This lecture is part of the 2016 ProSPER.Net Young Researchers’ School on sustainable energy for transforming lives: availability, accessibility, affordability

1. WASTE to ENERGY PROJECTS
with reference to MSW
10th
February 2016
Sourabh Manuja
Source: http://www.constructionweekonline.com/pictures/Incinerator%20story.JPG

2. Content of the presentation
• Overall scenario of MSW management
• Need for looking at W2E options
• International status
• Technology options
• Financial viability
• Barriers
• Conclusions

3. Waste-to-energy
Process of capturing
energy from processing of
waste, in the form of
electricity or heat
(Termed as Thermal and
Biochemical Recovery)
Source: http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/new_zealand/press_corner/all_news/news/2015/photos_news_2015/7julysustainableenvforum_logo.jpg

4. Typical MSW characteristics in Indian cities
Parameter Unit Range
Compostable % 30 – 55
Recyclable (Plastics, Paper,
Metal, Glass etc)
% 5 – 15
Inert including C&D waste % 40 - 55
Carbon/Nitrogen (C/N) Ratio 14 – 53
Moisture % 17 – 65
Calorific Value kcal/kg 520 – 3766
Source: https://marchgroupfour.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/garbage_can_layers.jpg

5. Key features of MSW management
• Recyclable content of the MSW is picked up by waste
pickers and send for recycling
• India reports high recycling rate of 70% though most
of it happens in informal sector
• C&D waste presently disposed on land but can be
recycled
• High moisture content and low calorific value of
organic fraction of Indian MSW makes it more
amendable to biochemical conversion

6. Key Issues(1/2)
• Growing waste quantities
– MSW has increased from just 7 MTPA in 1947 to staggering
amount of 62 MTPA in 2014, about 50% of which is organic
waste
– Industrial hazardous waste is reported to be around 6.23 MTPA
of which 30% around is organic waste
– Would require around 1240 hectare of land per year if
landfilled.
• Growing demand for power
– Most of the Indian cities face peak hour power shortages due
to T&D losses and increasing demand for power due to life
style changes
• Indifferent supply situation of fossil fuels
– Limited crude resources

7. Key Issues(2/2)
• Change in waste composition, increasing quantities of
packaging waste, 40-50% of organics in waste stream
• General apathy of local bodies and public to deal with
the issues related to management of MSW
• This problem can be addressed to extent by adopting
W2E technologies to maximize processing of waste
which goes to sanitary landfill for disposal
• This is also in compliance with MSW Rules 2000

8. Problem in adopting W2E
• There is however problems in adopting W2E
technologies to MSW
– Variability in composition
– High moisture content
– Can cause fouling of equipment if inerts are high
– Use of unsegregated waste can also lead to
emission of toxic heavy metals
• Need for improvement in present waste
management practices

9. Impetus
• NEP, 2006 and NAPCC, 2008 also give
emphasis to
– Need for W2E projects
– Need for indigenous development and
customization of W2E technology

10. W2E – International status
• Around 600
facilities
processing
around 130
MTPA of waste
• The focus is to
move away
from landfilling
and maximize
resource
recovery
including
energy
generation
Source: https://need-media.smugmug.com/Graphics/Graphics/i-m3rL89R/0/L/Waste%20to%20Energy
%20Around%20the%20World%202009-L.jpg

11. Available Technology options
– Landfilling with gas recovery
– Incineration
– RDF based power generation
– AFR (Alternate Fuel and Raw Material)
– Biomethanation process
– Pyrolysis/gasification
– Plasma arc pyrolysis

12. Disposal in landfills
Source: http://i1.wp.com/128.199.141.55/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/DSC7727.jpg

13. Key features
• Biodegradable waste is deposited in a landfill which
slowly decomposes leading to landfill gas production
that can be used to power engines, turbines or
vehicles
• Advantages:
– Low cost energy recovery due to scale economies
– Controlled LFG recovers high percentage of total gas
potential
• Disadvantages
– Uncontrolled, methane gas easily escapes
– Requires significant landfill infrastructure
– Requires very high volumes of waste and large land areas
• As per MSW 2000 rules, however, biodegradables
cannot be disposed off to landfills

14. 14
Pilot demonstration of clean technology
for LFG recovery from Okhla disposal
site

15. Study objectives
• Objective of this pilot demonstration was
to capture and purify LFG currently being
emitted from Okhla waste disposal site by
using Clean Technology (CT) and thereby
utilize the energy and reduce the risk of
uncontrolled methane emissions
15

