Holistic Decision Model For MSW

The World Bank
Final Report
GLOBAL STUDY FOR PURPOSE OF

GLOBAL WORLD BANK GUIDANCE DEVELOPMENT
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT HOLISTIC

DECISION MODELING
Japan Country-Tied Fund
JUNE 2008
submitted by
Nippon Koei Co., Ltd.

in association with
Nippon Koei UK Co., Ltd.
With subcontracting to
Research Triangle Institute
Solid Waste Management
Holistic Decision Modeling Final Report
Table of Contents
Pages
ABBREVIATIONS
GLOSSARY
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Project ................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Goals and Scope of the Study ........................................................... 1-2
1.3 Consulting Team Formation ............................................................... 1-3
1.4 Selection of Target Cities ................................................................... 1-4
CHAPTER 2 DATA AND METHODOLOGY

2.1 General Approach .............................................................................. 2-1
2.2 Waste Management Scenarios Analyzed .......................................... 2-4
2.3 Data Collection and Key City Characteristics..................................... 2-11
2.3.1 Data Requirements ................................................................. 2-11
2.3.2 Site Visits to Collect Data ....................................................... 2-11
2.3.3 Key City Characteristics ......................................................... 2-14
2.4 Data Analysis ..................................................................................... 2-28
2.4.1 Review of Other Sources of Existing Solid Waste Data .......... 2-28
2.4.2 Review of JICA Study Reports ................................................ 2-28
2.5 Summary of Key Input Parameters, Default Model Data, Assumptions, and
Limitations.......................................................................................... 2-34
CHAPTER 3 SCENARIO RESULTS

3.1 Open Dumping and Open Burning (Base Case) ................................ 3-1
3.2 Mixed Waste Collection and Management Using One Primary Technology
........................................................................................................... 3-5
3.2.1 Simulation Scenario Results Using One Primary Technology . 3-5
3.2.2 Recycling Using Manual and Mechanical Sorting ................... 3-9
3.2.3 Mixed Waste Composting Using Manual Turning and Mechanical
Windrow Turner ...................................................................... 3-27
3.2.4 Incineration Without and With Energy Recovery .................... 3-43
3.2.5 Landfill with Gas Venting, Gas Collection and Flaring, and Gas
Collection and Energy Recovery ............................................ 3-51
3.3 Optimization Scenario Results ........................................................... 3-59
3.3.1 Cost Results ........................................................................... 3-63
3.3.2 Energy Results ....................................................................... 3-80
3.3.3 Emissions Results .................................................................. 3-92
3.4 Option Comparison per City............................................................... 3-106
3.4.1 Amman ................................................................................... 3-106
3.4.2 Buenos Aires .......................................................................... 3-116
i
3.4.3 Conakry .................................................................................. 3-125

3.4.4 Kathmandu ............................................................................. 3-134
3.4.5 Lahore .................................................................................... 3-143
3.4.6 Sarajevo ................................................................................. 3-152
3.4.7 Shanghai ................................................................................ 3-161
3.4.8 Kawasaki ................................................................................ 3-170
3.4.9 Atlanta .................................................................................... 3-179
CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSIONS
4.1 Key Findings of the Scenario Modeling Exercise ............................... 4-1
4.2 Discussion of Sensitivity for Parameters of Interest ........................... 4-4
4.3 Appropriateness of Future Holistic analysis of Waste Management in Bank
Member Countries ............................................................................. 4-6
ii
APPENDICES:
Appendix 2.3 Field Survey Result (Presentation Summary)
1. Amman, Jordan
2. Buenos Aires, Argentina
3. Conakry, Guinea
4. Kathmandu, Nepal
5. Lahore, Pakistan
6. Sarajevo, Bosnia And Herzegovina
7. Shanghai, China
8. Kawasaki, Japan
9. Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Appendix 2.4.1 Composition Rate for Compostable materials vs. Economic Indicator
(GDP or GNI)
Appendix 2.4.2 Compostable: kitchen waste and yard waste(wood and grass), by
regional areas
Appendix 2.4.3 Composition Rate for Combustible materials vs. Economic Indicator
(GDP or GNI)
Appendix 2.4.4 Composition Rate for Combustible materials vs. Economic Indicator
(GDP or GNI), by regional areas
Appendix 2.4.5 Composition Rate for Recyclable materials. Economic Indicator
(GDP or GNI)
Appendix 2.4.6 Composition Rate for Recyclable materials vs. Economic Indicator
(GDP or GNI), by regional areas
Appendix 2.5 Analysis Assumptions
Appendix 2.5.1 General Data Input by City
Appendix 2.5.2 Generation Inputs by City – Metric
Appendix 2.5.3 Collection Inputs by City – Metric
Appendix 2.5.4 MRF Inputs by City – Metric
Appendix 2.5.5 Compost Inputs by City – Metric
Appendix 2.5.6 Incineration Inputs by City – Metric
Appendix 2.5.7 Landfill Inputs by City – Metric
Appendix 2.5.8 Energy Inputs by City
Appendix 2.5.9 Constants Data – Metric
Appendix 3.3 Optimization Scenarios Mass Flows by City and Management
Process
Appendix 3.4 Simulation and Optimization Scenario Results by City
iii
List of Tables
Table 1.3-1 Responsibility of Field Visit by NK and NK UK Team ................. 1-4
Table 1.4-1 Comparative Information on the Countries of the 9 Target
Cities .......................................................................................... 1-5
Table 2.2-1 Waste Management Scenarios Analyzed ................................... 2-5

Table 2.4-1 List of JICA Development Study for Solid Waste Management .. 2-29
Table 2.5-1 Summary of Key Input Parameters, Assumptions and Data
Sources by Process ................................................................... 2-35
Table 2.5-2 Cost Data Availability by City ...................................................... 2-38
Table 2.5-3 MSW DST Default Pre/Combustion Energy Factors (Fuel Type
Used to Produce Electricity) ....................................................... 2-40
Table 2.5-4 MSW DST Default Emission Factors (Fuel Type Used to
Produce Electricity) .................................................................... 2-41
Table 2.5-5 MSW DST Default Energy Savings (Recycling Individual
Materials) ................................................................................... 2-41
Table 2.5-6 MSW DST Default Emission Savings (Recycling Individual
Materials*) .................................................................................. 2-41
Table 2.5-7 MSW DST Default Landfill Gas Generation (Individual Waste
Items*) ........................................................................................ 2-42
Table 3.1-1 Unit Gas Emissions from Open Dumping of Waste .................... 3-2
Table 3.1-2 Annual Gas Emissions from Open Dumping of Waste ............... 3-2
Table 3.1-3 Unit Emissions of Key Water Pollutants from Open Dumping of
Waste ....................................................................................... 3-2
Table 3.1-4 Annual Emissions of Key Water Pollutants from Open Dumping
of Waste ..................................................................................... 3-3
Table 3.1-5 Open Burning Non-Metal Emissions Factors Applied ................. 3-3
Table 3.1-6 Unit Non-Metal Emissions from Open Burning of Waste ............ 3-4
Table 3.1-7 Annual Non-Metal Emissions from Open Burning of Waste ....... 3-4
Table 3.1-8 Dioxin/Furan Emissions from Open Burning of Waste................ 3-4
Table 3.2-1 Summary of the Significance of Key Input Parameters to the
Scenario Results by Process* .................................................... 3-7
Table 3.2-2 Percentage of Available Recyclables* and Flow to the Different
Processes .................................................................................. 3-9
Table 3.2-3 Percentage of Recyclable Items Recovered for
Remanufacturing by City (Sorted by Percentage of Total
Metals) ....................................................................................... 3-18
iv
Table 3.2-4 Percentages of Remanufactured Recyclables by City (Sorted

by Total Aluminum and Plastic) .................................................. 3-22
Table 3.2-5 Percentage of Compostable Organics and Waste Flow by City
(Sorted by Percent of Organics Composted).............................. 3-28
Table 3.2-6 Percentage of Waste Going to the Different Processes
(Sorted by Average Heat Content) ............................................. 3-43
Table 3.2-7 Percentage of Each Waste Category Incinerated by City
(Sorted by Percentage of Plastics) ............................................. 3-49
Table 3.2-8 Percentage of Cost Attributed to the Different Landfill Scenario
Processes (Sorted by Disposal Cost) ......................................... 3-51
Table 3.2-9 Percentage of Energy Attributed to the Different Landfill
Scenario Processes (Sorted by Disposal Energy Consumption) 3-55
Table 3.3-1 Waste Management Processes Selected by the MSW DST for
Each Optimization Scenario ....................................................... 3-60
Table 3.3-2 Summary of Cost Variation by Scenario and Scenario Settings . 3-64
Table 3.3-3 Group 3 Scenarios- Percentage of Net Total Cost Attributed to
the Different Processes .............................................................. 3-76
Table 3.3-4 Group 4 Scenarios- Percentage of Net Total Cost Attributed to
the Different Processes .............................................................. 3-77
Table 3.3-5 Group 5 (Carbon) Scenarios- Percentage of Net Total Cost
Attributed to the Different Processes .......................................... 3-78
Table 3.3-6 Group 5 (PM) Scenarios- Percentage of Net Total Cost
Table 3.3-7 Summary of Energy Variation by Scenario and Scenario
Settings ...................................................................................... 3-81
Table 3.3-8 Group 3 Scenarios- Percentage of Net Total Energy Attributed
to the Different ............................................................................ 3-88
Table 3.3-9 Group 4 Scenarios- Percentage of Net Total Energy Attributed
to the Different Processes .......................................................... 3-89
Table 3.3-10 Group 5 (Carbon) Scenarios- Percentage of Net Total Energy
Table 3.3-11 Group 5 (PM) Scenarios- Percentage of Net Total Energy
Table 3.3-12 Summary of Carbon and PM Emissions Variation by Scenario
and Scenario Settings ................................................................ 3-94
Table 3.3-13 Group 3 Scenarios- Percentage of Net Total Carbon Emissions
Table 3.3-14 Group 4 Scenarios- Percentage of Net Total Carbon Emissions
v
Table 3.3-15 Group 5 (Carbon) Scenarios- Percentage of Net Total Carbon

Emissions Attributed to the Different Processes......................... 3-103
Table 3.3-16 Group 5 (PM) Scenarios- Percentage of Net Total Carbon
Table 3.3-17 Group 5 (PM) Scenarios- Percentage of Net Total PM
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1.3-1 Consulting Team Formation ....................................................... 1-3
Figure 2.1-1 Life Cycle Inputs and Outputs of a Waste Management

Process (Note: Some materials leaving a waste management
process may loop back into the process.) .................................. 2-2
Figure 2.2-1 Boundaries for Group 1- Base Case .......................................... 2-9
Figure 2.2-2 Boundaries for Group 2 Scenarios ............................................. 2-10
Figure 2.2-3 Boundaries for Group 3 Scenarios ............................................. 2-10
Figure 2.2-4 Boundaries for Groups 4 and 5 Scenarios ................................. 2-10
Figure 2.3-1 Simplified Waste Flow in Amman ............................................... 2-14
Figure 2.3-2 Waste Composition in Amman ................................................... 2-15
Figure 2.3-3 Simplified Waste Flow in Atlanta ................................................ 2-16
Figure 2.3-4 Waste Composition in Atlanta..................................................... 2-16
Figure 2.3-5 Simplified Waste Flow in Buenos Aires ...................................... 2-17
Figure 2.3-6 Waste Composition in Buenos Aires .......................................... 2-18
Figure 2.3-7 Simplified Waste Flow in Conakry .............................................. 2-19
Figure 2.3-8 Waste Composition in Conakry .................................................. 2-19
Figure 2.3-9 Simplified Waste Flow in Kathmandu ......................................... 2-20
Figure 2.3-10 Waste Composition in Kathmandu ............................................. 2-21
Figure 2.3-11 Simplified Waste Flow in Kawasaki ............................................ 2-22
Figure 2.3-12 Waste Composition in Kawasaki ................................................ 2-22
Figure 2.3-13 Simplified Waste Flow in Lahore ................................................ 2-23
Figure 2.3-14 Waste Composition in Lahore .................................................... 2-24
Figure 2.3-15 Simplified Waste Flow in Sarajevo ............................................. 2-25
Figure 2.3-16 Waste Composition in Sarajevo ................................................. 2-25
Figure 2.3-17 Simplified Waste Flow in Shanghai ............................................ 2-26
Figure 2.3-18 Waste Composition in Shanghai ................................................ 2-27
Figure 2.4-1 Unit Generation Rate vs. Economic Indicator of Cities of JICA
Study and this MSW HDM Study (Sorted by Economic
Indicator) .................................................................................... 2-32
Figure 2.4-2 Unit Generation Rate vs. Economic Indicator of Cities of JICA
Study and this MSW HDM Study (Sorted by Regional Area) ...... 2-33
Figure 3.2-1 Net Total Cost by City (with Land Price) ..................................... 3-12
Figure 3.2-2 Unit Cost by City and Process (with Land Price: Manual MRF
Design) ....................................................................................... 3-13
vii
Figure 3.2-3 Unit Cost by City and Process (with Land Price: Mechanical
MRF Design) .............................................................................. 3-14
Figure 3.2-4 Net Total Cost by City (without Land Price) ................................ 3-15
Figure 3.2-5 Unit Cost by City and Process (without Land Price: Manual
MRF Design) .............................................................................. 3-16
Figure 3.2-6 Unit Cost by City and Process (without Land Price: Mechanical
MRF Design) .............................................................................. 3-17
Figure 3.2-7 Net Total Energy Consumption by City ....................................... 3-19
Figure 3.2-8 Energy Consumption by City and Process (Manual MRF
Design) ....................................................................................... 3-20
Figure 3.2-9 Energy Consumption by City and Process (Mnecanical MRF
Design) ....................................................................................... 3-21
Figure 3.2-10 Net Total Carbon Emissions by City ........................................... 3-23
Figure 3.2-11 Carbon Emissions by City and Process (Manual MRF Design) 3-24
Figure 3.2-12 Carbon Emissions by City and Process (Mnecanical MRF
Design) ....................................................................................... 3-25
Figure 3.2-14 Unit Cost by City and Process (with Land Price: Manual
Composting Design) ................................................................... 3-30
Figure 3.2-15 Unit Cost by City and Process (with Land Price: Mechanical
Figure 3.2-17 Unit Cost by City and Process (without Land Price: Manual
Figure 3.2-18 Unit Cost by City and Process (without Land Price:
Mechanical Composting Design) ................................................ 3-34
Figure 3.2-20 Energy Consumption by City and Process (Manual
Figure 3.2-21 Energy Consumption by City and Process (Mnecanical
Figure 3.2-23 Carbon Emissions by City and Process (Manual Composting
Design) ....................................................................................... 3-41
Figure 3.2-24 Carbon Emissions by City and Process (Mnecanical
viii

Figure 3.3-1 Group 3: Maximizing Materials Recovery (Via Manual

Recycling and Composting)- Net Total Cost by City(with Land
Price) .......................................................................................... 3-65
Recycling and Composting)- Net Total Cost by City(without
Land Price) ................................................................................. 3-66
Figure 3.3-3 Group 3: Maximizing Materials Recovery (Via Mechanical
Recycling and Composting)- Net Total Cost by City(with Land
Price) .......................................................................................... 3-67
Recycling and Composting)- Net Total Cost by City(without
Land Price) ................................................................................. 3-68
Figure 3.3-5 Group 4: Maximizing Energy Recovery- Net Total Cost by
City(with Land Price) .................................................................. 3-69
Figure 3.3-6 Group 4: Maximizing Energy Recovery- Net Total Cost by
City(without Land Price) ............................................................. 3-70
Figure 3.3-7 Group 5: Minimize Carbon (Global Warming) Emissions- Net
Total Cost by City(with Land Price) ............................................ 3-71
Total Cost by City(without Land Price)........................................ 3-72
Figure 3.3-9 Group 5: Minimize Particulate Material (PM- Global Dimming)
Emissions- Net Total Cost by City(with Land Price).................... 3-73
Emissions- Net Total Cost by City(without Land Price)............... 3-74

Recycling and Composting)- Net Total Energy Consumption by
City ............................................................................................. 3-82
Recycling and Composting)- Net Total Energy Consumption by
City ............................................................................................. 3-83
Figure 3.3-13 Group 4: Maximizing Energy Recovery- Net Total Energy
Consumption by City .................................................................. 3-84
ix

Total Energy Consumption by City ............................................. 3-85
Emissions- - Net Total Cost by City ............................................ 3-86
Recycling and Composting)- Net Total Carbon Emissions by
City ............................................................................................. 3-95
Recycling and Composting)- Net Total Carbon Emissions by
City ............................................................................................. 3-96
Figure 3.3-18 Group 4: Maximizing Energy Recovery- Net Total Carbon
Emissions by City ....................................................................... 3-97
Total Carbon Emissions by City .................................................. 3-98
Emissions- Net Total Carbon Emissions by City ......................... 3-99
Emissions- Net Total PM Emissions by City ............................... 3-100
Figure 3.4-1 Cost Results of Simulation Scenarios (Amman: with Land

