in the figure are described in the model by up to 15 variables, each representing a specific
component of the flow. The waste components used for the pilot study are found in the
upper part of Fig. 4 and in Table 3.
The REMS diagram indicates that there is some separation into waste components at
the households ("S.SEP"). Of the total amount of paper and glass handled by the
system, 67% and 32%, respectively, are separated at source and sold on the market for
recycled products. At present, about 20,000 tonnes or 11% of the household waste are
separated at the source. Outside the current scope of REMS, and not shown in Fig. 4, is
the household waste that the consumer carries back to his retailer. According to RVF
(1990), 97% of the returnable bottles are reused, and more than 85% of all aluminium
cans are recycled.
In order to test different levels of aggregation in the pilot study, two communities that
share a transfer station were described separately. There were no data available to make
the same type of test for industrial and commercial or construction and demolition
waste.

4.2 Data and assumptions


Scenario analysis is used to examine the incentives for separating and using the
compostable components of household waste and the combustible components of
construction and demolition waste. Table 2 shows the assumptions made about the
system environment for the scenarios.
A simulation of the existing system serves as a reference point, and is referred to as the
Base Case. The first boundary condition to be changed is the waste mix: three scenarios
are analysed for three different assumptions about the separation at source. The next
scenario examines the consequences that an emission fee on nitrogen oxides has for the
system. Finally, an increase of input waste is studied.
In all scenarios, except for the Base Case, the model is given options for separating the
compostable part of the household waste (kitchen residue and wet paper). This part can
be either composted or anaerobically-digested in large scale plants. There are also
options for separating the combustible part of the construction and demolition waste
(paper and cardboard, wood, and plastic) and use it as fuel for heat and power
production in the incineration plant. At present these components are landfilled. The
separation degrees given in Table 2 are only upper limits. The degrees actually used are
decided by the model.
The incinerator has two capacity constraints for input waste; first, there is a technical
upper limit of 750,000 MWh/y (mean lower heating value) and, second, there is a
concession that permits incineration of up to 300,000 tonnes/y.
Data for the waste flows are shown in Fig. 4. The content of the waste flows are in the
model described by waste components. Table 3 shows the components used for the study
of G6teborg.
I ~,~,np • III
~ 61991 Metals Garbage"~: ...... ~ ~ ] ~
= ~ 11,089 i Glasl 3 O ~" _ J
E ¢c 4960 Lea. Rub. TxtI~,,//v~/
° ~o° 11,159 Plastica ~ S. Sep. ~ 0
' Kitchen ral
27,277
Wet paper
J - ~
~Sl~eg, ~ 3650" ]
}
i,.
8679 Cardboard r / ~' - - 1
, -. , q ..... ~ }
1119 I I
-~ 508 , Motela
'=% 730 ~,... ~ ~ . ~ . ~ ~,=.~ ,,0 ~ /~=~
~~
.~
406 ~..Rub.,,,~\\\
814 ~,,,~o, i~\\\\
,
,
, ~-~
,1200 ~ _ ~
, , 1200
~ I
o g ~_ 30482235K~tchanwet
paperrae" s. Sap, . _lStOrage
I r-J~--~}
.,
° 711 C,~boa,d t-~---'~....11o,158 ~j=~
~u
r~
604 ~ ' ~
274 Metal=
= _~ 414 G all [1" /Y,,/I/7
- ~ Lea. Rub. Txt s. Sap.
,°., <'":"'.r,,, .o
o
_ 1203 w,,~ap. 1'// ' ' " ~ " ' --F
383 Cardboard r/ A
b.,
._~
[.L
t~4
oo
Municipal solid waste management 83

Industrial an d Construction and


commercial waste demolition waste
(176,500 tonnes) (60.000 tonnes)

~ ~ o o
o o oo

oo

(222 343 t0nnes) (SO 000 t0mes)