16. Status in India
• Uncontrolled methane emission from MSW disposal
sites are potential source of GHG emission
• There are close to 5100 cities and towns in the country
each having atleast one (mostly two) such sites which
are such source of such emissions
• Such landfill once they reach their capacities will have to
be closed and redeveloped into alternative post closure
land use
• Efforts worldwide to tackle the problem have focused on
gainful recovery of methane as potential energy source
• In India, as on date, no pilot was demonstrated in field
conditions based on actual site data

17. Status of disposal sites in Delhi
• Delhi generates
around 7000 TPD of
municipal waste
• The waste is
presently disposed in
three disposal sites
– Okhla
– Bhalaswa
– Ghazipur
• All the three disposal
sites have reached
their capacities and
due for closure
17
Description Okhla Ghazi
pur Bhalaswa
East West
Start Year 1996 1984 1992 1998
Estimated
closure year
2007 2008 2007 2007
Total MSW
disposal by
end 2006
(million
tonnes)
4.14 6.93 5.39 1.52
Current
disposal rate
(tonnes/day)
1200 2000 2400 800
Area for
disposal (ha)
16.9 29.6 26.2 9.2

18. LFG potential for Delhi
18
S. No. Location of landfill in India LFG
Recovery
(m3
hr-1
)
Projected LFG To
Energy Potential
Reference
1. Okhla Landfill, New Delhi 1,522 2.7 to 1.9 MW for 10
years
IRADe/ USEPA
(2009)/MCD
2. Okhla Landfill, New Delhi 1,660 0.8 to 1.0 MW for 10
years
SCS Engineers/USEPA
(2007)
3. Bhalswa Landfill, Delhi 2,400 3.7 to 2.6 MW for 10
years
USEPA (2009)/MCD
4. Ghazipur Landfill, Delhi 2,700 2.0 to 1.8 MW for 10
years
USEPA (2009)/MCD
5. Ghazipur Landfill, Delhi 1,200 8.8 MW GAIL/SENES (2012)

19. Why Okhla site?
• The disposal site has suitable flat terrain available for
setting up pilot; accessibility of borewell drilling
apparatus not a problem at site
• Waste disposal history of around 12 years
• Suitable depth (average 30 m) available for possible
LFG generation and recovery
• Densely populated residential areas towards Eastern
and Southern sides of the landfill
– Possible users of the LFG
– Site therefore needs to be closed and rehabilitated urgently
• Proposed laboratory for environmental monitoring to
be set up at JMIU which is close to the site

20. Google earth view
Site for pilot

21. Flow sheet for basic LFG extraction

22. Graphical representation

23. Pilot
instrumentation

24. LFG extraction Gas well

25. Network of gas wells

26. Results of static measurements

27. Summary of static monitoring
CH4 (%) CO2 (%) O2 (%) H2S (%) Balance (%) PLFG (Millibar)
Maximum 54.2 22.0 2.2 0.9 38.2 0.9
Minimum 27.7 7.7 0.5 0.1 4.5 -0.4
Average 44.6 15.9 1.1 0.8 26.6 0.2

28. Dynamic monitoring of LFG

30. Summary of dynamic monitoring
CH4 (%) CO2 (%) O2 (%) H2S (ppm) Balance (%) PLFG (Millibar) TLFG
(0
C)
QLFG
Max 58.3 23.3 15.3 >500 57.1 28.1 41.0 31.5
Min 20.2 8.1 1.4 >500 19.5 -32.5 21.1 5.84
Average 43.3 16.9 5.7 >500 34.0 -17.0 34.5 19.6

31. LFG Modeling Results
• Under aggressive conditions for the year
2012 = 5447 m3
/hr
• Under conservative conditions for the year
2012 = 2723 m3
/hr

32. Economic benefits
• Thermal
– For drying landfill leachate
– As cooking fuel or fuel for boiler, furnace or
kilns in the neghbourhood
– Space heating
• Power generation if the grid for evacuation
is available
• Further purification and use as
transportation fuel

33. Environmental benefits
• Prevents uncontrolled emission of GHG
• No adverse health impacts on sanitary
workers and waste pickers working at
disposal sites and nearby residential
population
• Reduces fire and explosion hazards at
landfills

34. Conclusions
• Uncontrolled LFG emission from disposal sites is a
national problem which needs to be addressed
• LFG harvesting during closure of disposal sites not only
stabilises it but also provides energy for neighbourhood
usage
• Proper closure with provision of impermeable cover is
desirable before LFG harvesting
• Ministry should request GAIL to prepare a master plan for
harvesting LFG from such uncontrolled dumps
• CPCB needs to take up the matter with concerned ULBs
to facilitate the process
34