Price) .......................................................................................... 3-108
Figure 3.4-2 Cost Results of Simulation Scenarios (Amman: without Land
Price) .......................................................................................... 3-109
Figure 3.4-3 Energy Recovery Results of Simulation Scenarios (Amman) ..... 3-110
Figure 3.4-4 Carbon Emissions Results of Simulation Scenarios (Amman) ... 3-111
Figure 3.4-5 Cost Results of Optimizations Scenarios (Amman: with Land
Price) .......................................................................................... 3-112
Figure 3.4-6 Cost Results of Optimizations Scenarios (Amman: without
Land Price) ................................................................................. 3-113
Figure 3.4-7 Energy Recovery Results of Optimizations Results (Amman) .... 3-114
Figure 3.4-8 Carbon Emissions Results of Optimizations Results (Amman) .. 3-115
Figure 3.4-9 Cost Results of Simulation Scenarios (Buenos Aires: with Land
Price) .......................................................................................... 3-117
Figure 3.4-10 Cost Results of Simulation Scenarios (Buenos Aires: without
Land Price) ................................................................................. 3-118
Figure 3.4-11 Energy Recovery Results of Simulation Scenarios (Buenos
Aires) .......................................................................................... 3-119
Figure 3.4-12 Carbon Emissions Results of Simulation Scenarios (Buenos
Aires) .......................................................................................... 3-120
x
Figure 3.4-13 Cost Results of Optimizations Scenarios (Buenos Aires: with

Land Price) ................................................................................. 3-121
Figure 3.4-14 Cost Results of Optimizations Scenarios (Buenos Aires:
without Land Price) .................................................................... 3-122
Figure 3.4-15 Energy Recovery Results of Optimizations Results (Buenos
Aires) .......................................................................................... 3-123
Figure 3.4-16 Carbon Emissions Results of Optimizations Results (Buenos
Aires) .......................................................................................... 3-124
Figure 3.4-17 Cost Results of Simulation Scenarios (Conakry: with Land
Price) .......................................................................................... 3-126
Figure 3.4-18 Cost Results of Simulation Scenarios (Conakry: without Land
Price) .......................................................................................... 3-127
Figure 3.4-19 Energy Recovery Results of Simulation Scenarios (Conakry) .. 3-128
Figure 3.4-20 Carbon Emissions Results of Simulation Scenarios (Conakry) .. 3-129
Figure 3.4-21 Cost Results of Optimizations Scenarios (Conakry: with Land
Price) .......................................................................................... 3-130
Figure 3.4-22 Cost Results of Optimizations Scenarios (Conakry: without
Land Price) ................................................................................. 3-131
Figure 3.4-23 Energy Recovery Results of Optimizations Results (Conakry) ... 3-132
Figure 3.4-24 Carbon Emissions Results of Optimizations Results (Conakry) . 3-133
Figure 3.4-25 Cost Results of Simulation Scenarios (Kathmandu: with Land
Price) .......................................................................................... 3-135
Figure 3.4-26 Cost Results of Simulation Scenarios (Kathmandu: without
Land Price) ................................................................................. 3-136
Figure 3.4-27 Energy Recovery Results of Simulation Scenarios
(Kathmandu) .............................................................................. 3-137
Figure 3.4-28 Carbon Emissions Results of Simulation Scenarios
(Kathmandu) .............................................................................. 3-138
Figure 3.4-29 Cost Results of Optimizations Scenarios (Kathmandu: with
Land Price) ................................................................................. 3-139
Figure 3.4-30 Cost Results of Optimizations Scenarios (Kathmandu: without
Land Price) ................................................................................. 3-140
Figure 3.4-31 Energy Recovery Results of Optimizations Results
(Kathmandu) .............................................................................. 3-141
Figure 3.4-32 Carbon Emissions Results of Optimizations Results
(Kathmandu) .............................................................................. 3-142
Figure 3.4-33 Cost Results of Simulation Scenarios (Lahore: with Land Price) 3-144
Figure 3.4-34 Cost Results of Simulation Scenarios (Lahore: without Land
Price) .......................................................................................... 3-145
xi
Figure 3.4-35 Energy Recovery Results of Simulation Scenarios (Lahore) .... 3-146
Figure 3.4-36 Carbon Emissions Results of Simulation Scenarios (Lahore) .... 3-147
Figure 3.4-37 Cost Results of Optimizations Scenarios (Lahore: with Land
Price) .......................................................................................... 3-148
Figure 3.4-38 Cost Results of Optimizations Scenarios (Lahore: without Land
Price) .......................................................................................... 3-149
Figure 3.4-39 Energy Recovery Results of Optimizations Results (Lahore) ..... 3-150
Figure 3.4-40 Carbon Emissions Results of Optimizations Results (Lahore) ... 3-151
Figure 3.4-41 Cost Results of Simulation Scenarios (Sarajevo: with Land
Price) .......................................................................................... 3-153
Figure 3.4-42 Cost Results of Simulation Scenarios (Sarajevo: without Land
Price) .......................................................................................... 3-154
Figure 3.4-43 Energy Recovery Results of Simulation Scenarios (Sarajevo) . 3-155
Figure 3.4-44 Carbon Emissions Results of Simulation Scenarios (Sarajevo) . 3-156
Figure 3.4-45 Cost Results of Optimizations Scenarios (Sarajevo: with Land
Price) .......................................................................................... 3-157
Figure 3.4-46 Cost Results of Optimizations Scenarios (Sarajevo: without
Land Price) ................................................................................. 3-158
Figure 3.4-47 Energy Recovery Results of Optimizations Results (Sarajevo) .. 3-159
Figure 3.4-48 Carbon Emissions Results of Optimizations Results (Sarajevo) 3-160
Figure 3.4-49 Cost Results of Simulation Scenarios (Shanghai: with Land
Price) .......................................................................................... 3-162
Figure 3.4-50 Cost Results of Simulation Scenarios (Shanghai: without Land
Price) .......................................................................................... 3-163
Figure 3.4-51 Energy Recovery Results of Simulation Scenarios (Shanghai) 3-164
Figure 3.4-52 Carbon Emissions Results of Simulation Scenarios (Shanghai) 3-165
Figure 3.4-53 Cost Results of Optimizations Scenarios (Shanghai: with Land
Price) .......................................................................................... 3-166
Figure 3.4-54 Cost Results of Optimizations Scenarios (Shanghai: without
Land Price) ................................................................................. 3-167
Figure 3.4-55 Energy Recovery Results of Optimizations Results (Shanghai) . 3-168
(Shanghai).................................................................................. 3-169
Figure 3.4-57 Cost Results of Simulation Scenarios (Kawasaki: with Land
Price) .......................................................................................... 3-171
Figure 3.4-58 Cost Results of Simulation Scenarios (Kawasaki: without Land
Price) .......................................................................................... 3-172
Figure 3.4-59 Energy Recovery Results of Simulation Scenarios (Kawasaki) 3-173
xii
Figure 3.4-60 Carbon Emissions Results of Simulation Scenarios (Kawasaki) 3-174

Figure 3.4-61 Cost Results of Optimizations Scenarios (Kawasaki: with Land
Price) .......................................................................................... 3-175
Figure 3.4-62 Cost Results of Optimizations Scenarios (Kawasaki: without
Land Price) ................................................................................. 3-176
Figure 3.4-63 Energy Recovery Results of Optimizations Results (Kawasaki) . 3-177
(Kawasaki) ................................................................................. 3-178
Figure 3.4-65 Cost Results of Simulation Scenarios (Atlanta: with Land Price) 3-180
Figure 3.4-66 Cost Results of Simulation Scenarios (Atlanta: without Land
Price) .......................................................................................... 3-181
Figure 3.4-67 Energy Recovery Results of Simulation Scenarios (Atlanta) .... 3-182
Figure 3.4-68 Carbon Emissions Results of Simulation Scenarios (Atlanta) .... 3-183
Figure 3.4-69 Cost Results of Optimizations Scenarios (Atlanta: with Land
Price) .......................................................................................... 3-184
Figure 3.4-70 Cost Results of Optimizations Scenarios (Atlanta: without Land
Price) .......................................................................................... 3-185
Figure 3.4-71 Energy Recovery Results of Optimizations Results (Atlanta) ..... 3-186
Figure 3.4-72 Carbon Emissions Results of Optimizations Results (Atlanta) ... 3-187
xiii
ABBREVIATIONS
GENERAL
BHC: Biweekly High Capture
BLC: Biweekly Low Capture
BOD: Biochemical Oxygen Demand
BTU: British Thermal Unit
CH4: Methane
CO: Carbon Monoxide
CO2: Carbon Dioxide
DHC: Daily High Capture
DLC: Daily Low Capture
DST: Decision Support Tool
D/S: Dumping Site
ER: Energy Recovery
FCA: Full Cost Accounting
GHG: Greenhouse Gas
GNI: Gross Nation Income
GNP: Gross Nation Product
HDPE: High Density Polyethylene
LCA: Life Cycle Assessment
LCI: Life Cycle Inventory
LDPE: Low Density Polyethylene
LF: Landfill
MRF: Material Recovery Facility
MSW: Municipal Solid Waste
MSW DST: Municipal Solid Waste Decision Support Tool
MTCE: Metric Tons of Carbon Equivalents
NOx: Nitrogen Oxides
O & M: Operation and Management
PDU3: 3rd Urban Development Project
PET: Polyethylene Terephthalate
PM: Particulate Material
SOx: Sulfur Oxides
SPTD: Service Public de Tranfert des Dechets
xiv
SWM: Solid Waste Management

SWM HDM: Solid Waste Management Holistic Decision Modeling
T/S: Transfer Station
WDI: World Development Indicator
WTE: Waste to Energy
ORGANIZATION
EPA: United States Environmental Protection Agency
NK: Nippon Koei Co., Ltd.
NK-UK: Nippon Koei UK Co., Ltd.
RTI: Research Triangle Institute
WB: The World Bank
(Amman)
GAM: Greater Amman Municipality
(Buenos Aires)
AIDIS: Inter-American Association of Sanitary Engineers
ARS: Solid Waste Association
CBA: City of Buenos Aires
CEAMSE: Metropolitan Area Ecologic Coordination Society
GBA: Government of Province of Buenos Aires
IATASA: Engineering Technical Support Argentina Co.
UBA: University of Buenos Aires
(Conakry)
SME: Guinéenne d’Assainissement
(Kathmandu)
BKM: Bhaktapur Municipality
KMC: Kathmandu Metropolitan City
KRM: Kirtipur Municipality
LSMC: Lalitpur Sub-Metropolitan City
MTM: Madhyapur Thimi Municipality
SchEMS: School of Environmental Management and Sustainable Development
SWM RMC: Solid Waste Management & Resource Mobilization Center
(Lahore)
CDGL: City District Government of Lahore
(Shanghai)
xv
SCAESAB: Shanghai City Appearance Environmental Sanitation Administrative

Bureau
SCEID: Shanghai Chengtou Environment Industry Development Co., Ltd.
SIDREE: Shanghai Institute for Design and Research in Environmental
Engineering
xvi
GLOSSARY
Collection: The process of picking up wastes from residences, businesses, or a
collection point, loading them into a vehicle, and transporting them to a processing
site, transfer station or landfill.
Collection Frequency: The number of MSW collections made from a specific

location within a given time period. Collection Timing. The pre-determined time
period when MSW is collected from a location or pick-up point.
Combustion Process Energy: the electricity consumed in producing the product

and the energy associated with the amount of fuel combusted in the production
process. An example of this type of fuel combustion is the use of coal in process
boilers to produce process steam.
Combustion Transportation Energy: the energy consumed to transport the

various intermediate products or materials to the next unit process in the system.
Commercial Waste: All municipal solid waste emanating from business

establishments such as stores, markets, office buildings, restaurants, shopping
centers, and entertainment centers.
Commingled MRF: it is a material recovery facility that receives recyclables from a

commingled recyclables (i.e.., segregated collection) collection program. All fiber
recyclables are collected in one compartment and non-fiber recyclables are
collected in a separate compartment on the collection vehicle.
Commingled Recyclables: Mixed recyclables that are collected together.
Compost: The relatively stable humus material that is produced from a composting
process of putrescible fraction of MSW in which bacteria in soil mixed with it break
down the mixture into organic fertilizer.
Energy Recovery: Obtaining energy from MSW through a variety of processes (eg
combustion).
Greenhouse Gases: Components of the atmosphere that contribute to greenhouse

effect which is the process in which the emission of infrared radiation by the
atmosphere warms a planet's surface. The name comes from an incorrect analogy
with the warming of air inside a greenhouse compared to the air outside the
greenhouse.
xvii
Gross National Income : Economic indicator that comprises the total value of
goods and services produced within a country (i.e. its Gross Domestic Product),
together with its income received from other countries (notably interest and
dividends), less similar payments made to other countries.
Landfill: Generally used to mean the same as sanitary landfill, though it may be
used to indicate any disposal site where waste is deposited on land, rather than
specifying the standard of the operation.
Landfill Gas: Gases arising from the decomposition of the organic (putrescible)
fraction of MSW; principally methane, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen sulfide. Such
gases may cause explosions at landfills if not properly managed.
Leachate: Wastewater that collects contaminants as it trickles through MSW
disposed in a landfill. Leaching may result in hazardous substances entering
surface water, ground water or soil.
LCI: Life Cycle Inventory: “Life Cycle Inventory” involves model of the product
system, data collection, as well as description and verification of data for life cycle
assessment which is the assessment of environmental impact of a given product or
service throughout its lifespan. This implies data for inputs and outputs for all
affected unit processes that compose the product system.
Manufacturing Emissions: the total air, water, and solid waste emissions
associated with both the production process and transportation energy consumption.
This includes emissions from process, transportation, and pre-combustion activities.
Manufacturing Energy Consumption: the total energy consumed in the

manufacturing process, including combustion and pre-combustion, as well as
process and transportation related energy consumption.
Materials Recovery Facility (MRF): Facility that processes residentially collected

mixed recyclables into new products.
Metric Tons of Carbon Equivalent: CO2eq or CO2e, is an internationally accepted

measure that expresses the amount of global warming of greenhouse gases
(GHGs) in terms of the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) that would have the same
global warming potential.
Mixed Waste MRF: material recovery facilities (MRF) are used to recover
recyclables from the municipal waste stream. The process flow in a MRF depends
xviii
on the recyclables processed and the manner in which they are collected (e.g.,
segregated vs. non-segregated collection). A mixed waste MRF processes mixed
municipal solid waste from non-segregated collection.
Non-segregated Collection: Collection of mixed refuse in a single compartment

truck.
Open Burning: Uncontrolled fires in a dump.
Open Dump: A site used for disposal of waste without any management and/or
environmental controls (see also dump).
Pre-combustion Process Energy: the energy consumed in mining and

transportation steps required to produce fuels used in the manufacturing process.
Examples of this type of energy are the use of energy to extract petroleum,
transport it to a refinery, and produce natural gas that is combusted at a
manufacturing facility for process steam.
Pre-combustion Transportation Energy: the energy consumed in mining and

transportation steps required to produce fuels for transportation. Examples of this
type of energy are the use of energy to extract petroleum, transport it to a refinery,
and produce diesel fuel for truck, ocean freighters, locomotives, etc.
Primary Collection: The means by which municipal solid waste is collected from its
source (domestic and commercial premises) and transported to communal stations,
transfer points or disposal sites. Usually primary collection is characterized in
developing countries by hand carts, bicycles or small vehicles.
Recycle/Reuse: Recovering and re-processing useable MSW that might otherwise

end disposed in landfills (ie, recycling of aluminium cans, paper, and bottles, etc.).
Residuals: Unintended outputs of production processes. These include municipal