TABLE 2
S u m m a r y o f the scenarios for the pilot study

System environment

Optional waste Options for


Scenarios Source separation technologies emissions control Amount of waste

Base Case Paper= 67%, glass = 32%* None None 1989

Increased source separation Paper < 75%, glass < 5 0 % Compost None 1989
Biogas
$25 Compostable comp.t < 25%
Combustible comp.~t <25%
$50 Compostable comp.'t 50%
Combustible comp.~ < 50%
$75 Compostable comp.t < 75%
Combustible comp.:[: < 75%

Emission fees Same as scenario $50 Compost Incinerator: 1989


Biogas Ammonia inj.§
Catalytic red,II
Transports:
Engine¶E
New vehicles

increased amount of waste Same as scenario $50 Compost None Percent increase
Biogas relative to 1989
WI0 + 10%
W20 + 20%

* Paper (PA) and glass (GL) from households.


"i"CompostabLe components of household Waste; kitchen residue (K R) and wet paper (WP). (KR; WP) < 25%~ 50%, 75%,
:l:Combustible components of construction/demolition waste; paper and cardboard (PC), wood (WO) and plastic (PL). (PC; WO; PL)
< 25%, 50%, 75%.
§ Ammonia injection in the combustion chambers of the incinerator.
IICatalytic reduction of the flue gases of the incifierator.
¶ Engine improvements (including catalytic cleaning for diesel engines).
Municipal solid waste management 85

TABLE 3
Composition of input waste

Household waste Industrial and commercial waste


Construction and demolition waste

Components %* Components %*

Paper (newspapers) PA 16 Paper and cardboard PC 18


Cardboard CA 6 Wood WO 33
Wet paper WP 19 Metals MT 7
Kitchen residue KR 26 Plastics PL 3
Plastics PL 8 Textiles TX 7
Leather, rubber, textiles LT 3 Miscellaneous non-combustibles MN 31
Glass GL 8
Metals MT 4
Miscellaneous MI 10

* Values in weight percent.

TABLE 4
Costs and revenues

Costs Revenues

Transports Heat (district heating)


Transfer stations Electricity
Pre-processing plant Recycled materials:
lncinceration plant paper
Disposal facilities soil from compost
Annualized investment for new technology glass
Purchased electricity Biogas

Table 4 shows the costs and revenues included in the study. Fixed costs for existing
technologies are looked upon as sunk costs and, consequently, excluded from the study.
For the investments in new technology, a real rate discount of 6% is used. The costs to
waste producers for the source separation are excluded. The technical and economic
data used in the pilot study are documented in Gipperth (1990).

4.3 Results

For the scenarios studied, the results show that composting is a cost-effective alternative
that cooperates rather than competes with the existing incineration. The main incentive
for using the composting alternative is that it releases incineration capacity that results
from the source separation of compostable components. This released capacity can in
turn be used for the combustible components of the construction waste, which would
otherwise have been landfilled. Nearly the whole potential of available source separation
is used, except for a minor part of the compostable components. The incompletely used
separation of compostable components indicates that composting is not a competitive
alternative when there is free capacity in the incinerator. Table 5 gives a summary of the
results from the scenarios.
TABLE 5
Summary of results

Systems cost*
Scenarios (Relative base case) New technologies Source s e p a r a t i o n t Emissions control

Base Case 1.0 None (Fixed, see input)

Increased source separation Paper (PA) = max


Glass (GL) = max
C o m b u s t . $ = max
$25 0.88 Compost Compost.§ = 2 3 %
$50 0.83 Compost Compost.§ = 4 3 %
$75 0.78 Compost Compost.§ = 6 2 %

Emission fees, N O , P a p e r ( P A ) = max N O , reduction:


(SEK/kg, NO,) Glass ( G L ) = max
0 < NO,-fees < 11 0.83 < Obj. f. < 0.95 Compost C o m b u s t . ~ = max 0%
11 < NOv-fees < 67 0.95 < Obj.f. < 1.30 Compost Compost.§ = 4 3 % 43%1[
67 < NO,-fees 1.30 < Obj.f. Compost 77%¶T