35. Incineration
Source: http://towmcl.com/Common/Uploads/PhotoGalleryTemplate/39_Picture1.jpg

36. Incineration
MSW
Drying
Segregation
Heat Flue gas
Incineration
Pelletisation
(optional)
Fuel,
binder
Ash
Fuel

37. Key features
• Direct burning of wastes in the presence of excess air at
high temperatures liberates heat energy, inert gases and
ash.
• Advantages:
– Most suitable for high calorific value waste (paper, plastics, wood)
– Relatively free of noise and odor; requires small land area
• Disadvantages:
– Low heating value waste -not ideal for energy recovery
– Toxic metals/PVC lead to increased air emissions
– High capital and O&M costs

38. AFR
Source: http://www.cemnet.com/content/uploads/images/7aaf40ed-7a3b-4f4e-9d19-c99017bf426c.jpg

39. Waste combustion in cement kilns
• Alternatively waste can be used as fuel to substitute
tradition fuel in cement kiln
• Advantages
– Supplements traditional fuel
– Waste treatment is achieved
• Disadvantages
– High level of chlorides is not acceptable
– Distance over which waste can be transported is
also limiting factor

40. Co-combustion in cement kilns

41. Refuse Derived Fuel
MSW
Drying
Segregation
Steam
Flue gas
Boiler
PelletisationFuel,
binder
Ash
Turbine

42. http://1ur6751k3lsj3droh41tcsra.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-
content/uploads/2015/09/Subcoal-NP.jpg

43. MSW palletization plant at Hyderabad (courtesy MNRE)

44. Key features
• Segregating, crushing and drying of organic material from
MSW into dense and solid fuel pellets that can be used as
main or supplementary fuel for industrial boilers
• Advantages:
– High energy content
– Convenient for storage and transport
• Disadvantages:
– High energy consumption for crushing and drying
– Inorganic content tends to reduce effectiveness
– Only conducive during periods of lower rainfall
– May require gas cleanup to avoid air emissions

45. Suitability of different W2E option for
India (1/3)
Technology Advantages Disadvantages Applicability for
India
Landfill with LFG
extraction
Low cost energy recovery
Controlled, high
recovery
Uncontrolled gas can
escape
Requires significant
landfill infrastructure
Requires high volume of
waste and large land
area
Not recommneded as
MSW Rules 2000 prohibit
disposal of organic waste
at landfill
Incineration
More suitable for high
calorific waste like paper
wood and plastics
Relatively free from
noise, odour and require
less land area
Capital intensive
Low heating value waste
not suited
Toxic metals and
chlorinated plastics lead
to pollution
Requires high O&M Cost
Not recommended
unless waste stream is
supplemented by high
calorific value waste free
from chlorinated plastics

46. Suitability of different W2E option
for India(2/3)
Technology Advantages Disadvantages Applicability for
India
Biomethanation Can be small scale
with no external power
source required
Totally enclosed,
modular construction
possible
Odour and visible
pollution reduced
Capital intensive
Requires high degree
of easily
biodegradable
material
Recommended only
with segregated MSW
RDF burning Fuel produced has
high energy content
Fuel is convenient to
store and transport
High energy use in
crushing and drying of
waste
High inorganic content
reduces effectiveness
of fuel
Recommended if the
waste is free from
chlorinated chemicals

47. Suitability of different W2E option
for India(3/3)
Technology Advantages Disadvantages Applicability for
India
Gasification/pyrolysis Can be small scale
with modular design
Closed system with
no smell or odour
Less expensive gas
clean system than
incinerators
Net energy recovery
might of affected by
moisture
No commercial model
on MSW as yet
Technology
adaptation for MSW
feedstock required,
therefore not
recommended

48. Experience in India so far(1/4)
As per information available for 2012, compiled by CPCB,
municipal authorities have so far only set up 279 compost
plants, 172 biomethanation plants, 29 RDF plants and eight
Waste to Energy (W to E) plants in the country.
•RDF
– Initially RDF plants were installed in India in the mid-nineties
followed by larger ones later:
– 5 TPD plant in Bangalore (private entrepreneur) – MSW to
pellets
– 80 TPD plant in Mumbai (1994, DST) – MSW to pellets
– 200 TPD plant in Hyderabad – MSW to pellets (1999, DST
Technology), private company (SELCO) upgraded to 1000
TPD with power generation