solid waste and wastewater.
Sanitary Landfill: A US term for land MSW disposal site that is located to minimize
water pollution from runoff and leaching. MSW is spread in thin layers, compacted,
and covered with a fresh layer of soil each day to minimize pest, aesthetic, disease,
air pollution, and water pollution problems (see also: landfill).
Segregated Collection: collection of commingled recyclables in a vehicle with two
compartments.
xix
Tonnage: The amount of waste that a landfill accepts, usually expressed in tons
per month. The rate at which a landfill accepts waste is limited by the landfill's
permit.
Transfer Station: A facility at which municipal solid waste from collection vehicles
is consolidated into loads that are transported by larger trucks or other means to
more distant landfill sites.
Waste Stream: The total flow of MSW from homes, businesses, institutions, and
manufacturing plants that are recycled, burned, or disposed of in landfills, or
segments thereof such as the ‘residential waste stream’ or the ‘recyclable waste
stream’.
Yard Waste (Yard Trimmings): The part of MSW composed of grass clippings,
leaves, twigs, branches and garden refuse.
xx
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Project
Solid waste management is the most labor intensive service in the cities of developing countries
and its costs comprise the largest expenditure in most cities. Optimizing costs by helping cities
choose correct technologies is critically important. Everyday cities are besieged by private
vendors selling inappropriate technologies and they have limited technical capacity and analytical
tools for assessing their claims and viability. Many times inappropriate systems have been built,
only to close within months of costly start up operations.
The variables affecting Local Government’s decision-making on solid waste technology and
management choices have become more complicated, especially when we take into consideration
carbon finance for green house gas reduction and avoidance, economic instruments that provide
incentives for energy-reduction, power grid use of renewable enrgy, and landfill-minimization,
emissions trading, recycling targets, land reclamation and irrigation water reduction needs, and
both fuel and emission impacts for transporting recyclables and by-products. As waste
characteristics, costing factors, economic incentives, and local environmental conditions vary by
region and income level, it is useful for the Bank’s policy dialogue with client countries to have
explicit analytical information to discuss the technology choices.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) worked for 10 years with the Research
Triangle Institute (RTI), a non-profit organization, in a public/private partnership to develop a
comprehensive holistic model that is able to compare technologies holistically regarding all of
these issues. Dozens of organizations were involved in peer review and the model has been
extensively tested, calibrated, and used in over [] cities.
The model, officially known as the Municipal Solid Waste Decision Support Tool (MSW DST), uses
a materials balance flow logical framework to evaluate all waste management processes and
systems, including collection, transfer, recycling, source segregation, composting, waste-to-energy,
anaerobic digestion, and sanitary landfill. The model also assesses the use of these technologies
at different levels of environmental control and emission standards. The model provides a
comprehensive and standard method to screen solid waste management alternatives, and
ultimately bridge the gap between cost and environmental objectives. The main categories of cost
and environmental parameters presented in the model results include annual estimates of cost,
energy consumption, air emissions, water pollutants, and solid waste residuals. The model
evaluates life-cycle environmental tradeoffs from start-up operations through post-closure
emissions, including all air and water emissions, energy requirements, and impacts to the
environment, including land use and climate change impacts. The model provides full cost
accounting of life-cycle capital, debt, and recurrent expenditures.
1-1
The type of data entered to the model is site-specific for each country, and often site-specific for
individual cities in each country. The data includes: waste generation for each sector of activity,
including households; waste composition for each sector; process specific operation and
consumption data for each technology; emission data for each technology, local conditions
affecting operations. All mass flows are then identified and quantified. All analysis conducted on
a life-cycle basis is translated to present worth, with capacity for sensitivity analysis.
This study provides support to the Bank’s ability to conduct client dialogue on solid waste
management technology selection, and will contribute to client decision-making. The study was
financed by Japanese Country-Tied Trust Funds and was conducted by a combined team of
Japanese and US consultants. The Japanese firm of NIPPON KOEI Co., Ltd., was the prime
contractor. RTI and the individual consultant, Nancy Cunningham Wilson, were the
subcontractors.
1.2 Goals and Scope of the Study

The goal of the study was to fully explore the use of the EPA/RTI holistic decision model to study
alternative solid waste systems in a wide array of waste management conditions using data
collected from cities selected in each region of the world. Alternative scenarios included different
arrangements of technical systems, and also included scenarios that optimized energy, global
warming emission reduction, and global dimming emission reduction.
Target waste was the combined mixture of municipal solid waste identified in each of the selected
cities. Target technologies were landfill, composting, materials recovery, and incineration.
Collection and transportation systems were included in each scenario analyzed, and different
scenarios of separate or mixed collection of various recyclable, combustible or compostable
materials were additionally analyzed.
1-2
1.3 Consulting Team Formation

The following organization chart shows the consulting team formation for this study.
NIPPON KOEI (NK)

NK Tokyo Team with NK LAC
Mr. Shungo Soeda (Leader)
Mr. Satoshi Higashinakagawa
Mr. Takahiro Kamishita
Mr. Juan Martin Coutoudjian
NK UK Team
Mr. Mitsuhiro Doya
Mr. Pirran Driver
Research Triangle Institute (RTI) Individual Consultant

Mr. Keith A. Weitz Ms. Nancy Cunningham-Wilson
Ms. Alexandra M. Zapata F.
Figure 1.3-1 Consulting Team Formation
As the prime contractor, NIPPON KOEI (NK) was responsible for fully addressing the Terms of
Reference for the study including reconnaissance of solid waste conditions in each of the target
cities and collection of all data to be used in the modeling effort. Nancy Cunningham-Wilson
worked with various operations staff of the World Bank to facilitate country visits and data access,
and she obtained the available pre-reconnaissance background information for the target cities.
RTI was responsible for all modeling activities, and for adequately training NK Team on the data
requirements of the model. RTI was responsible to provide in-depth output from the model,
together with analysis in figures, charts and text, to enable NK to provide a comprehensive
analysis of each city investigated. The full team worked together to develop the framework of the
scenarios to be modeled and dealt with inconsistencies and calibration of the data, including
additional research of literature, including master plans from various cities, to address data gaps
or questions. The full team jointly developed the reports to the Bank.
All study travel was conducted by two NK field teams that utilized staff from NK Tokyo
Headquarters, NK UK and NK LAC (Latin America-Caribbean). Table 1.3-1 shows the
demarcation of field visits by various NK staff on the field teams
1-3
Table 1.3-1 Responsibility of Field Visit by NK and NK UK Team

Kawasaki (Japan)
Kathmandu
Shanghai
Lahore
Buenos Aires
Sarajevo
Conakry
Amma
n
NK S. Soeda X X X X X
S. Higashinakagawa X X X X
T. Kamishita X X
NK-LAC J. Koutoudjian X
NK-UK M. Doya X X X
P. Driver X X X
The consulting team worked under the World Bank direction of Ms. Sandra Cointreau, Solid Waste
Management Advisor. The team was regularly supported by technical guidance from Dr. Susan
Thorneloe, the US EPA Project Manager who conceived development of the holistic decision
support tool and continues to manage its use and continuous improvement, as well as . and
continues to manage the public/private partnership use of the holistic decision support tool, as well
as Ms. Ozge Kaplan, both from the US EPA Office of Research and Development in Raleigh-
Durham, North Carolina.
1.4 Selection of Target Cities

Seven cities were selected from the different regions of development countries served by the
World Bank. They were: (1) Buenos Aires, Argentina; (2) Conakry Guinea; (3) Shanghai, China;
(4) Kathmandu, Nepal; (5) Lahore, Pakistan; (6) Amman, Jordan; and (7) Sarajevo, Bosnia and
Herzegovina. These cities presented study conditions where data was expected to be reasonably
competent and complete, and where cooperation with the team’s field reconnaissance and data
collection efforts were confirmed. They represented a wide array of economic development
conditions and costing factors, in addition to their different physical settings and conditions. Some
were very low-income and with minimal industrial and commercial activity, while others were on
the other end of the spectrum of upper middle income and significant industrial and commercial
activity. Some were in cool wet climates; others were from hot dry climates. The diversity of
conditions were selected to determine whether and, if so, how these conditions would effect the
outcome of the modeling analysis
Each of the selected cities is one of the largest within its country. However, a city that is large in
Nepal and Guinea, is comparatively small when compared to Argentina and China. Despite the
wide range in city size of these selected cities, it is important to note that most cities in developing
1-4
countries fall into the category of secondary cities, and are much smaller that these cities. Such
secondary cities commonly would have much less industrial and commercial activity than primary
cities, and therefore market prices for recyclables could be lower and transport distances to
markets could be longer. This aspect of the modeling needs to be weighed when the reader
attempts to extrapolate from analysis for these primary cities to secondary cities.
In addition to the 7 target cities from developing countries, Kawasaki, Japan and Atlanta, Georgia
were selected for comparative purposes. The following table provides some comparative
information on the countries wherein the 9 cities are located. For perspective of these countries
relative to all other countries in the world, the reader is referred to the annual World Development
Reports published by the World Bank, and available at http://www.worldbank.org/[].
Table 1.4-1 Comparative Information on the Countries of the 9 Target Cities

%Below Average Life
Country Country %Urban %Literacy,
GNI, $ per Poverty Expectancy,
City, Country, GDP, Population, Population ages 15 and
capita, Level, 2005*1
Region $ millions, Billions, in Country, older, 2000-
*1 *1 *2 2006 below $1
2006 2006 2004 05*1 Male Female
a day*1
Buenos Aires, 214,058 6.6
39 90 5,150 97 71 79
Argentina (2004)
Conakry,
3,317 9 36 410 -- 29 54 54
Guinea
Shanghai, 9.9
2,668,071 1,312 40 2,010 91 70 74
China (2004)
Kathmandu, 24.1
8,052 28 15 290 49 62 63
Nepal (2003-04)
Lahore, 17.0
128,830 159 34 770 50 64 65
Pakistan (1998-99)
Amman, <2.0
14,176 6 79 2,660 91 71 74
Jordan (2002-03)
Sarajevo,
Bosnia and 11,296 4 45 2,980 -- 97 72 77
Herzegovina
Kawasaki,
4,340,133 128 66 38,410 -- -- 79 86
Japan
Atlanta, 13,201,81
299 80 44,970 -- -- 75 81
United States 9
Data Source: *1: World Development Report 2008, Agriculture for Development:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2008/Resources/WDR_00_book.pdf
*2: 2006 World Development Indicators:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/table3-10.pdf
1-5
CHAPTER 2 DATA AND

METHODOLOGY
2.1 General Approach
Total annual cost, energy consumption, and emissions (air, water) were calculated using the US
EPA/RTI Municipal Solid Waste Decision Support Tool (MSW DST). The MSW DST is populated
with average facility default data, which has been modified for this study to include site-specific
data collected by Nippon Koei for each of the nine cities. Numerous MSW management options
were evaluated to identify the options that appear economically and environmentally efficient.
The MSW DST employs the principles of Full Cost Accounting (FCA) and Life Cycle Assessment
(LCA). FCA is a systematic approach for identifying, quantifying, and reporting the costs of all
stages of MSW management from the point of waste collection to its final disposition. It also takes
into account past and future outlays, overhead (oversight and support services) costs, and
operating costs by process. The cost of some activities is shared between waste management
processes. For example, the cost of recycling can be shared by a source-segregated collection
system and materials recovery facility (MRF). Understanding the costs of the individual MSW
management processes enables understanding the costs of the entire solid waste system, and the
relationship between processes.
LCA is a type of systems analysis that accounts for the complete set of upstream and downstream
(cradle-to-grave) energy and environmental aspects associated with industrial systems. The
technique examines the inputs and outputs from every stage of the life cycle from the extraction of
raw materials, through manufacturing, distribution, use/reuse, and waste management. In the
context of integrated waste management systems, an LCA tracks the energy and environmental
aspects associated with all stages of waste management from waste collection, transfer, materials
recovery, treatment, and final disposal or reuse. For each waste management process, energy
and material inputs and emissions and energy/material outputs are calculated (see Figure 2.1.1).
In addition, energy and emissions associated with the manufacturing of the fuels, energy, and
material inputs are captured. Likewise, the potential benefits associated with energy and/or
materials recovery displacing energy and/or materials production from virgin resources are
captured in the life cycle results. Additional information about the MSW DST can be found at:
https://webdstmsw.rti.org/resources.htm.
Energy Materials
Energy
(power/steam)
Solid Waste Waste Management
Process Recovered
Materials
Air Residual
Emissions Wastes
Water Pollution
Figure 2.1-1 Life Cycle Inputs and Outputs of a Waste Management Process (Note: Some
materials leaving a waste management process may loop back into the process.)
Taking a life-cycle perspective encourages waste management planners to consider the

environmental aspects of the entire system including activities that occur outside of the traditional
framework of activities from the point of waste collection to final disposal.
With these considerations in mind, the MSW DST generates cost, energy consumption, and
multimedia (e.g., air and water) emission results that a waste management planner can use to
evaluate a given system. The MSW DST can be used in two basic modes: simulation and
optimization. Simulation refers to the ability of the MSW DST to model predefined (e.g., current or
future planned) waste management systems. Optimization refers to the ability of the MSW DST to
identify the “best” waste management system based on a defined objective, such as minimizing
cost or minimizing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Cost
The cost modeled by the MSW DST is consistent with “full cost accounting” principles. It includes
the capital, operating and maintenance, and labor costs over the life of the facilities included in
each strategy. Therefore, the cost is not necessarily representative of the price or tip fee charged
by any facility. The cost values include all waste management activities from collection through
final disposition. For facilities that recover energy and/or materials and sell them to create revenue,
this revenue stream is netted out of the total cost. The cost results therefore represent a net
annual total cost. It should be noted that for the recycling scenarios, the revenue obtained from
the sale of recyclables is dependent on available markets for recyclables. This is important
because the revenue stream from the sale of recyclables can significantly lower the net cost of the
recycling scenarios.
Energy Consumption
Energy is consumed by all waste management activities (e.g., landfill operations), as well as by
the processes to produce energy and material inputs (e.g., diesel fuel, landfill liner) that are
included in the analysis. Energy can also be produced by some waste management activities
(e.g., landfill gas-to-energy, waste-to-energy technologies) and can be offset or avoided by other
activities (e.g., recycling). An additional activity in the holistic model analysis involves assessing
the energy required for collection and transport of mixed or source segregated materials. If the
energy produced and/or offset by the waste management system is greater than the energy
consumed, then there is a net energy savings. Energy consumption is an important parameter in
life-cycle studies, because it often drives the results of the study due to the significant amounts of
air and water emissions associated with energy production. Therefore, energy consumption is
also a good indicator of the emissions of key air pollutants such as carbon monoxide (CO),
nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate material (PM), and sulfur oxides (SOx).
Carbon Emissions
• Recycling of materials offsets carbon emissions by avoiding the consumption of energy that
otherwise would be used in materials production processes.
• Production of electrical energy offsets carbon emissions from the generation of electrical
energy using fossil fuels in the utility sector.
• Diversion of organics from landfills avoids methane gas generation.
In this study carbon emissions are reported in units of metric tons of carbon equivalent (MTCE),
derived as follows:
MTCE = [(Fossil CO2 x 1 + CH4 x 21) x 12/44] / 2200

2.2 Waste Management Scenarios Analyzed

In this study, simulation and optimization scenarios were defined and analyzed. The same
scenarios were applied to all cities to aid in the identification and understanding of how city-
specific factors affect scenario results. It should be noted that all scenarios are hypothetical,
meaning that they are not a representation of the actual waste management situation in any of the
cities included in the study. The scenarios modeled in this study include the following:
Simulation Scenarios:
• Group 1 includes base case simulation scenarios consist of 2 scenarios, one sending all the
waste to an open dump and the other open burning.
• Group 2 includes nine different scenarios, each sending all the waste to one primary
technology/waste management process.
Optimization Scenarios:
• Group 3 optimization scenarios are set to maximize the amount of material recovered (or
diverted from landfill disposal) using non-incineration processes.
• Group 4 consists of maximizing the energy recovered.
• Group 5 seeks to minimize climate change related emissions including carbon (global
warming) and PM (global dimming) emissions.
For the optimization scenarios, variations in the type of MRF and Composting facility (manual
sorting and pile turning vs. mechanical sorting and pile turning), the frequency of waste collection
(daily vs. biweekly), and the percent of recyclables recovered (high capture vs. low capture) were
considered for each of the optimization scenarios to gauge their impact on the LCI results.
Table 2.2.1 presents additional detail about the selected scenarios and each of the waste
management processes (collection, recycling, composting, incineration with and without energy
recovery, and landfill disposal) considered in each scenario. The waste management scenarios
assume that the processes employ modern designed facilities and equipment that meet U.S. and
EU design and operation requirements. Other key assumptions include:
• Unless otherwise specified, all residual waste is disposed of in a landfill with gas flaring and
70% gas collection efficiency.
• Both segregated and non-segregated collection systems were considered in the optimization
scenarios.
Holistic Decision Modeling
Table 2.2-1 Waste Management Scenarios Analyzed
Non
Scenario Segregated Landfill
Scenario Segregated Recycling Composting Incineration
Variations Collection** Disposal
Collection*
SIMULATION SCENARIOSIOS
Group 1: Open dumping X X

Base Case Open burning X X
Recycling - manual sort X X

Recycling - mechanical sort X X
Composting - manual turning X X
Group 2: Composting – mechanical
X X
Mixed Waste Collection windrow turner
And Management Using Incineration X X
One Primary Incineration with energy
Technology X X
recovery
Landfill - vent X X
2-5
Landfill - flare X X
Landfill- energy recovery X X
OPTIMIZATION SCENARIOS
Daily - High
X X X X
Capture
Daily - Low
X X X X
Capture
Biweekly
Manual MRF and Compost
Collection - X X X X
High Capture
Group 3: Biweekly
Maximize Materials Collection - X X X X
Recovery (via recycling Low Capture
and composting)
Daily - High
X X X X
Capture
Daily - Low
Mechanical MRF and X X X X
Capture
Compost
Final Report
Biweekly
High Capture
Non
Scenario Segregated Recycling Composting Incineration
Variations Collection** Disposal
Collection*
Biweekly
Collection- Low X X X X
Capture
Daily - High
X X X X X
Capture
Daily - Low
X X X X X
Capture
Run DST in Optimization
Group 4:
Mode to Minimize Energy
Maximize Energy Biweekly
Consumption (non-
Recovery Collection - X X X X X
incineration options only)
High Capture
Biweekly
Collection - X X X X X
Low Capture
Daily - High
X X X X X
Capture
Daily - Low
X X X X X
2-6
Capture
Minimize Carbon (Global

Warming) Emissions Biweekly
High Capture
Biweekly
Group 5: Low Capture
Optimize Reduction of
Global Warming and
Dimming Emissions Daily - High
X X X X
Capture
Daily - Low
X X X X
Capture
Minimize PM (Global
Dimming ) Emissions Biweekly
High Capture
Biweekly
Final Report
Low Capture
*Non- segregated collection: mixed waste collection only
**Segregatedcollection:separaterecyclables,organics,andresidualscollection.
• Both yard waste and mixed MSW composting were considered.