Increased a m o u n t of waste Paper (PA) = m a x


Glass (GL) = max
Compost.§ = m a x
WI0 1.02 Compost C o m b u s t . $ = 12%
W20 1.23 Compost Combust.$ = 2%

* Resulting value for the objective function (Obj.L) relative Base Case (52.0 MSEK/annum) SEK, Swedish Krona.
t Values in weight percent. The maximal separations (max) are described in Table 1.
Combustible components of construction/demolition waste; paper and cardboard (PC), wood (WO) and plastic (PL).
§ Compostable components of household waste; kitchen residue (KR) and wet paper (WP).
IIAmmonia injection in the combustion chambers of the CHP-incinerator.
¶[ Catalytic reduction of the flue gases of the CHP-incinerator.
Municipal solid waste management 87

TABLE 6
Marginal values (shadow prices a) for source separated components in the $50 scenario

Marginal values
Market pricer
Waste components (SEK/tonne) (SEK/GJ*) (SEK/tonne)

Separated household waste:


Paper (recycled) 315 24.3 350
Glass (recycled) 339 0 125
Wet paper (composted) -~t
Kitchen residue (composted) 66 9.2
Separated construction waste:
Paper (incinerated) 71 5.5
Wood (incinerated) 71 5.5
Plastics (incinerated) 274 8.9

* Lower heating values.


"i"Assumptions used for this study.
The component is not limited by its upper bound.
The shadow price gives the "marginal value" of a limited resource [i.e. variable(s)]. That is, it shows how
much the objective function (i.e. the system cost) is changed if the system has access to one more unit of the
limited resource. Iv,= dP/db,; wherey, = shadow price (or reduced cost) for constraint i, P = objective function,
and b,= constraint i.] For example, a shadow price of - 10 SEK/tonne for separated glass shows that if it is
possible to separate one additional tonne of glass, the system would gain 10 SEK. The marginal values
presented in the table are the negative of the shadow prices.

4.3.1 Increased source separation


The options for source separation and recycling are of special importance for this
system, due to the limited incineration capacity. In Table 6 the benefits of source
separation are shown by the marginal values for separated components for scenario $50.
The result shows that greater usage of combustible components from construction waste
is beneficial, and that released incineration capacity for these components should be
obtained by an increased recycling of paper and glass instead of choosing a larger
composting plant. Noteworthy is the high value for recycling paper and glass and the
large gap (214 SEK/tonne) between market price and shadow price for glass recycling.
The marginal value for extra incineration capacity is 60 SEK/MWh.
Relative to the Base Case, the energy content of the waste sent to the landfill is reduced
in the three scenarios by 46%, 62% and 78%. This "energy recovery" results from the
redirecting of combustible components of construction and demolition waste to the
incinerator and from redirecting a smaller amount of household waste to the incinerator.
The changes for landfilled waste are shown in Fig. 5. The resulting heating values of the
waste mix sent to both the landfill and the incinerator are shown in Fig. 6.

4.3.2 Emissions fee for nitrogen oxides


The model results show that taking technical measures at the incinerator is the only
action that is cost-effective if a NO,-fee is imposed on the system. Neither of the other
measures, engine retrofits for the waste vehicles or decreased incineration, are competit-
ive for the interval studied. Thus, the results previously presented for the separation of
compostable and combustible components are unchanged.
Figure 7 shows for what NOx-fees it is cost-effective to reduce the emissions, and by
what measures. Thus, the steps in the figure are the result of several model runs for which
the NOx-fee has been gradually increased. No measures should be taken for fees up to
88 J. Sundberg et al.

120

800

90

600

61
60 E-
400

30
200

0 0
Base Case Scenario $50 Base Case Scenario $50

Fig. 5. Waste sent to landfill in the Base Case and for scenario $50. (Ashes and slag from the incinerator and
sewage sludge are excluded.) (VI), Household waste; (m), industrial waste; (11), construction and demolition
waste.