49. Experience in India so far…(2/4)
– RDF plant in Vijaywada (fluff) along with pelletization plant at
Guntur, pellets transported to Vijaywada followed by combined
power generation – 5 MW power generation capacity, BOT
operator (DST technology)
– RDF plant in Jaipur (fluff), BOT operator, baled fluff sent to
cement plant for CDM benefits (500 TPD capacity)
– RDF plant in Chandigarh (fluff) – Un-operational, BOT operator,
baled fluff sent to cement plant for CDM benefits (500 TPD
capacity)

50. Experience in India so far (3/4)
• Biomethanation
– Plant in Pune (pilot plant) using technology from
Paques (5 TPD capacity) – mid nineties (closed)
– Plant in Vijaywada using segregated MSW (16
TPD) and slaughterhouse waste (4 TPD),
technology from Mailhem, Pune
– Plant in Chennai (Koyembedu flower market) of 30
TPD capacity, BIMA technology, Austria
– Plant in Lucknow, 5 MW designed capacity, 500
TPD MSW input (closed)

51. Experience in India so far (4/4)
Harnessing of biogas (landfill gas) from landfills
(dumpsites)
– Attempted in Delhi by DEDA in a small scale
– Large scale closure and harnessing of landfill gas under
construction at Gorai in Mumbai
– Similar closure and landfill gas harnessing plans for two other
sites in Mumbai (Deonar and Mulund)
– Plans under way for Delhi
– A number of Municipal Corporations have floated bids for such
projects in the recent past

52. Issues in W2E technologies
• Competing technologies, particularly
composting
• The emphasis is on ‘royalty’ rather than
‘tipping fee’
• The technology with lower capital outlay and
higher overall revenue accrual is preferred

53. Need for the sector
• The need of different site situations have to
be thoroughly analyzed and solutions have to
be accordingly designed
• E.g. in case of close proximity of habitation,
open windrow composting would not be the
preferred option in spite of cost advantage
• W2E and in-vessel composting would then be
the competing technologies

54. Need for the sector…
• Integrated facilities are gradually coming into
consideration
• E.g. a combination of aerobic windrow
composting and RDF such attempts at Rajkot
and Delhi
• Decentralized facilities based on dedicated
waste stream (Vijaywada, Chennai, TEAM
process of TERI)

55. Financial assessment of options
• High rate AD must be considered a high priority for wet
organic waste
• RDF based power generation from already existing or
dedicated boiler holds promise and the option is
commercially available; this would be attractive
especially when it is expected that packaging waste in
going to increase in future
• Gasification/pyrolysis has a distinct promise, and
although there are limitations to its uptake, these can be
circumvented as the technology matures
• The present trend is in favour of material recovery
facilities and a shift away from landfills for MSW
disposal. LFG recovery also not favoured by MSW
Rules

56. Financial cost estimation
• Biomethanation and RDF options considered for
detailed financial analysis as these have been
working/tried in India
• Three scenarios considered for biomethanation
option
– 300 TPD (3 MW)
– 500 TPD (5 MW)
– 1000 TPD (10 MW)
• One scenario considered for RDF option
– 700 TPD (6.5 MW)

57. Inputs and assumptions
Inputs Units Biomethanation RDF
Plant capacity MW 3 5 10 6.5
Waste processed TPD 300 500 1000 700
Life of plant Years 15 15 15 15
Land reqd. m2
/Tonne 175 175 175 200
Capital cost Rs. Cr. 40.25 57.3 102.0 60.0
Land cost Rs. Cr. 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.4
O&M Rs. Cr. 2.72 4.13 8.25 3.0
Annual escalation in
O&M
% 4.83 4.83 4.83 4.83
Debt-Equity ratio Ratio 70:30 70:30 70:30 70:30
Interest rate % 12 12 12 12
Note: 1 crore is 10 million

58. Inputs and assumptions…
Inputs Units Biomethanation RDF
Repayment period
(including 1 yr
moratorium)
Years 10 10 10 10
Return on equity % 14 14 14 14
Discount rate % 12.6 12.6 12.6 12.6
Capital recovery
factor
% 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2
Source: National Master Plan for W2E Plants, MNRE and TERI Estimates

59. Estimation of annual generation
Particulars Units Biomethanation RDF
Plant capacity MW 3 5 10 6.5
Parasitic
consumption
MW 0.45 0.75 1.50 1.00
Net electricity for
sale
MW 2.45 4.08 8.16 5.25
Annual hours of
generation
Hours 7920 7920 7920 6132*
Annual
generation
MU 20.20 33.66 67.32 33.73
Source: National Master Plan for W2E Plants, MNRE and TERI Estimates