• The incineration facility modeled is assumed to be a modern mass burn type of facility
with 17,500 BTU/kWh heat rate and 70% ferrous recovery rate from ash. EU Incinerator
emissions standards were used to estimate facility emissions.
• The landfill facility modeled is a modern U.S.EPA Subtitle D type landfill with 100-year as
the time period for calculating emissions. For scenarios that included gas collection, an
assumed gas collection efficiency of 70% was used.
• Daily waste collection is assumed to be 6 times/week.
• Biweekly waste collection is assumed to be 2 times/week.
• High capture is defined by 75% participation factor1, 75% capture rate2, and 75%
separation efficiency of mixed waste at the MRF. Low capture is defined by 50%
participation factor, 50% capture rate, and 55% separation efficiency. Unless otherwise
specified low capture settings were used.
Scenario Analysis Boundaries

The boundaries of the scenarios included in this study are largely defined by the waste
management processes included under each scenario and the mass flow among processes
(see Figures 2.2.1 to 2.2.4). In addition, the boundaries considered for the cost analysis are
different from those of the life cycle environmental (energy and emissions) assessment as
mentioned below.
Boundaries for Cost Analysis

Costs have also included in this study because they play such a crucial role in making
decisions about MSW management strategies. The system boundaries for the cost analysis
differ from that of the life cycle environmental assessment because they are designed to
provide a relative comparison of annual cost among alternative MSW management
strategies as incurred by the public sector (e.g., municipal government). These costs are
intended to provide a relative ranking of the different alternatives as part of a screening tool
to narrow the range of options associated with integrated MSW management. No distinction
is made between public and private sector costs. All MSW management activities are
assumed to occur in the public sector and therefore costs are calculated as though they are
accruing to the public sector. The cost analysis is intended to reflect the full costs
associated with waste management alternatives based on U.S. EPA guidance from Full
Cost Accounting for Municipal Solid Waste Management: A Handbook (U.S. EPA, 1997).
1 The participation factor indicates the average percentage of households that set out recycling bins
for each collection cycle within a region in a source-segregated recyclables collection program.
2 The capture rate is the fraction of recyclable material removed by households from the waste and
put in the recyclables collection bin.
2-7
In focusing the cost analysis on publicly accrued costs, the costs associated with electricity
production, for instance, are not included in the study because the public sector only pays
the price for electricity consumed. In cases where recyclables are shipped from a MRF, the
cost analysis ends where the public sector receives revenue (or incurs a cost) in exchange
for the recyclables. The cost analysis does not include the costs associated with the
remanufacturing processes for different materials (e.g., recycled office paper). These costs
are borne by the manufacturing sector and not by municipal or county governments. The
same procedure is applied to the generation and sale of electricity derived from incineration
facilities or landfills. Where waste is produced as part of a waste management facility, the
cost of waste disposal or treatment is included in the cost analysis of that facility. For
example, we include the cost of leachate treatment in our cost analysis of landfills. We also
include the cost of training, educational, or other materials associated with source reduction
or other aspects of MSW management.
In addition, we compare the landfill cost with and without the land price in the cost analysis
because usually the government does not pay for land in case the land is the government
land.
Cost parameters and results are allocated to individual MSW components. Thus, the result
of the cost analysis can illustrate, for example, the capital and operating costs attributed to a
MRF versus a composting facility.
Boundaries for Environmental Assessment

The boundaries for life cycle environmental assessment include all activities that have a
bearing on the management of MSW, from collection through transportation, recovery and
separation of materials, treatment, and disposal. Collection begins whenever and wherever
waste is put outside the generation source for removal by the municipality or private
collectors. As observed in Figures 2.2.1 to 2.2.4, we assume that MSW enters the system
boundaries when it is set out for collection; thus, the production of garbage bags, garbage
cans, and recycling bins were not included in the study. Similarly, the transport of waste by
residents to a collection point (for example, drop-off facility) was not included.
The functional elements of MSW management include numerous pieces of capital
equipment, from refuse collection vehicles to balers for recycled materials to major
equipment at combustion facilities. Resource and energy consumption and environmental
releases associated with the operation of equipment and facilities were included in the study.
For example, energy (fuel) consumed during the operation of waste collection vehicles was
included in the study. We included in the study electricity consumed for operation of the
office through which the vehicle routes are developed and the collection workers are
supervised. Activities associated with the fabrication of capital equipment, however, were
not included.
For material and energy inputs to various processes, the resource and energy consumption
and environmental releases associated with producing the material and energy inputs were
2-8
included in the study. For example, the resources and environmental releases associated
with the production of diesel fuel consumed by collection vehicles were included.
Where a material was recovered and recycled, the resource and energy consumption and
environmental releases associated with the manufacture of a new product were calculated
and included in the study. We assumed closed-loop recycling processes. These parameters
were then compared against parameters for manufacturing the product using virgin
resources to estimate net resource and energy consumption and environmental releases.
This procedure was also applied to energy recovery from other unit processes, including
incineration with energy recovery and landfill gas recovery projects.
Another system boundary was set at the waste treatment and disposal. Where liquid wastes
are generated and require treatment (usually in a publicly owned treatment works), the
resource and energy consumption and environmental releases associated with the
treatment process were included. For example, if BOD is treated in an aerobic biological
wastewater treatment facility, then energy is consumed to supply adequate oxygen for
waste treatment. If a solid waste is produced that requires burial, energy is consumed in the
transport of that waste to a landfill during its burial (for example, bulldozer) and after its
burial (for example, gas collection and leachate treatment systems) in the landfill. Also,
where compost was applied to the land, volatile and leachate emissions were included in the
study.
Similar to the cost analysis, environmental parameters such as carbon, PM and other air
emissions as well as water emissions are also allocated to individual MSW components.
Thus, the result of the life cycle environmental assessment can illustrate, for example, the
environmental aspects of recycling versus composting of paper waste.
MSW Open Dumping
Open Burning
MSW
Figure 2.2-1 Boundaries for Group 1- Base Case
2-9
Ferrous to
Remanufacturin
Recyclables to Mixed Combustion
Remanufacturing Waste Facility
Mixed Waste Mixed Waste
MRF Ash to a Landfill
Collection Residuals to LF
Using Gas
Collection and
Recycling Flaring Incineration With and Without Energy Recovery
Residuals to LF
Using Gas
Mixed Waste Collection and
Mixed Waste Composting Flaring
Collection Facility
Compost Product Mixed

LF
Waste
Composting Disposal at a Landfill

Figure 2.2-2 Boundaries for Group 2 Scenarios
Mixed Waste
and
Commingled Recyclables to
Waste MRF Remanufacturing
Commingled
Waste
Collection
Mixed Waste Compost Product
Mixed Waste and
Yard Waste
Composting Residuals to LF Using Gas
Facilities Collection and Flaring
Figure 2.2-3 Boundaries for Group 3 Scenarios
Commingled Recyclables to
Waste MRF Remanufacturing
Mixed Waste
Commingled and Yard Waste
Waste Composting Compost Product
Collection Facilities
Yard waste and
mixed waste
residuals
Ferrous to Remanufacturing
Incineration
Facility
Ash to Landfill
Figure 2.2-4 Boundaries for Groups 4 and 5 Scenarios
2-10
2.3 Data Collection and Key City

Characteristics
2.3.1 Data Requirements

To conduct Solid Waste Management Holistic Decision Modelling (SWM HDM) calculation
reflecting the actual conditions of SWM in target cities of this study, it was required to collect
city-specific data, as well as some regional contextual data on economic, social and natural
environmental condition s. This supplemented the model’s extensive default data (e.g.,
defaults on calorific values for each type of waste constituent, and defaults on the emissions
from processing of each type of waste constituent) . As emissions data is continuously
developed through the monitoring and research of the US EPA, the defaults on emissions
are routinely updated. In addition to the city-specific input data, the SWM system within
each country was fully described through actual field reconnaissance and interviews
conducted in each city by the Nippon Koei team.
As needed, the SWM HDM data input sheets needed to be modified to address unique solid
waste system situations in the target cities. For example, barge transfer needed to be
added to address the unique transfer system used in Shanghai, China. Additionally,
systems of informal sector recycling and use of carts for primary collection are unique to
many cities in developing countries.
2.3.2 Site Visits to Collect Data

For the requirement of data collection and reconnaissance of the solid waste systems in the
target cities, as described in 2.3.1, the consultant team visited in each target city on the
following schedule.
Schedule Visited organization and facility
Amman, Jordan Nov. 14 – Nov. (1) Organization
26, 2006 GAM (Greater Amman Municipality), Jordan Biogas
Co, Arab Paper Converting & Trading Co, Jordan
Paper and Cardboard
Factories Co, Friends of Environment Society,
Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Municipal Affairs,
Ministry of Health, Ministry of Planning and
International Cooperation, UNHABITAT
(2) Facilities
Al Ghabawy Landfill, Al Rusaifah Landfill and Biogas
facility, Al Sha’er TS, Al Yarmook TS, Ain Gazal TS,
Slaughterhouse,
Atlanta, - －
Georgia, USA
2-11

Buenos Aires, Sep. 24 – Oct. (1) Organization
Argentina 6, 2006 CBA, WB, ARS (Solid Waste Association), CEAMSE
(Metropolitan Area Ecologic Coordination Society),
AIDIS (Inter-american
Association of Sanitary Engineers), UBA, Cliba,
IATASA, El Ceibo
(2) Facilities
Pompeya T/S, Relleno Sanitario Norte III, Relleno
Sanitario Villa Dominico
Conakry, Dec. 6 – Dec. (1) Organization
Guinea 18, 2006 SPTD (Service Public de Transfert des Dechets),
PDU3 (3rd Urban development Project), Guinéenne
d'Assainissement (SME), Electricité de Guinée,
Ministry of Public Health
(2) Facilities
La Minière Landfill, Transfer points, Pilot compost,
Slaughterhouse
Kathmandu, Dec. 11 – Dec. (1) Organization
Nepal 23, 2006 SWMRMC, KMC, LSMC, BKM, MTM, KRM,
SchEMS, Watsan
(2) Facilities
Teku T/S, Sisdol Landfill, BKM’s Segregated
Collection and Compost
Kawasaki, Oct 2006 – Feb (1) Organization
Japan 2007 Environmental Dept. of Kawasaki City
(2) Facilities
Kase Transfer Station, Sikine Incinerator,
Ukisima Final Disposal Site (sea reclamation),
Ukisima Incinerator, Nanbu MRF, Shikine
MRF
Lahore, Nov. 25 – Dec. (1) Organization
Pakistan 10, 2006 The Urban Unit, CDGL, University of Engineering and
Technology
(2) Facilities
Mahamood Booti LF, Saggian D/S, Nashitar D/S,
CDGL’s workshops, Lahore Composting, Waste
Busters, Children Hospital
Sarajevo, Sep. 26 – Oct. (1) Organization
Bosnia And 9, 2006 Cantonal Public Utility Rad, Cantonal Public Utility
Herzegovina Park, Papir Servis, Ministry of Environment and urban
development
(2) Facilities
Smiljevići Landfill (& MRF), Papir Servis, Hospital,
Slaughterhouse
2-12

Shanghai, Oct. 26 – Nov. (1) Organization
China 13, Dec. 18 – SCEID, SIDREE, SCAESAB, Shanghai
22. 2006 Electric Power Design Institute, Tongji
University
(2) Facilities
Huangpu Transfer Station, Jiangqiao incinerator,
Yangpu Transfer Station, Huling Dock, Gacu
dumping site, Minghan dumping site, Laogang
Landfill Site
Each consultant field reconnaissance team consisted of 2 members and spent at last two
weeks in each target city. The site visit were successfully implemented with the support of
relevant government organizations, facilitated by the World Bank.
2-13
2.3.3 Key City Characteristics

The key city characteristics of the selected cities are summarized as follows. Basic size,
population and economic information is provided, as well as a description of the solid waste
system in each city. Annex [] provides a summary of solid waste systems, together with
illustrative photos.
Amman, Jordan
Amman is the capital city of Jordan and its area is 688 km2, located in the northern part of
Jordan. Amman’s population is approximately 2,125,000 and rapidly has been increasing
over the past years, partly due to the large influx of refugees that have arrived from the
surrounding countries. The GNI per capita is approximately US$2,500 in 2005. The climate
of Amman is characterized by sharp seasonal variations in both precipitation and
temperature. Its rainy season is in winter and the annual precipitation is about 230 mm. the
average winter temperature is above 7°C and the average summer temperature is 26°C.
Its unit generation rate of MSW is 1.02 kg/person/day, means about 2,174 tonnes of MSW are
generated every day from the city. The hilly nature of the city makes collection of MSW a
difficult task, as many areas of town have roads that are too steep, narrow or winding for
conventional collection vehicles to use. The majority of Amman’s MSW is disposed at Al
Rusaifah landfill site which has landfill gas collection as shown in Figure 2.3-1.
Figure 2.3-1 Simplified Waste Flow in Amman
Collection
Composting MSW Incineration*

Ash
Recycling Landfill
Landfill
Compost Product Remanufacturing

End Use Facility
* Incineration can be with or without energy recovery.
Figure 2.3-2 shows typical composition of municipal solid waste in Amman that includes 42% of
food waste, 11% of corrugated cardboard, 9% of paper and 16% of plastic waste.
2-14
Figure 2.3-2 Waste Composition in Amman
2%
2%
2% 14%
2%
42%
16%
9% 11%
Yard Trimmings, Leaves Food Waste

Corrugated Cardboard Mixed Paper
Plastic Glass
Metal Textile and Rubber
Others
Atlanta, Georgia, USA

Atlanta city which was selected as a representative US city has the area of 343 km2, located
in the southern part of America. The population of the city roughly is 442,000 and is rapidly
increasing in the northern portions in Metro Atlanta. A large number of residents commute to
this area and commercial and industry activity is concentrating in this area and GNPper
capita is approximately US$43,740. Atlanta has a humid subtropical climate, with hot,
humid summers and mild winters by the standards of the United States. The annual
precipitation is about 1,270 mm and the average temperature is approximately 16°C.
Rear-loading compactor trucks are utilized for single family waste collection and front-
loading compactor trucks are utilized for the collection from multi-family, commercial and
institutional sectors. The average unit generation rate of MSW is 1.72 kg/person/day, which
means that about 2,174 tonnes of MSW are generated every day. The landfill site in Metro
Atlanta was closed in 2004 and the city began taking the waste to two existing transfer
stations in metro Atlanta. Transfer stations accept the waste from primary collection vehicles
and then load it on to secondary transportation vehicles that take it to landfills outside of
metro Atlanta. Figure 2.3-3 shows simplified waste flow in which people can understand no
incinerator operated in Atlanta.
2-15
Figure 2.3-3 Simplified Waste Flow in Atlanta
Collection

Ash
Recycling Landfill
Landfill

End Use Facility
Figure 2.3-4 shows typical composition of municipal solid waste in Atlanta that includes 41% of
food waste, 7% of yard trimmings, 4% of paper, 6% of metals and 15% of plastic waste.
Figure 2.3-4 Waste Composition in Atlanta
15% 7%
12%
4% 41%
6%
15%
Yard Trimmings Paper Plastic Metals