12

10 i i
7 II. i ~ I I
Incinerator

N 8

2
> 6

~ 4

~ 2

0 I I I I
Base Case $25 $50 $75

Fig. 6. Mean lower heating values for waste sent to incineration and landfilling. (Ashes and slag from the
incinerator and sewage sludge are excluded in the values for landfilled waste.)

11 SEK/kg. For fees between 11 and 67 SEK/kg, it is cost-effective to use ammonia


injection in the combustion chamber. For fees above 67 SEK/kg, the catalytic reduction
of the flue gases should be used instead. (For the pilot study a restricted technology data
base was used. A detailed study would include more alternatives for NO,.-reduction.)

4.3.3 hwreased amount of waste


The model result shows that a general increase in the amount of waste produced in the
region increases the value ofcomposting and decreases the value of burning construction
waste. These changes are a consequence of the limited incineration capacity. Thus, the
value of components that are source separated and, thereby, not incinerated, increases.
Municipal solid waste management 89

600
Present system

E
400
Ammonia injection
T
0 I
z I
I
I
¢-, I
200 .I
Combustion
i Catalytic reduction
I
I
I

I
~ Transports
I

20 40 60 80 100
Emission fee ISEK/kg, NOx)

Fig. 7. Amount of NO, resulting from the waste management system, for different NO, fees. (The dotted line at
40 SEK/kg shows the NO,-fee introduced in Sweden in 1991).

500

_----o (~)
.~ 4.oo
e,
e.

3O0
03

200

-~ l ~
~A(KR) (wP}

" " - ~ (PL)


c,wo)
o
Increase 0% 10% 20%
Scenario $50 WlO W20

Fig. 8. Marginal values of source separated components in the scenarios, WI0 and W20, with increased
amount of input waste to WAMS. ( - - Q - - ) , Paper (PT); ( - - 0 - - ) , glass (GL). Compostible comonents=
- - A - - , kitchen residue (KR); - - O - - , wet paper (WP). Combustible c o m p o n e n t s = - - [ ] - - , plastic (PL);
- - I 1 - - , paper and cardboard (PC) and wood (WO).

Figure 8 illustrates this result by showing how much the marginal values for the source
separation constraints change as the amount of waste increases. The components with a
marginal value of zero are separated, however not up to the maximum levels.
The benefits of separating and recycling paper and glass are, as shown previously,
greater than for the other components. However, the value of glass is not changed, when
the input waste is increased. The explanation for this is found in Fig. 9, which shows that
90 J. Sundberg et al.

Upper limit for input quantity 3000~- U p p e r limit for i n p u t e n e r g y


300

200G
"~ 200

1000
100

0 0
Increase 0% 10% 20% 0% 10% 20°b
Scenario Base Case $50 Wl0 W20 Base Case $50 Wl0 W20

Fig. 9. Composition of waste at the incinerator for the scenarios, Wl0 and W20, with increased amount of
input waste to WAMS. ( [ ] ) , Household waste: ( • ) , industrial waste; ( m ) , construction and demolition
waste).

while the limit of input energy to the incinerator is reached, the mass limit is not.
Consequently, neither of the limits will change the value for glass recycling.
The model result shows that components with high heating value are preferred at the
incinerator. This indicates that incineration is not cost-effective simply for the purpose of
volume reduction. [Note the gap between the bars and the upper limit for input waste in
the left chart of Fig. 9, and also the difference in marginal values for separation of plastic
(PL) and wood, and paper and cardboard (PC, WO) in Fig. 8.] This situation could
change however, if the ratio between landfilling costs and energy prices rises. The upper
limit for input energy is reached in all scenarios.