60. Levelised unit cost of electricity
generation
Technol
ogy
option
Plat
capacity
Annutis
ed
Capital
cost
O&M Fuel
cost
Less
sale of
by
product
Net
levelise
d cost
LUCE
Unit MW Rs/Cr Rs/Cr Rs/Cr Rs/Cr Rs/Cr Rs/kWh
Biometh
anation
3 0.76 2.85 2.48 2.48 3.61 1.79
5 1.09 4.32 7.84 4.13 9.12 2.71
10 1.92 8.64 22.28 8.25 24.58 3.65
RDF 6.5 1.13 3.14 9.16 Nil 13.43 3.98
Source: TERI Estimates

61. Viability gap analysis
Technology Plant
capacity
LUCE of
MSW
Benchmark
tariff
Viability gap
Units MW Rs/kWh Rs/kWh Rs/kWh
Biomethanati
on
3 1.79 3.14 (1.35)
5 2.71 3.14 (0.43)
10 3.65 3.14 0.51
RDF 6.5 3.98 3.14 0.84
Source: TERI Estimates

62. Role of CER to cover Viability gap
Technology Plant
capacit
y
Viability gap Additional
revenues from
CERs
Viability gap
after CERs
Units MW Rs/kWh Rs Crores Rs/kWh
Biomethanati
on
3 (1.35) 2.00 (2.34)
5 (0.43) 3.34 (1.42)
10 0.51 6.68 (0.48)
RDF 6.5 0.84 3.35 (0.15)
Source: TERI Estimates

63. Proposed flow for 500 TPD city
Generators
Waste processing
AD (250 TPD)
1.25 MW
RDF (100 TPD)
1 MW
Ragpickers
D2D Collection
Kabadiwala
50 TPD from Ragpickers
50 TPD direct
Residue
to landfill

64. National waste inventory database
for W2E
• As per estimates of CPCB, 31 larger cities in the
country generate around 36000 TPD of MSW
• This can generate around 36000 MW (2500 MW as
per MNRE) of power
• In addition, it is estimated that around 180 TPD of
slaughter house waste and 1800 TPD fruit and
vegetable market waste would generate around
3600 MW and 21000 MW of power, respectively
• This can substantially improve viability of MSW
based W2E projects

65. Impacts on livelihood of ragpickers
• In most cities, around 10-15% of waste is removed
from city streets by ragpickers
• Large unorganized work force in the cities
• If the paper and plastic waste collected by them can
be diverted to W2E projects, it will make them
financially more attractive
• The ragpickers can be formally inducted by local
bodies/NGOs/private operators for doorstep
collection of recyclables and organic waste
• This would not only protect their livelihood but also
enhance their income

66. Barriers
• Technical barriers
• Incineration well researched but because of high
capital cost and emissions, not in use in India
• Other processes like pyrolysis and gasification
need more work on making the product available
at commercial level
• Non technical barriers
• Unavailability of source segregated waste
• Higher cost of energy generation
–High cost incurred on pollution control in
thermochemical process
–Poor management record of operations in
India

67. Barriers…
• Non-technical barriers
– Lack of public acceptance
– Due to negative perception of such projects
– Focus on material recovery and recycling as compared to W2E
– Poor construction practices and workmanship in India

68. Barriers…
• Need to supplement MSW with other waste streams
like paper, plastic, biomass as it is heterogeneous
• ESCOs perceive failure/payment as risks for the project
developers setting up such projects and therefore are
not willing to take up municipal projects for financial
considerations

69. Conclusions
• MSW based W2E options can not only reduce
the pressure on landfills but also can be source
on power
• High rate biomethanation system and RDF
based power generation are attractive options
and technologies are commercially available
• Incinerator is not favored due to high capital and
O&M costs and possible emission of toxics
• Use of LFG is also not favored as this is not
compliant with MSW Rules

70. Conclusions…
• It is proposed that the project developer also
carries out C&T as W2E projects are sensitive to
level of waste segregation
• Viability gap is nil or negligible in case of high
capacity Biomethanation plants and RDF plants
• Availing funds under CDM benefits through
CERs, viability gap is fully met in all cases
• Diversion of vegetable and fruit market wastes
and slaughter houses waste improves project
viability of W2E options

71. Recommendations
• Integrated model of MSW management would
be useful for W2E projects
• Involving ragpickers in door step collection of
segregated waste would protect their livelihood
• For RDF projects, it is suggested that fuel
preparation is done in semi-mechanized/
decentralized manner at lower cost and power
generation in centralized manner to reduce the
cost of setting up the project

72. Thank you

73. Schematic diagram of TEAM

74. TEAM Process (acidification)
Startup of
acidification
process
Drying of
digested
sludge for
manure
production