Glass Food Waste Miscellaneous
2-16
Buenos Aires, Argentina

The City of Buenos Aires (CBA) is the capital city of Argentina and its area is 203 km2. It is
located on the southern shore of the Río de la Plata, on the southeastern coast of the South
American continent. The population in 2001 was 2,776,138 and has been increased around
3 millions. GNP per capita in Argentina was US$4,470 in 2005, and income level in in
Buenos Aires would be higher. The climate of Buenos Aires is characterized by South
Temperate Zone, "Humid Subtropical", with average temperatures ranging from 35°C in
January to 10°C in July, 17°C annually. Annual precipitation is about 1,200 mm and the
heaviest rain falls during the winter months, though rain can be expected at any time of year.
The unit generation rate of MSW is 0.979 kg/person/day, means about 4,300 tonnes of
MSW are generated every day from the city. Almost all MSW is collected and transported to
a designated landfill via three transfer stations or directly. Buenos Aires is divided into 6
zones for waste management and three private haulers are contracted for the primary
collection at 5 of those zones. Small scale composting and MRFs are operated in or around
the landfill site. Figure 2.3-5 shows simplified waste flow. There is no incinerator operated in
Buenos Aires.
Figure 2.3-5 Simplified Waste Flow in Buenos Aires
Collection

Ash
Recycling Landfill
Landfill

End Use Facility
Figure 2.3-6 shows typical composition of municipal solid waste in Buenos Aires that includes
35% of food waste, 24% of paper, and 14% of plastic waste.
2-17
Figure 2.3-6 Waste Composition in Buenos Aires
6% 1%
4% 5% 1%
3% 2%
4% 24%
35% 14%
1%
Yard Trimmings, Leaves Woods

Paper Plastic
Rubber, Leather Food Waste
Diapers Metal
Glass Demolition
Hazardous Misc.
Conakry, Guinea
The Conakry is the capital of Guinea and includes five municipalities and is located on a
peninsular of 308 km2. The population is estimated at over 2 million in 2006. The population
has risen to its present level extremely rapidly; in 1958 the city had only 120,000. The rapid
rise in population in such a physically restricted area has resulted in extreme pressure on
the city’s infrastructure and housing. Most people live in very poor and overcrowded
makeshift housing, few have access to safe water and power (around 60% and 20%
respectively). There is significant evidence of inadequate solid waste collection, with
uncollected waste throughout the city. Guinea’s GNP per capita is US$370, evidence that it
is one of the poorest countries in Africa. The climate of Conakry is tropical with the an
annual average temperature of 27°C。The rainy season usually lasts from April or May to
October or November.
The total generation of MSW is approximately 800 tonnes/day and the unit generation rate is
approximately 0.4 kg/person/day. The generated waste is transported to La Miniere
disposal site through transfer stations or by direct haul. Much of the uncollected waste is
burned openly or dumped illegally. Figure 2.3-7 shows simplified waste flow in Conakry.
Informal sector involves collecting recyclables from the waste. Pilot scale composting plant
is operated to produce the compost from the kitchen waste.
2-18
Figure 2.3-7 Simplified Waste Flow in Conakry
Collection
Composting Ash
MSW Recycling Incineration*
(pilot) Landfill
Landfill (informal)

End Use Facility
Figure 2.3-8 shows typical composition of municipal solid waste in Conakry that includes 40% of
food waste, 19% of paper, 12% of textile/Rubber 8% of yard waste and 5% of plastic waste.
Figure 2.3-8 Waste Composition in Conakry
5% 7% 8%
12%
1%
3% 40%
5%
19%
Yard Waste Food Waste

Paper Plastics
Metal Glass
Textile & Rubber Leather & Animal Manure
Others
2-19
Kathmandu, Nepal
Kathmandu Valley has five municipalities including Kathmandu Municipality, which is the
capital of Nepal. The area of the valley is 580km2. The Kathmandu Valley is located at an
average attitude of 1,350m above sea level and surrounded by mountains. The total
population of five municipalities is 1,099,158 in 2004. The economy in Kathmandu depends
on the tourism and the GNI per capita is US$270 in 2005. The climate of Kathmandu Valley
is temperature monsoon type with rainy season lasting from June to September. The annual
precipitation is 2,000 mm. The temperature is 1°C in winter to 25°C in summer on average
and approximately 13°C on average.
The total waste generation of Kathmandu’s five municipalities is 435 tonnes/day and the
generation ratio is approximately 0.4 kg/person/day in five municipalities on average.
Traditionally, much of the generated waste has been dumped on the bank’s of Bagmati
River. Sisdol sanitary landfill site commenced operation in 2006 and waste is transported
there through the Teku transfer station. Because of the relatively high composition of
organic materials in the waste, a variety of small scale composting activities have been tried
in the Kathmandu Valley. There are also a number of small scale recycling activities.
Figure 2.3-9 shows simplified waste flow in Kathmandu. Small scale composting plant is
operated to produce the compost from the kitchen waste.
Figure 2.3-9 Simplified Waste Flow in Kathmandu
Collection

Ash
Recycling Landfill
Landfill

End Use Facility
Figure 2.3-10 shows typical composition of municipal solid waste in kahtmandu that includes
71% of food waste, 12% of paper and 8% of plastic waste.
2-20
Figure 2.3-10 Waste Composition in Kathmandu
0% 1%
2%
0% 3% 12%
8%
3%
0%
71%
Yard Trimmings, Leaves Paper
Plastic Textile
Rubber, Leather Food Waste
Metal Glass
Ceramics Misc.
Kawasaki, Japan
Kawasaki city in Kanagawa prefecture, Japan, is located between the Capital Tokyo and
Yokohama that is the biggest population city in Japan. The reclaimed land beside Tokyo
bay is occupied by heavy chemical industry complexes at the centre of the Keihin Industrial
Area. The eastern end of the area is flat, and much of it consists of heavily industrialized
and densely built working-class areas. In contrast, its western suburbs occupy an area of
hills known as Tama hills and are mostly pleasant, often newly developed residential areas
for people commuting to metropolis Tokyo area. As of 2006, the population of the city is
1,330,309 and the density is 9,216 persons/ km² and the total area is 144.35 km². Kawasaki
city is located in the temperate humid climate area. Climate monitoring at Yokohama local
observing station located close to Kawasaki city shows that precipitation was 1,932 mm/year
in 2005, and average temperature was around 17°C. Residential waste generation was 0.7
kg/person/day in 2005. Waste generation rate of MSW including commercial waste was 1.01
kg/person/day in 2005, and the total generation amount is 1,399 tonnes/day. A part of
municipal waste is transported by train, general and bulky waste, resource material and
residual ash from incinerators which is generated in the northern part of Kawasaki city. The
difficulty of suitable site for landfill causes the historical promotion of incineration as well as
other cities in Japan as shown in Figure 2.3-11.
2-21
Figure 2.3-11 Simplified Waste Flow in Kawasaki
Collection

Ash
Recycling Landfill
Landfill

End Use Facility
Figure 2.3-12 shows typical composition of municipal solid waste in kawasaki that includes 36%
of food waste, 33% of paper and 14% of plastic waste.
Figure 2.3-12 Waste Composition in Kawasaki
1% 4% 3%
33%
36%
5% 4% 14%
Wood and leaves Paper Plastic

Metals Glass Food Waste
Fabric Misc.
2-22
Lahore, Pakistan
The Republic of Pakistan is in the South Asia region and is bordered by India to the east,
China to the north east, and Iraq to the west. Lahore is a historical city, is the second largest
city in the country, and is capital of the province of Punjab, located in the north-east of
Pakistan. The total area is 1,772 km². The total population of the city including 9 districts is
approximately 8,000,000 in 2006. Lahore city and near the area is the most fertile area of
Pakistan and chief producer of agricultural products for the country as well as software
producing, tourism and handmade manufacturing. The climate of Lahore is semi arid and
the temperature is approximately 20°C on average and annual precipitation is around 500
mm/year. The GNI of the Republic of Pakistan in 2005 was roughly US$690/person.
The total amount of generation is 5,200 tonnes/day and the unit generation ratio of solid
waste is approximately 0.65 kg/person/day on average in Lahore city. In the collection and
transportation system, arm roll vehicle, tipper and dump truck is utilized as well as handcarts
for primary collection. The main treatment and disposal method is landfilling; and there is
composting by the city near existing landfill site, as well as composting plant by NGO
combined with materials recovery. Figure 2.3-13 shows waste flow in Lahore.
Figure 2.3-13 Simplified Waste Flow in Lahore
Collection

Ash
Recycling Landfill
Landfill

End Use Facility
Figure 2.3-14 shows typical composition of municipal solid waste in Lahore that includes 28% of
food waste, 19% of yard wastes, 4% of paper, 9% of plastic waste and 25% of dust, dirt and
others.
2-23
Figure 2.3-14 Waste Composition in Lahore
0%
25% 28%
0%
1%
19%
2% 9% 4%
1%
11%
Food / Kitchen Leaves & Grass, Straw & Wood

Paper Plastic & Rubber & Polyethylene Bags
Clothes/ Rags Bones
Animal Waste Glass
Metal Dust, Dirt, Ashes, Stones, Bricks, etc
Other
Sarajevo, Bosnia And Herzegovina

Sarajevo Canton is the capital of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which constitutes 9 municipalities,
located between the surrounding mountains and the area is 1,227 km2. The Center Sarajevo
Municipality, the oldest part of Sarajevo, has a population of about 410,000. Sarajevo’s
economy is largely based on secondary and tertiary industries. Its manufacturing activities
include production of foods, beverages, tobacco, textiles furniture, automobiles,
pharmaceuticals and metal working. The service sectors include tourism, communications,
banking and public administrations. The GNP per capita is approximately US$2,440. The
climate of Sarajevo is continental climate and the average year-round temperature is 10°C.
Summers are warm, with temperatures of over 30°C not being uncommon. The
temperatures in winter go down to below minus 10°C and the annual precipitation is around
900 mm.
Despite this common trend for the capital city to produce, on average, more waste per
capita than in rural areas, it was noticed during the fieldwork that per capita generation rates
calculated on the basis of the amount of waste landfilled were higher than expected, and
were far higher than other comparable capital cities in the region, equaling the US average
of 1.2 kg/person/day, which is rough estimation based on population data and on total mass
of waste delivered to the landfill. The total generation amount is 492 tonnes/day. The vast
majority of Sarajevo’s municipal and commercial solid waste ends up at landfill site as
shown in Figure 2.3-15.
2-24
Figure 2.3-15 Simplified Waste Flow in Sarajevo
Collection

Ash
Recycling Landfill
Landfill

End Use Facility
Figure 2.3-16 shows typical composition of municipal solid waste in Sarajevo that includes 37%
of food waste, 17% of paper, 13% of plastic waste and 18% of miscellaneous waste such as
dust and sand.
Figure 2.3-16 Waste Composition in Sarajevo
18% 1%
37%
8%
6%
13%
17%
Yard Trimmings, Leaves Food Waste

Paper Plastics
Metal Glass
Misc.
2-25
Shanghai, China
Shanghai city is located in east coast of China and is one of most urbanized cities in China.
The area is 6,340km2. It has 19 districts which are divided into three categories which are
urban including Pu Dong district, suburban and outskirt area. Geographically, the area is
flat and there are some water courses such as canals or Huang Pu River, which is a
tributary of Yangtze River. The total population is approximately 17,800,000 not including
up to three million visitors commonly present in the city. The GDP of Shanghai alone grew
11.1 percent to over US$109 billion in 2005, accounting for over five percent of China's total
output. GNI per capita in Shanghai is US$1,740. Shanghai city belongs to typical
subtropical monsoon climate. The temperature is from 5°C in winter to 25°C in summer and
the average is about 15°C. The rainfall is 1,440 mm/year on average. Shanghai is the
industrial, financial, and commercial center of China. It hosts a concentration of
manufacturing activities as well as commercial or tourism sectors.
The total amount of generation is 17,000 tonnes/day and the unit generation ratio of solid
waste is approximately 0.96 kg/person/day on average in Shanghai city. The collection and
transportation is variously based on the areas. The area far from existing landfill site, the
collected waste is transported by a barge or secondary transfer vehicles through a transfer
station. As shown in Figure 2.3-17, the treatment and disposal method is mainly landfilling
but incinerators have been introduced as well as composting facilities including separating
system.
Figure 2.3-17 Simplified Waste Flow in Shanghai
Collection

Ash
Recycling Landfill
Landfill

End Use Facility
2-26
Figure 2.3-18 shows typical composition of municipal solid waste in Shanghai that includes
63% of food waste, 8% of paper and 19% of plastic waste.
Figure 2.3-18 Waste Composition in Shanghai
2% 0%
3%
0%
3% 2%
8%
19%
63%
Kitchen and Fruits Plastic

Papers Cloth
Bamboo & wood Metal
Glass Slag & stones
Hazardous and others
2-27
2.4 Data Analysis
2.4.1 Review of Other Sources of Existing Solid Waste Data

MSW DST was originally developed based on the waste compositions, solid waste
management systems and operating conditions in the US. While solid waste compositions
in developing countries are different, each separate constituent (paper, plastic, metal, glass,
etc.) behaves the same way when processed developing countries as it does in the US.
Reliable waste composition data is not well available in developing countries, and most
cities do not have complete weight records of all wastes being handled. Some of the target
cities had good data, from actual weighbridge recordings or from recent surveys done in
master plans. But, overall, data was poor.
In order to fill data gaps and determine whether the actual data collected was reasonable,
the published literature was examined for regional data and also data from cities of
comparable economic levels. The studies that were reviewed for the most comprehensive
waste quantity and composition data were prepared by:
• JICA: Japan International Cooperation Agency
• METAP: Mediterranean Environmental Technical Assistance Program
• PAHO: Pan American Health Organization
2.4.2 Review of JICA Study Reports

The government of Japan has carried out many major planning efforts for cities in
developing countries. Most of these were city-wide master plans. These studies typically
lasted 18-24 months and included extensive field efforts to survey, sample, and analyze
waste quantity and compostion in a wide range of neighborhoods of various income levels
and economic activities. In addition to JICA master planning studies, other studies named
“basic design study” also conducted by JICA were also reviewed. Most of these various
studies are available in the JICA library, and many are posted on the JICA website at : []
As Table 2.4.1 shows, more than 20 JICA studies were completed after 1995 over the world.
While there were other studies in the previous two decades, it was decided to focus on
those done since 1995.
2-28
Table 2.4-1 List of JICA Development Study for Solid Waste Management
Project Name Year Target of Solid Waste
1 The Study on the Improvmente of the 1995.05 domestic waste, market waste, X
Solid Waste Manegment System for commercial waste, road cleaning
the City of Managua in Nicaragua waste and public institution waste
2 The Study on the Solid Waste 1995.12 municipal waste, medical waste, X
Management System for Bucharest and construction waste
Municipality in Rumania
3 The Study on Wastewater and Solid 1996.03 Domestic waste, commercial X
Waste Management for the City of waste, factory waste, hospital
Ujung Pandang in the Republic of waste, road and drain waste
Indonesia
4 The study on the National Guidelines 1996.08 Municipal waste, industrial waste X
for Solid Saste Management for the and medical waste
Kingdom of Morocco
5 The Study on the Solid Waste 1997.09 Domestic waste, commercial X
Management for Dar es Salaam City waste, market waste and road
in Tanzania cleaning waste
6 The Study on Solid Waste 1998.08 Domestic waste, market waste, X
Management in Nairobi City in the commercial waste and road waste
Republic of Kenya
7 The study on Solid Waste 1999.03 Domestic waste, commercial X
Management for Metro Manila in the waste, market waste, road
Republic of Philippines cleaning waste medical waste and
industrial waste
8 The Study on Solid Waste 1999.03 Domestic waste, commercial
Management of the Urban Area of waste, market waste and road
Tegucigalpa's Central District in cleaning waste
Honduras
9 The Study on Solid Waste 1999.05 Domestic waste, commercial X
Management for Mexico City in the waste, market waste, road
United Mexican States cleaning waste and medical waste
10 The Study on Solid Waste 1999.05 Domestic waste, commercial
Management for Male' City in the waste, market waste, public area
Republic of Maldives waste, industrial and medical
waste
11 The Study on Regional Solid Waste 2000.01 Domestic waste, commercial X
Management for Adana-Mersin in waste, market waste, road
the Republic of Turkey cleaning waste and medical waste
12 The Study on solid Waste 2000.01 X
Management for Almaty City in the
Republic of Kazakhstan
13 The study on environmental 2000,7 Domestic Waste, Medical Waste, X
improvement for Hanoi City in the Industrial Waste
Socialist Republic of Vietnam
14 The Study on Regional Solid Waste 2000.11 Domestic waste, commercial
Management for San Salvador waste, institution waste, road
Metropolitan Area in the Republic cleaning waste and medical waste
of El Salvador
2-29
Project Name Year Target of Solid Waste