5. Summary and conclusions


The introduction of source separation, reuse and recycling, and the requirements of
waste reduction, are gradually changing waste organizations into competitive companies
which, in the future, will be able to offer a diversity of both material and energy
products. In order to do so, these companies have to introduce new and "'clean"
technologies for processing separated and unseparated waste into (a) useful material
products, (b) disposable material products, (c) fuels, and (d) heat and electricity.
The planning situation is complex since there are many feasible options to be
considered for the future waste management system. It is complex also because there are
many uncertainties as to how the environment of the system will develop. How will the
market for material products develop? What environmental restrictions will be imposed
in the future? What degree of source separation can be achieved?
The MIMES/WASTE model presented in this paper is designed to be a comprehen-
sive tool for both the short-term and long-term planning of municipal waste manage-
ment systems. It has been developed in order to meet the changes in waste management
described above, and to be used by system managers and other actors in the system to
produce comprehensive plans.
The pilot study demonstrates how the model can be used to evaluate different
technical options for the system and how the system can adapt to changes in its
Municipal solid waste management 91

environment. To gain insights into the role of new technologies and different separation
options, it is necessary to have a broadly scoped analysis combined with a detailed
description of waste streams. M I M E S / W A S T E has features permitting both scope and
detail. It is also possible to have an integrated treatment of emissions control.
The research and development programme for the modelling concept is currently
focused on two aspects. The first is an enhanced description of emissions. The emissions
will not only be linked to the processes, but also to each individual waste fraction that is
to be processed. The second aspect is improving the procedures for using the model, i.e.
the methodology describing how the modelling concept and the systems view of waste
management can be used by each part of a community.

References
Bergqvist, K. & Carlsson, P. (1988) A Systems Study of Municipal and hldustrial Waste
Management hl the Community of Bords (in Swedish). Report T88-142. G6teborg, Sweden:
Department of Energy Conversion, Chalmers University of Technology.
Brooke, A., Kendrick, D. & Meeraus, A. (1988) GAMS--A User's Guide. Redwood City, CA,
U.S.A.: The Scientific Press.
Chapman, R. & Berman, E. (1983) The Resource Recover)' Planning Model. A New Tool for SolM
Waste Management. Special Publication 657, Washington, DC, U.S.A.: U.S. Department of
Commerce/National Bureau of Standards.
Checkland, P. (1981) Systems ThhTkhlg, Systems Practice. Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons.
Gipperth, P. (1990) hlput data for the pilot study of the regional/municipal solM waste management
of Giiteborg (in Swedish). G6teborg, Sweden: Department of Energy Conversion, Chalmers
University of Technology.
Gipperth, P. & Sundberg, J. (1990) A pilot study of the regional/municipal solid waste management
of G6teborg (in Swedish). Report I90-25, G6teborg, Sweden: Department of Energy
Conversion, Chalmers University of Technology.
Gottinger, H. W. (1988) A computational model for solid waste management with application.
European Journal of Operational Research 35, 350-364.
Liebman, J. (1974) Models in solid waste management. In: A Guide to Models in Govermnental
Planning and Operations Chap. 5. Washington, DC, U.S.A.: Office of Research and Develop-
ment, Environmental Protection Agency.
Rushbrook, P. (1987) An illustrated description of"HARBINGER", the Harwell waste manage-
ment model. Wastes Management 77(6), 348-361.
RVF (1990) Solid Waste Management h7 Sweden. Report 90:5. Maim6, Sweden: The Swedish
Association for Solid Waste Management.
Sundberg, J. (1989) MIMES-- A Model for hltegrating the Material Flow with the Energ)' System.
Licential thesis. G6teborg, Sweden: Department of Energy Conversion, Chalmers University
of Technology.
Sundberg, J. & Wene, C.-O. (1988) MIMES--A model for integrating the material flow with the
energy system. In M. Korhonen (ed): Proceedings of VTT symposium on Non-Waste
Technology, Espoo, Finland, 20-23 June, 1988. Finland (VTT), Espoo: Technical Research
Centre of Finland, p. 199-212.
Wene, C.-O. (1989) Exploring and Mapping." A Comparison of the IEA-MARKAL and CEC-
EFOM technical energy systems models and the ANL Electric Utilit)' Model, BNL-52224.
Upton, N.Y., U.S.A.: Brookhaven National Laboratory.
Wene, C.-O. & Ryd~n, B. (1988) A comprehensive energy model in the municipal energy planning
process. European Journal of Operational Research 33(2), 212-222.