15 The Study on sanitation Improvement 2001.12 Domestic waste, industrial waste X
for the Niamey City in the Republic and medical waste
of Niger
Management at Local Cities in the waste, park and road waste,
Syrian Arab Republic medical waste and industrial
waste
Management Plan for Municipality of waste, market waste, road
Panama in the Republic of Panama cleaning waste and public
institution waste
18 The Study on Improvement of Solid 2003.11 domestic waste, commercial X
Waste Management in Secondary waste, and public institution waste
Cities in Sri Lanka
19 The Study on the Solid Waste 2005.03 Municipal waste (sludge, industrial
Management for the Phnom Penh in and medical waste)
Cambodia
20 The study on the solid waste 2005.03 Domestic waste, industrial and
management in Dhaka City in medical waste
Bangladesh
21 The Study on Solid Waste 2005.09 Domestic waste
Management for Kathmandu Valley
in the Kingdom of Nepal
22 The Study on Integrated Management 2006.09 Domestic waste
Plan of Municipal Solid Waste in
Havana City in the Republic of
Cuba
The result of comparison between the data of JICA past studies and data collected from the
target cities for MSW HDM are summarized as follows;
• Unit Generation Rate (kg/person/day) vs. Economic Indicator (GDP or GNI)
• Ditto, by regional areas
• Composition Rate for Compostable materials* vs. Economic Indicator (GDP or GNI)
* Compostable: kitchen waste and yard waste (wood and grass)
• Composition Rate for Combustible materials** vs. Economic Indicator (GDP or GNI)
** Combustible: compostable waste, paper and plastics
• Composition Rate for Recyclable materials*** vs. Economic Indicator (GDP or GNI)
*** Recyclable: paper, plastic, metals and glass
2-30
Comparisons between the unit generation rate and economic indicator are shown in Figure
2.4.1 and 2.4.2 and other results are shown in Appendix 2.4.1 to 6.
Comparing those data, it could be said the data obtained from the field survey at each target
city for MSW HDM was within the range representing the regions with similar geographical,
metrological and economic conditions.
2-31
2-32
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
Tanzania/Dar Es Salaam (39 wards)(1996)
Niger/Niamey(2001)
Low
Laos/Vientian(1991)
kg/person/day
Kenya/Nairobi(1997)
Nepal/Kathmandu(***)
Egypt/Alexandria(1984)
Guinea/Conakry(***)
Vietnam/Hanoi (2000)
Nicaragua/Managua(1995)
Pakistan/Rawalpindi(1995)
Pakistan/Quetta(1996)
Indonesia/Jakarta(1986)
GDP, GNI or RGDP
Indonesia/Surabaya(1992)
Philippines/Metropolitan Manila(1997)
Pakistan/Lahore(***)
Sry Lanka/Moratuwa (1997)

High
Indonesia/Ujungpandang(1994)
Guatemala/Metropolitan(1992)
Bulgaria/Sofia(1993)
Syria/Latakia and other three cities(2001)
Syria/Aleppo(1997)
Peru/Lima (7 districts in northan areas) (1984)
Syria/Damascus(1995)
Waste generation (MSW)(kg/person/day)
Morocco/Safi (Three urban communes)(1996)
Kazakhstan /Almaty(1999)
Poland/Poznan(1992)
(Sorted by Economic Indicator)

Dominica/Santo Domingo(2006)
Romania/Bucharest(1994)
Peru/Kajayo (1995)
Paraguay/Asunción Metropolitan(1994)
Malaysia/Penan(1988)
Bosnia/Sarajevo(***)
Jordan/Amman(***)
Panama/Panama(2002)
Turkey/Adana metropolitan(1998)
GDP or GNI(dollors/person/year)
Turkey/Mersin Metropolitan(1998)
Hungary/Budapest(1992)
Mexico/Mexico city (1998)
Argentine/Buenos Aires(***)
China/Shanghai(***)
0
Figure 2.4-1 Unit Generation Rate vs. Economic Indicator of Cities of JICA Study and this MSW HDM Study
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
dollors/person/year
Final Report Holistic Decision Modeling

2-33
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
Tanzania/Dar Es Salaam
(39 wards)(1996)
Niger/Niamey(2001)
Africa
Kenya/Nairobi(1997)
kg/person/day
Guinea/Conakry(***)
Lao PDR/Vientian(1991)
Vietnam/Hanoi (2000)
Indonesia/Jakarta(1986)
Indonesia/Surabaya(1992)
Philippines/Metropolitan
Manila(1997)
Indonesia/Ujungpandang(1994)
East Asia & Pacific

Malaysia/Penan(1988)
China/Shanghai(***)
Bulgaria/Sofia(1993)
Kazakhstan/Almaty(1999)
Poland/Poznan(1992)
Romania/Bucharest(1994)
Bosnia/Sarajevo(***)
Turkey/Adana
metropolitan(1998)
Turkey/Mersin
Europe and Central Asia

Metropolitan(1998)
Hungary/Budapest(1992)
Nicaragua/Managua(1995)
Waste generation (MSW)(kg/person/day)
Guatemala/Metropolitan(1992)
Peru/Lima (7 districts in
northan areas) (1984)
Dominica/Santo
Domingo(2006)
Peru/Kajayo (1995)
Paraguay/Asunción
Metropolitan(1994)
(Sorted by Regional Area)

Panama/Panama(2002)
Mexico/Mexico city (1998)
Latin America and Caribbean
Argentine/Buenos Aires(***)
Syria/Latakia and other three
cities(2001)
Syria/Aleppo(1997)
Syria/Damascus(1995)
GDP or GNI(dollors/person/year)
Morocco/Safi (Three urban

communes)(1996)
Jordan/Amman(***)
Middle East and North Africa
Nepal/Kathmandu(***)
Pakistan/Rawalpindi(1995)
Pakistan/Quetta(1996)
South Asia
Pakistan/Lahore(***)
Sri Lanka/Moratuwa (1997)
0
Figure 2.4-2 Unit Generation Rate vs. Economic Indicator of Cities of JICA Study and this MSW HDM Study
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
dollors/person/year
10000
Final Report Holistic Decision Modeling

2.5 Summary of Key Input Parameters, Default

Model Data, Assumptions, and Limitations
Key Input Parameters and Assumed Data for the Model
In any complex modeling exercise, there is a considerable amount of data and assumptions
that can significantly affect model outcomes. In this study, the key data and assumptions
used include a mixture of city-specific data that was collected through site visits and default
data and assumptions that are built into the MSW DST. In this section, key data inputs,
default MSW DST data, and assumptions are presented and discussed.
The full consulting team met to work together at RTI after the completion of data collection,
and the analysis assumptions were discussed and developed as per attached in Appendix
2.5. The World Bank and US EPA participated in this phase of the work, wherein there was
agreement on assumptions and how to handle data gaps and the design of scenarios. From
RTI, the full team when to the World Bank headquarters and held a workshop with various
Bank staff, including many of those who were involved with projects in the target cities.
Table 2.5-1 presents a summary of the most important input parameters from those
described in Sections 2.3 and 2.4 based on their impact on the cost, energy consumption,
and environmental emission results. This table also characterizes the input parameters
according to their data sources (i.e., field data or based on assumptions) and provides
references to the tables where the specific data can be found. Key assumptions and
limitations common to all data are subsequently described.
Table 2.5-1 shows how the data inputs were a mix of city specific values and assumptions.
For some parameters city specific data were not found and the model used default values to
cover the data gaps. Cost data in particular were difficult to obtain. Therefore, cost results
may not be an accurate reflection of actual practice in a given city. Table 2.5-2 shows the
available cost data for all cities and waste management processes including energy cost
data. The blanks in the table indicate lack of data and the zeroes indicate values that were
set to zero. Available cost data are carefully reviewed and some of them are modified for
the model run. For example, cost for equipment and maintenance for the landfill in Conakry
is omitted and operation cost of incinerator in Shanghai is replaced to the US default data.
Calculated costs represent average costs for these types of processes and not are specific
facility costs.
For facilities that recover energy and/or materials and sell them for revenue, as mentioned
in Section 2.1, this revenue is netted out of the cost. The cost results therefore represent a
net annual total cost. It should be noted that for the recycling scenarios, the revenue
obtained from the sale of recyclables is dependent on available markets for recyclables.
In addition, as previously mentioned, we prepare two input data, one is with land prices for
landfill cost and the other is without those to see how the land price affect the net total cost.
2-34
Table 2.5-1 Summary of Key Input Parameters, Assumptions and Data Sources by Process.
Input Parameter Data Sources and Assumptions
Common
Energy sources breakdown City specific (utility grid mix of fuels)—See Appendix
Electrical Energy Offset 2.5.8 Energy Data Inputs
Electricity Cost- purchase
Electricity Price- sale City specific—See Appendix 2.5.8 Energy Data Inputs.
Diesel Fuel
Generation
Waste Generation City specific—See Appendix 2.5.2 MSW Generation Data
Waste Composition Inputs.
Fraction of residential waste that is Assumed 10% for all cities except Kawasaki and Atlanta
single family (50%)—See Appendix 2.5.9 Constants Data.
Fraction of residential waste that Assumed 90% for all cities except Kawasaki and Atlanta
multi family (50%)—See Appendix 2.5.9 Constants Data.
Collection
Sectors Residential and Multifamily
Set to be the same value per income category—See
Collection cost
Appendix 2.5.3 Collection Data Inputs.
Low participation factor* 50%—See Appendix 2.5.9 Constants Data.
High participation factor* 75%—See Appendix 2.5.9 Constants Data.
Low capture rate** 50%—See Appendix 2.5.9 Constants Data.
High capture rate** 75%—See Appendix 2.5.9 Constants Data.
Daily: 6 times/week, Biweekly: 2 times/week—See
Collection frequency
Appendix 2.5.9 Constants Data.
Houses per stop in the residential
sector
Household size in the residential Assumed the same for all cities—See Appendix 2.5.9
sector Constants Data.
Usable capacity in open trucks
Vehicle travel speeds
Vehicle travel distances 30 km one way—See Appendix 2.5.9 Constants Data.
Families per stop in the multifamily
sector
Household size in the multifamily
sector
Number of multifamily collection
locations
Fraction of compactor vehicles
Income category- specific—See Appendix 2.5.3
Fraction of open trucks
Collection Data Inputs.
Usable capacity of compactor
vehicles
Waste density in compactor
vehicles- compacted
Waste density in compactor
vehicles- uncompacted
2-35
(continued)
MRF
Basic design Accepts mixed MSW, manual/ mechanical designs
Low separation efficiency 55%—See Appendix 2.5.9 Constants Data.
High separation efficiency 75%—See Appendix 2.5.9 Constants Data.
Recyclables prices
Separation efficiencies
Working day length
Driver and operator requirement
Capacity of manual bag opener
Labor overhead rate
City specific—See Appendix 2.5.4 MRF Data Inputs.
Management wages
Picker wage rate
Driver and operator wage rate
Bin cost rate
Rolling stock cost rate
Baler cost rate
Vehicle travel distances to
10 km one way—See Appendix 2.5.9 Constants Data.
remanufacturing
Residuals management Landfill with gas collection flaring
Compost
Basic design Accepts mixed MSW, manual/mechanical designs
Number of operating hours
Number of days per week
Operating days per year
Wage for operator
Wage for manager City specific—See Appendix 2.5.5 Compost Data Inputs.
Compost residence time
Curing stage residence time
Compost pile turning frequency
Compost product prices
Residuals management Landfill with gas flaring
Incineration
Basic design Modern Mass Burn
Plant heat rate 17,500 BTU/kWh
Ferrous recovery rate 70%
Unit WTE capital cost City specific—See Appendix 2.5.6 Incineration Data
Unit WTE O & M cost Inputs.
2-36
(continued)
Landfill
Basic design Modern (U.S.EPA Subtitle D type)
Time period for calculating
100 years
emissions
0% for venting; 70% for gas control—See Appendix 2.5.9
Gas collection efficiency
Constants Data.
Landfill gas management Vent, flare, and energy recovery
Active life of facility
Number of cells
Type of liner
LF gas composition
Precipitation
Minimum labor cost
Maximum daily waste handled by City-specific—See Appendix 2.5.7 Landfill Data Inputs.
minimum labor costs Both cases with and without land prices are analyzed.
Utility rate
Overhead costs
Equipment and maintenance
Capital cost of internal combustion
engine
Land prices
Landfill depth Assumed the same for all cities—See Appendix 2.5.9
Landfill slope Constants Data.
*Participation factor: percent of population that participates in recycling
**Capture rate: percent of recyclables placed in bins by those participating
2-37
Table 2.5-2 Cost Data Availability by City.
Buenos
Cost Input Parameters Katmandu Conakry Lahore Sarajevo Amman Shanghai Kawasaki Atlanta
Aires
Energy Data
Electricity Cost- purchase X X X X X X X
Electricity Price- sale X X X X X X X
Diesel Fuel X X X X X X X X X
MRF Data
Old News Print X X X
Corrugated Cardboard X X X X X
Office Paper X X X X X
Phone Books X X X
Books X X X
2-38
Old Magazines X X X
3rd Class Mail X X X
Recyclables prices
Mixed paper X X X X X X X
HDPE - Translucent X X X X
HDPE - Pigmented X X X X
PET X X X X X X
Mixed plastics X X X X X
Ferrous Cans X X X X X X
Ferrous Metal - Other X X X X X X
Aluminum Cans X X X X X X X
Aluminum Other #1 0
Aluminum Other #2 0
Final Report
Glass - Clear X X X X X X X
Glass - Brown X X X X
Glass - Green X X X X
Buenos
Cost Input Parameters Katmandu Conakry Lahore Sarajevo Amman Shanghai Kawasaki Atlanta
Aires
Energy Data
Mixed Glass X X X X X
Picker wage rate X X X X X X
Driver and operator wage rate X X X X X X
Bin cost rate X X
Rolling stock cost rate X X
Baler cost rate X X
Composting Data
Wage for operator X X X X X
Wage for manager X X X
Value of compost product X X X X X X X X X
Incineration Data
2-39
Unit combustor capital cost X X X

Unit combustor O & M cost X X X
Landfill Disposal Data
Labor cost X X X
Overhead costs X X X
Equipment and maintenance X X X X
Capital cost of internal combustion
X X X
engine
Land Prices X X X X X X X X X
Note x: City specific data were found for that parameter by field survey or on the web site.
Some of them are not used for the model input because of their data reliability.
0: The value was set to zero as for the recyclables prices.
Final Report
Blank cells mean no data available by the field survey, therefore defaults or other related values are applied.
Zeroes are also set for the recyclables prices in case of no market for those recyclables.
Key MSW DST Default Data Employed

In addition to the key input parameters presented in Tables 2.5.1 and 2.5.2, there are key default
data used in the MSW DST that can significantly affect scenario results and are key to
understanding the behavior of the results for each city. In particular, energy production, materials
production, and landfill gas production data are highly sensitive parameters. In the context of their
significance on the scenario results presented in Section 3 of this report, the following default data
are highlighted:
• Electrical energy production total energy consumption factors
• Electrical energy production fuel-specific emission factors
• Energy savings factors associated with materials recycling
• Emission savings (or burdens) factors associated with materials recycling
• Landfill gas production parameters by waste item.
Defaults used in the MSW DST for each of these items are presented in Tables 2.5.3 to 2.5.7
below. It should be noted that each table is sorted in descending order according to the values
highlighted in bold to aid illustrating the impact of these values in the results. Carbon dioxide and
methane emission factors are presented as these pollutants are the main contributors to the total
carbon emissions from the waste management processes.
Table 2.5-3 MSW DST Default Pre/Combustion Energy Factors

(Fuel Type Used to Produce Electricity)
Fuel Units
Pre- Total Energy Total
Combustion** Consumed per
Fuel Type (fuel combustion* Factor (BTU/ Energy
Energy Factor Electric kWh
units) Energy Factor fuel unit Factor
(BTU/fuel unit) delivered (fuel
(BTU/fuel unit) consumed) (BTU/kWh)
unit/kWh)
Natural Gas (ft3) 129 1,022 1,151 13.535 15,578
Distillate Oil
19,300 138,700 158,000 0.090 14,181
(gal)
Residual Oil
21,000 149,700 170,700 0.075 12,781
(gal)
Uranium (lb) 50,600,000 985,321,000 1,035,921,000 0.000 11,585
Wood (lb) 0 10,350 10,350 1.015 10,504
Other 0 10,350 10,350 1.015 10,504
Coal (lb) 264 10,402 10,666 0.979 10,438
Hydro 0 3,413 3,413 1.000 3,413
*Pre-combustion energy is the energy used to mine and process a unit of fuel.
**Combustion energy is the energy value of the fuel as combusted in a utility boiler.
2-40
Table 2.5-4 MSW DST Default Emission Factors (Fuel Type Used to Produce Electricity)
Emission Factors (lb/kWh)
Fuel Type (fuel units)
Carbon Dioxide Methane PM
Residual Oil 2.75E+00 4.09E-04 4.21E-04
Coal 2.18E+00 4.76E-03 2.90E-03
Distillate Oil 1.98E+00 3.28E-04 2.66E-04
Natural Gas 1.47E+00 4.07E-03 4.79E-05
Uranium 7.51E-02 1.66E-04 4.86E-04
Hydro 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
Wood 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 8.63E-05
Table 2.5-5 MSW DST Default Energy Savings (Recycling Individual Materials)
Energy Savings Factors (BTU/ ton of remanufactured
Recyclables Category
material)
Aluminum 201,882,712
STEEL 171,726,050
LDPE 25,978,843
PET 23,785,635
HDPE 20,233,296
Newspaper 17,353,633
Corrugated Boxes 13,001,578
Phone Books 12,341,360
OFFICE PAPER 11,184,559
Glass 2,361,566
Text Books 1,082,049
Magazines/3rd Class Mail 711,964
Table 2.5-6 MSW DST Default Emission Savings (Recycling Individual Materials*)
Emission Factors (lb/ ton of remanufactured material)
Recyclables Category
Carbon Dioxide Methane PM
Aluminum 2.12E+04 3.26E+01 5.92E+01
LDPE 3.70E+03 1.60E-01 4.31E+00
PET 3.58E+03 4.84E-02 5.69E+00
HDPE 2.82E+03 -1.67E-01 2.59E+00
Steel 2.06E+03 1.71E+00 1.00E+01
Newspaper 1.90E+03 4.15E+00 2.82E+00
Glass 6.94E+02 4.49E+00 6.92E+00
Phone Books 3.36E+02 1.88E+00 5.09E+00
Text Books 1.18E+02 -1.65E+00 -3.48E-01
Magazines/3rd Class Mail 3.70E+01 4.27E-02 2.99E-01
Corrugated Boxes -2.27E+02 -7.20E-01 2.34E+01
Office Paper -5.80E+02 -6.74E-01 4.94E+00
* These values are calculated based on production of materials using recycled vs. virgin resources. Waste collection,
separation, and transport are not included. A negative value denotes a net positive emission, or additional burden.
2-41
Table 2.5-7 MSW DST Default Landfill Gas Generation (Individual Waste Items*)
CH4 Yield
Waste Category % moisture Gas Production Rate (yr-1)
(L CH4/ dry kg)
Food Waste 0.70 300.70 0.11
Office Paper 0.06 217.30 0.02
Books (used Office Paper) 0.06 217.30 0.02
Corr. Cardboard 0.05 152.30 0.03
3rd Class Mail 0.06 150.85 0.06
Yard Trimmings, Grass 0.60 136.00 0.31
Mixed Paper 0.06 103.67 0.06
Paper - Non-recyclable 0.06 103.67 0.06
Magazines 0.06 84.40 0.16
Newsprint 0.06 74.30 0.04
Phone Books 0.06 74.30 0.04
Yard Trimmings, Branches 0.60 62.60 0.12
Yard Trimmings, Leaves 0.60 30.60 0.25
* These values were selected to represent typical waste from the cities under analysis according to personal
communications with Professor Morton A. Barlaz, North Carolina State University and Susan Thorneloe, US EPA.
2-42
CHAPTER 3 SCENARIO RESULTS

3.1 Open Dumping and Open Burning
(Base Case)
This section of the report presents and explains the results of base case waste management
simulation including open dumping and open burning. The MSW DST originally developed
based on SWM experiences in the US does not contain open dumping and open burning
models per se. The conventional landfill and incineration models were tailored to represent
unmanaged landfill disposal and incineration, respectively.
It is assumed that there is no collection, transportation, or open dump/burn related cost or
energy consumption. Waste is either taken by households to an open dump site or burned
on-site or at a common burn site. Emissions have been estimated using a combination of
the MSW DST landfill and incineration models and additional emission factors data for open
burning of solid waste available from the U.S. EPA.
Due to the difficulty in characterizing open dumping and burning practices and emissions,
results should be taken as rough approximations and used as a relative guide to compare
against the more conventional MSW management practices and scenarios analyzed in
Sections 3.2 and 3.3. These MSW management scenarios are also hypothetical, meaning
that they are not a representation of the waste management situation in any of the cities
included in this study, but are tailored to meet the objectives of this study.
Open Dumping
In many locations, waste is disposed of in unmanaged dumps or piles. To approximate an
open dumping scenario, the following modifications were implemented to the MSW DST’s
landfill model:
• Energy consumption factors were zeroed out.
• Liner system removed
• Daily and final covers removed
• Leachate collection and treatment systems removed
• Assumed zero oxidation of methane through cover soil (i.e., there is no cover soil)
• Assumed all gas produced is released to the atmosphere (i.e,. vented).
Estimates for unit and anual gas emissions associated with open dumping of waste are
shown in Table 3.1.1 and Table 3.1.2. Table 3.1.3 and Table 3.1.4 contains estimates for
selected key emissions of water pollutants (i.e., leachate) associated with open dumping of
waste.
3-1
Table 3.1-1 Unit Gas Emissions from Open Dumping of Waste

Total Carbon
Total Gas Emissions (kg/ton)
City Emissions (kg/ton)
CO2 CH4 C-eq
Kathmandu 156.77 53.11 0.15
Conakry 188.28 41.23 0.12
Lahore 69.96 25.06 0.07
Sarajevo 180.50 38.41 0.11
Amman 214.16 43.54 0.13
Buenos Aires 177.00 38.97 0.11
Shanghai 113.66 43.80 0.13
Kawasaki 308.48 51.40 0.15
Atlanta 479.30 50.69 0.15
Table 3.1-2 Annual Gas Emissions from Open Dumping of Waste

Total Carbon
Total Gas Emissions (kg/year)
City Emissions (kg/year)
CO2 CH4 C-eq
Kathmandu 25,131,710 8,513,320 24,423
Conakry 17,675,735 3,870,470 11,113
Lahore 92,950,012 33,294,527 95,750
Sarajevo 31,247,946 6,649,108 19,096
Amman 167,749,561 34,105,656 97,915
Buenos Aires 662,330,435 145,844,940 418,864
Shanghai 684,101,219 263,611,212 756,667
Kawasaki 161,212,661 26,860,029 77,091
Atlanta 380,333,797 40,219,898 115,464
Table 3.1-3 Unit Emissions of Key Water Pollutants from Open Dumping of Waste
Unit Emissions (kg/ton)
City
TDS TSS BOD COD Ammonia Phosphate
Kathmandu 2.49E-03 2.87E-03 3.79E+00 4.99E+00 1.61E-02 4.71E-04
Conakry 2.77E-03 2.22E-03 2.84E+00 3.74E+00 1.21E-02 3.53E-04
Lahore 2.75E-03 1.49E-03 1.81E+00 2.38E+00 7.72E-03 2.25E-04
Sarajevo 2.90E-03 2.12E-03 2.68E+00 3.52E+00 1.14E-02 3.33E-04
Amman 2.85E-03 2.39E-03 3.06E+00 4.03E+00 1.31E-02 3.81E-04
Buenos Aires 2.93E-03 2.02E-03 2.54E+00 3.34E+00 1.08E-02 3.15E-04
Shanghai 2.66E-03 2.43E-03 3.14E+00 4.13E+00 1.34E-02 3.90E-04
Kawasaki 2.98E-03 2.64E-03 3.40E+00 4.48E+00 1.45E-02 4.23E-04
Atlanta 3.28E-03 2.86E-03 3.69E+00 4.85E+00 1.57E-02 4.58E-04
3-2
Table 3.1-4 Annual Emissions of Key Water Pollutants from Open Dumping of Waste
Unit Emissions (kg/year)
City
TDS TSS BOD COD Ammonia Phosphate
Kathmandu 399 461 607,357 799,533 2,588 75
Conakry 260 209 266,574 350,930 1,136 33
Lahore 3,659 1,986 2,404,820 3,165,949 10,252 299
Sarajevo 502 367 463,196 609,778 1,974 58
Amman 2,234 1,872 2,400,433 3,160,028 10,230 298
Buenos Aires 10,948 7,565 9,488,471 12,491,228 40,443 1,180
Shanghai 16,009 14,620 18,903,639 24,885,359 80,561 2,350
Kawasaki 1,558 1,379 1,777,544 2,340,022 7,575 221
Atlanta 2,599 2,272 2,926,014 3,851,912 12,470 364
Open Burning
In addition to open dumping of waste, in many locations waste is also burned in open piles
or barrels. To approximate an open burning scenario, the following modifications were
implemented to the MSW DST’s incineration model:
• Energy consumption and production zeroed out.
• Air pollution controls were zeroed out.
• Environmental burdens associated with the production of air pollution control agents
(e.g., lime) were removed.
• For metal air emissions, emission removal efficiencies were zeroed out.
• For non-metal air emissions, emissions factors for uncontrolled solid waste combustion
were taken from the U.S. EPA’s AP-42 Emission Factors for Open Burning and PCDD/F
Emissions From Uncontrolled, Domestic Waste Burning1. The emission factors used are
shown in Table 3.1.5.
Estimates for total non-metal gas emissions associated with open burning of waste are
shown in Table 3.1.6. Table 3.1.7 contains estimates for emissions of dioxins/furans
associated with open burning of waste. There likely are water pollutants associated with the
ash residues from open burning. However, no emission factors were found to characterize
these potential emissions.
Table 3.1-5 Open Burning Non-Metal Emissions Factors Applied
Pollutant Emission Factors Units
PM 7.3 kg/ton
SOx 0.5 kg/ton
NOx 2.7 kg/ton
CO 38.6 kg/ton
CH4 5.9 kg/ton
Dioxin/Furans 35,196 Ng/kg
1 Gullett, B. K. , P. Lemieux, C . Winterrowd, D . Winters. 2000. PC DD/F Emissions from Uncontrolled,

Domestic Waste Burning. Presented at Dioxin ’00, 20th International Symposium on Halogenated and
Environmental Organic Pollutants & POPs, held Aug 13-17 at Monterey, CA. Corrected revision of short
paper in Organohalogen Compounds 46: 193-196.
3-3
Table 3.1-6 Unit Non-Metal Emissions from Open Burning of Waste

Total
Carbon
Unit Non-Metal Emissions (kg/ton)
City Emissions
(MTCE/yr)
PM SOx NOx CO CO2 CH4 Carbon
Kathmandu 7.94 0.50 2.98 42.16 184.76 6.45 0.09
Conakry 7.92 0.50 2.97 42.08 127.80 6.44 0.08
Lahore 7.92 0.50 2.97 42.08 207.38 6.44 0.10
Sarajevo 7.95 0.50 2.98 42.23 121.84 6.46 0.07
Amman 7.94 0.50 2.98 42.19 374.95 6.45 0.14
Buenos Aires 7.94 0.50 2.98 42.20 318.40 6.45 0.13
Shanghai 7.92 0.49 2.97 42.06 455.06 6.43 0.17
Kawasaki 7.93 0.50 2.97 42.12 240.99 6.44 0.11
Atlanta 7.88 0.49 2.96 41.89 406.05 6.41 0.15
Table 3.1-7 Annual Non-Metal Emissions from Open Burning of Waste

Total
Carbon
Unit Non-Metal Emissions (lb pollutant/year)
City Emissions
(MTCE/yr)
PM SOx NOx CO CO2 CH4 Carbon
Kathmandu 1,272,306 79,519 477,115 6,759,124 29,618,537 1,033,748 14,709
Conakry 743,515 46,470 278,818 3,949,925 11,997,781 604,106 7,133
Lahore 10,522,512 657,657 3,945,942 55,900,845 275,531,539 8,549,541 130,075
Sarajevo 1,376,330 86,021 516,124 7,311,755 21,093,032 1,118,268 12,896
Amman 6,220,246 388,765 2,332,592 33,045,055 293,694,361 5,053,950 112,930
Buenos Aires 29,722,406 1,857,650 11,145,902 157,900,284 1,191,484,239 24,149,455 481,246
Shanghai 47,645,928 2,977,871 17,867,223 253,118,993 2,738,875,886 38,712,317 999,796
Kawasaki 4,143,514 258,970 1,553,818 22,012,416 125,944,770 3,366,605 56,027
Atlanta 6,256,433 391,027 2,346,162 33,237,299 322,206,706 5,083,352 120,971
Table 3.1-8 Dioxin/Furan Emissions from Open Burning of Waste

Unit Dioxin/Furan Annual Dioxin/Furan
City
Emissions (kg/ton) Emissions (kg/year)
Kathmandu 3.93E 6
Conakry 3.83E 4
Lahore 3.83E 51
Sarajevo 3.90E 7
Amman 3.85E 30
Buenos Aires 3.85E 144
Shanghai 3.83E 230
Kawasaki 3.87E 20
Atlanta 3.80E 30
3-4
3.2 Mixed Waste Collection and

Management Using One Primary
Technology
3.2.1 Simulation Scenario Results Using One Primary

Technology
This section of the report presents and explains the results of the waste management
simulation scenarios introduced in Section 2.2. These simulation scenarios correspond to
the Group 2 scenarios under Table 2.2.1 and Figure 2.2.2. They are hypothetical, meaning
that they are not a representation of the waste management situation in any of the cities in
this analysis, but are tailored to meet the objectives of this study. Special emphasis is made
on detailing these results since they will aid understanding the optimization scenario results
in Section 3.3. Each simulation scenario entails collecting and sending all MSW to one
waste management process:
• Recycling Using Manual Sorting
• Recycling Using Mechanical Sorting
• Mixed Waste Composting Using Manual Turning
• Mixed Waste Composting Using Mechanical Windrow Turner
• Incineration Without Energy Recovery
• Incineration With Energy Recovery
• Landfill With Gas Venting
• Landfill With Gas Collection And Flaring
• Landfill With Gas Collection And Energy Recovery
To the extent possible, the results are presented in graphical format with the cities
organized according to their present income level from lowest to highest. As discussed in
Section 2, energy consumption is used as a general indicator for key air pollutants including
CO, NOx, PM, and SOx. Carbon emissions are also presented due to their contribution to
the greenhouse effect.
When comparing the behavior of the simulation results across cities, it is usually helpful to
determine the process having the largest impact on the net total results and the parameters
governing the results for that process. For this purpose, Table 3.2.1 presents the key data
inputs by waste management process and summarizes their effects on the cost, energy and
emissions results. For example, according to Table 3.2.1 a recyclable price is a key input
parameter for its impact in the cost results. This parameter does not affect the cost results
from collection, composting, or landfill disposal, but it does play an important role in the
3-5
recycling and incineration results. High recyclable prices usually result in low net total costs
from recycling and incineration (ferrous material is recovered from incineration).
3-6
Table 3.2-1 Summary of the Significance of Key Input Parameters to the Scenario Results by Process*

Composting Using
Recycling Manual and Mechanical Incineration Landfill Disposal
Using Windrow Turning
Key Data Inputs
Collection Manual and With Gas With Gas
Without With
Mechanical Mechanical With Energy Collection Collection
Manual Energy Gas
Sorting Windrow Recovery and and Energy
Recovery Venting
Flaring Recovery
Net Total Cost
yes,
Recyclables prices no no yes (ferrous), High→Low no
High→Low
Compost prices no no yes, High→Low no no
yes,
Electricity price no no no no no
High→Low
yes, yes,
Electricity cost no yes, High→High yes, High→High yes, High→High
High→High High→High
yes, yes,
Diesel fuel cost no no no no
High→High High→High
Wage rates for yes, yes, Model default values were
yes, High→High yes, High→High
labor High→High High→High used for all cities
Collection vehicle yes,
no no no no
usable capacity High→Low
3-7
Multifamily yes,
no no no no
collection locations High→High
Incineration facility
capital and O & M no no no yes, High→High no
cost
Ash/LF capital and
no no no no yes, High→High
O & M cost
Net Total Energy Consumption
Percentage of
natural gas and yes, yes, yes, yes,
no yes, High→High yes, High→High
distillate oil in High→High High→High High→Low High→Low
electricity grid mix
no no no no
Final Report
Multifamily yes,
no no no no
Percentage of
remanufactured yes,
no no yes, High ferrous→High no
aluminum and High→Low
ferrous materials
yes, yes,
Waste heating value no no no no no
High→Low High→Low
Composting Using
Recycling Manual and Mechanical Incineration Landfill Disposal
Using Windrow Turning
Key Data Inputs
Collection Manual and With Gas With Gas
Without With
Mechanical Mechanical With Energy Collection Collection
Manual Energy Gas
Sorting Windrow Recovery and and Energy
Recovery Venting
Flaring Recovery
Net Total Emissions
Percentage of
residual oil and coal yes, yes, yes, yes,
no yes, High→High yes, High→High
in electricity grid High→High High→High High→Low High→Low
mix
no no no no
Multifamily yes,
no no no no
Percentage of
yes,
remanufactured no no yes, High ferrous→Low no
High→Low
metals and plastics
Compost residence
time and turning no no yes, High→High no no
frequency
Percentage of
3-8
landfill disposed
no no no no yes, High→High
food waste and
grass
Percentage of
incinerated and no no no yes, High→High no
metals
*yes/no: whether the input parameter contributes to the LCI Results (cost, energy, or emissions) from the corresponding process, High/Low: refers to
the relative magnitude of the input parameter, ÆHigh/Low: refers to the relative magnitude of the LCI result as a results of the relative magnitude of
the input parameter.
Final Report
3.2.2 Recycling Using Manual and Mechanical Sorting

There are a wide range of designs for MRFs. In this study, we focus on two basis design
variations: manual and mechanical sorting. The scenarios modeled assume mixed waste is
collected in a single-compartment vehicle and sent to a mixed waste MRF that uses either manual
sorting or one that uses mechanical sorting. Both the manual and mechanical sort design options
assume a materials separation efficiency2 of 55%. Results from these scenarios are recorded in
Figure 3.2-1 Net Total Cost by City (with Land Price) Figure 3.2-4 Net Total Cost by City (without
Land Price), Figure 3.2-7 Net Total Energy Consumption by City, and Figure 3.2-10 Net Total
Carbon Emissions by City. Each figure shows the results for the nine cities under analysis on a
per ton basis (i.e., the net total cost/energy/emissions divided by the amount of waste generated
in each city).
To aid the analysis, the recycling results were further broken down by processes (i.e., collection,
MRF, remanufacturing, landfill disposal, and transportation) dividing the net totals from each
process by the amount of waste managed by that process as shown in Figures 3.2-2, 3.2-3, 3.2-5,
3.2-6, 3.2-8, 3.2-9, 3.2-11 and 3.2-12. It should be noted that the values in the last figures cannot
be summed to obtain the Net Totals by City in Figures 3.2-1, 3.2-4, 3.2-7 and 3.2-10, since the
result of this sum will be on a per ton of waste as generated and not as managed by a mix of
different processes.
Table 3.2-2 indicates how much waste is available for recycling and how much waste goes to each
of the management processes. This table is sorted in descending order by percentage of material
sent to the remanufacturing process. Having a low recyclables recovery rate most of the waste in
the cities goes to the landfill rather than remanufacturing. The same recovery rate applies to the
manual and the mechanical MRFs. Therefore, there are not differences in the percentage of waste
going to the different processes between the manual and the mechanical designs.
Table 3.2-2 Percentage of Available Recyclables* and Flow to the Different Processes
Percentage of Available Waste Flow

Cities
Recyclables (a) Material Recovered (a x 55%) Residuals Disposed
Kawasaki 36.55% 20.10% 79.90%
Atlanta 32.39% 17.81% 82.19%
Buenos Aires 31.07% 17.08% 82.92%
Amman 29.17% 16.03% 83.97%
Shanghai 22.84% 12.56% 87.44%
Conakry 19.80% 10.89% 89.11%
Kathmandu 15.72% 8.65% 91.35%
Sarajevo 12.76% 7.02% 92.98%
Lahore 12.38% 6.80% 93.20%
2
The separation efficiency defines the amount of recyclables that get separated from the mixed waste and sent to a
remanufacturing facility. At both, the manual and the mechanical sorting MRF, corrugated cardboard and
newspaper are the only paper categories separated and sent to remanufacturing.
3-9
*Not including non-paper compostable items.
In general the cost results do not show a clear correlation with the cities socio-economic groups
defined by their income level (e.g. Kathmandu has the lowest income level and Atlanta has the
highest income level). Cost data inputs (e.g., capital, O&M, and energy costs, recyclables prices
and wage rates for labor at the MRF) were not available for all the cities. Therefore, cost variations
observed in the results among cities in the same socio-economic group may not accurately reflect
reality. Cost data availability varies among the different cities (see Table 2.52). For example,
Lahore is one a city that can be characterized as having poor data availability, while the city of
Atlanta can be characterized as having good data availability.
Energy results are highly dependent on the waste composition and electricity grid mix of each city.
For example, city with a higher percentage of metals available in its waste for recycling can also
have large energy savings according to Table 2.5-5. Similarly, a city that relies on a fossil-fuel
based electrical energy grid can have higher energy requirements than a city that relies on
renewable or alternative fuel based electrical energy (see Table 2.5-3).
Similar to the energy results, carbon emission results mainly depend on the waste composition
and the electricity grid mix of each city. For example, a large percentage of aluminum and plastic
recyclables will produce large emission savings according to Table 2.5-6 and a mostly residual oil
electricity grid mix will have the largest carbon emissions (see Table 2.5-4). The waste
composition of the residuals going to a landfill is also very important and greater amounts of food
waste and grass can produce greater amounts of landfill gas (see Table 2.5-7).
Cost variation by process design

Figures 3.2-1 and 3.2-4 show that there are very small differences in the cost per ton between a
manual and a mechanical design and any differences are due to costs at the MRF (see the
corresponding MRF values shown in Figures 3.2-2, 3.2-3, 3.2-5 and 3.2-6). MRFs using manual
sorting are consistently more expensive due to additional labor requirements.
Cost variation by city

Figures 3.2-2, 3.2-3, 3.2-5 and 3.2-6 show that the key drivers behind the differences across cities
are (1) the total cost per ton for landfill disposal using gas flaring, (2) the revenues obtained from
recyclables sales, and (3) the costs incurred at the MRF. Kawasaki is the city with the largest
collection cost and this can be attributed to having the highest wage rates for drivers and
collectors along with a low usable capacity in its collection vehicles.
Kawasaki is also the city with the highest overall cost (see Figure 3.2-1) mainly from having the
highest landfill capital (e.g., very high land prices) and electricity costs, very low recyclables prices,
and the highest wage rates for labor at the MRF. On the other hand Buenos Aires and Atlanta are
the cities with the lowest overall cost from having the highest recyclable prices. Cost variation
3-10
among the rest of the cities can be explained by looking at the total cost of landfill disposal and
the revenues from recyclables sale (see Figures 3.2-2, 3.2-3, 3.2-5 and 3.2-6).
3-11
with land price f or landf ill cost
350.0
298.1
295.8
300.0
250.0
200.0
150.0 110.6 118.0

114.9
107.4 86.6 88.0
3-12
100.0 83.6 84.8 66.9 74.9
72.0 71.4 66.7
66.0 64.7
Net Total Cost ($)/ metric ton

47.4
50.0
0.0
Katmandu Conakry Lahore Sarajevo Amman Buenos Shanghai Kawasaki Atlanta
Aires
Recycling Using Manual Sorting Recycling Using Mechanical Sorting

Final Report
Figure 3.2-1 Net Total Cost by City (with Land Price)

Recycling Using Manual Sorting (with Land Price)
250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
-50.0
-100.0
-150.0
3-13
Unit Cost ($)/ metric ton f or each process
-200.0
-250.0
Buenos
Katmandu Conakry Lahore Sarajevo Amman Shanghai Kawasaki Atlanta
Aires
Collection 33.819 33.841 29.868 27.000 27.581 27.743 27.839 56.109 35.721
MRF 28.796 13.610 34.043 15.284 19.328 29.194 48.036 71.621 34.789
Remanufacturing -65.755 -106.338 -180.510 -132.130 -124.925 -108.895 -83.413 -115.130 -196.669
LF 44.086 44.719 27.133 26.668 45.665 31.522 44.032 200.592 27.788
Transportation 1.785 1.741 1.821 1.816 1.640 1.620 1.708 1.561 1.606
Final Report
Figure 3.2-2 Unit Cost by City and Process (with Land Price: Manual MRF Design)
Recycling Using Mechanical Sorting (with Land Price)
250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
-50.0
-100.0
3-14
-150.0

-200.0
-250.0
Buenos
Aires
Collection 33.819 33.841 29.868 27.000 27.581 27.743 27.839 56.109 35.721
MRF 25.937 10.973 31.132 14.531 16.737 26.779 45.321 69.579 32.990
LF 44.086 44.719 27.133 26.668 45.665 31.522 44.032 200.592 27.788
Transportation 1.785 1.741 1.821 1.816 1.640 1.620 1.708 1.561 1.606
Final Report
Figure 3.2-3 Unit Cost by City and Process (with Land Price: Mechanican MRF Design)
without land price f or landf ill cost
350.0
300.0
250.0
200.0
148.3
146.0
150.0
110.1 105.8
106.9 85.3 102.8
81.9 74.0
100.0 82.3 78.7 65.1 65.9
64.2 54.2 71.3 63.9
3-15
51.3
50.0
0.0
Aires
Figure 3.2-4 Net Total Cost by City (without Land Price)

Final Report
Recycling Using Manual Sorting (without land price)
250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
-50.0
-100.0
-150.0
3-16
-200.0
-250.0
Buenos
Aires
Collection 33.819 33.841 29.868 27.000 27.581 27.743 27.839 56.109 35.721
MRF 28.796 13.610 34.043 15.284 19.328 29.194 48.036 71.621 34.789
LF 43.516 43.433 21.306 24.910 23.674 31.466 31.596 32.987 26.927
Transportation 1.785 1.741 1.821 1.816 1.640 1.620 1.708 1.561 1.606
Final Report
Figure 3.2-5 Unit Cost by City and Process (without Land Price: Manual MRF Design)
Recycling Using Mechanical Sorting (without land price)
250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
-50.0
-100.0
-150.0
3-17
-200.0
-250.0
Buenos
Aires
Collection 33.819 33.841 29.868 27.000 27.581 27.743 27.839 56.109 35.721
MRF 25.937 10.973 31.132 14.531 16.737 26.779 45.321 69.579 32.990
LF 43.516 43.433 21.306 24.910 23.674 31.466 31.596 32.987 26.927
Transportation 1.785 1.741 1.821 1.816 1.640 1.620 1.708 1.561 1.606
Final Report
Figure 3.2-6 Unit Cost by City and Process (without Land Price: Mechanican MRF Design)
Energy variation by process design

Consistent with the cost results, Figure 3.2-7 shows that there are very small differences in the
energy results between a manual and a mechanical design on a per ton basis and any differences
are due to the energy requirements at the MRF (see the corresponding MRF values shown in
Figures 3.2-8 and 3.2-9). As expected, MRFs using mechanical sorting have consistently higher
energy requirements from the use of equipment.
Energy variation by city

Figures 3.2-8 and 3.2-9 show that the key driver behind the differences across cities is the energy
savings from remanufacturing. Kawasaki is the city with the largest collection energy, mostly due
to the low usable capacity (half of the usable capacity of other cities’) in its collection vehicles,
which increases the energy requirements associated with the vehicles fuel production.
Atlanta and Kawasaki are the cities with the highest energy savings (see Figure 3.2-7) consistent
with having the highest amounts of recyclables sent to remanufacturing (see Table 3.2-2). The
net energy variation among the cities is due to specific energy savings from individual recyclables.
Table 3.2-3 shows the percentages of recyclables categories sent to remanufacturing in each of
the cities. This table is sorted by percentage of metals since these are the recyclables that
produce the highest energy savings. Then, Table 3.2-3 explains why Atlanta has higher energy
savings than Kawasaki despite of having lower percentage of recyclables going to
remanufacturing.
Table 3.2-3 Percentage of Recyclable Items Recovered for Remanufacturing by City
(Sorted by Percentage of Total Metals)
Organics Inorganics
Metals
Cities
Paper Plastics Glass Ferrous Aluminum
Total
materials materials
Atlanta 11.24% 1.37% 2.04% 2.39% 0.77% 3.16%
Kawasaki 9.45% 6.05% 2.68% 1.32% 0.60% 1.92%
Conakry 6.24% 2.62% 0.53% 1.50% 0.00% 1.50%
Buenos Aires 6.34% 6.67% 2.81% 0.73% 0.53% 1.26%
Lahore 1.30% 4.34% 0.67% 0.19% 0.29% 0.49%
Shanghai 2.29% 9.31% 0.76% 0.08% 0.12% 0.20%
Kathmandu 3.51% 3.78% 1.16% 0.19% 0.00% 0.19%
Amman 7.32% 7.65% 1.06% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Sarajevo 4.11% 2.90% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
3-18
0.0
-0.2 -0.15 Aires
-0.26 -0.17
-0.4 -0.27 -0.37
-0.40
-0.6 -0.52 -0.53
-0.55 -0.56
-0.8
-0.86
-1.0 -0.88
-1.09
-1.2 -1.11
-1.4
3-19
-1.6 -1.52
-1.55
-1.8
Energy Consumption (MKcal)/ metric ton

-1.87
-2.0 -1.88
Figure 3.2-7 Net Total Energy Consumption by City

Final Report
Recycling Using Manual Sorting
2.0
0.0
-2.0
-4.0
-6.0
-8.0
3-20
-10.0
Energy Consumption (MKcal)/ metric ton f or each process

-12.0
Buenos
Aires
Collection 0.042 0.042 0.036 0.033 0.033 0.034 0.034 0.072 0.045
MRF 0.018 0.026 0.028 0.022 0.037 0.030 0.035 0.033 0.025
LF 0.103 0.137 0.098 0.104 0.095 0.108 0.114 0.127 0.124
Transportation 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004
Final Report
Figure 3.2-8 Energy Consumption by City and Process (Manual MRF Design)
Recycling Using Mechanical Sorting
4.000
2.000
0.000
-2.000
-4.000
-6.000
3-21
-8.000
-10.000

-12.000
Buenos
Aires
Collection 0.042 0.042 0.036 0.033 0.033 0.034 0.034 0.072 0.045
MRF 0.026 0.047 0.053 0.035 0.067 0.050 0.061 0.055 0.041
LF 0.103 0.137 0.098 0.104 0.095 0.108 0.114 0.127 0.124
Transportation 1.785 1.741 1.821 1.816 1.640 1.620 1.708 1.561 1.606
Final Report
Figure 3.2-9 Energy Consumption by City and Process (Mechanical MRF Design)
Carbon emissions variation by process design

Of the three parameters reported (i.e., cost, energy, and carbon emissions), carbon emissions
exhibits the largest variation between the manual and mechanical design options. Cities such
Amman, Shanghai and Lahore show an order of magnitude difference between the emissions from
a manual and a mechanical design (see the corresponding MRF values shown in Figures 3.2-11
and 3.2-12), with the mechanical design having consistently higher values. The magnitude of the
difference can be explained by the emissions associated to the electricity grid mix in each of the
cities. For example, Kathmandu exhibits an almost zero difference in the emissions since most of
the electricity used at the MRF is hydro-electricity, is assumed to not have any associated GHG
emissions. Cities with hydro-electricity in their grid mix exhibit a smaller variation in the emissions
between the manual and the mechanical MRF than cities such Amman, Shanghai, and Lahore that
rely on more fossil-fuel based electricity grids.
Carbon emissions variation by city

Figures 3.2-11 and 3.2-12 show that the key drivers behind the differences across cities are (1)
the emission savings from remanufacturing and (2) the emissions at the landfill.
Buenos Aires is the city with the lowest overall emissions followed by Kawasaki, which is the city
with the highest percentage of remanufactured material. This behavior is consistent with the
amount of plastic and aluminum material remanufactured in each city. For example, according to
Table 3.2-4 Buenos Aires has a higher percentage of plastic material than Kawasaki. In addition,
Buenos Aires has a lower percentage of fossil fuels in its electricity grid mix when compared to
Kawasaki, so its pre-combustion emissions at the MRF are less than Kawasaki’s.
Table 3.2-4 Percentages of Remanufactured Recyclables by City
(Sorted by Total Aluminum and Plastic)
Organics Inorganics
Cities Total
Ferrous Aluminum
Paper Plastics Glass Aluminum and
materials materials
Plastics
Shanghai 2.29% 9.31% 0.76% 0.08% 0.12% 9.43%
Amman 7.32% 7.65% 1.06% 0.00% 0.00% 7.65%
Buenos Aires 6.34% 6.67% 2.81% 0.73% 0.53% 7.20%
Kawasaki 9.45% 6.05% 2.68% 1.32% 0.60% 6.65%
Lahore 1.30% 4.34% 0.67% 0.19% 0.29% 4.63%
Kathmandu 3.51% 3.78% 1.16% 0.19% 0.00% 3.78%
Sarajevo 4.11% 2.90% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.90%
Conakry 6.24% 2.62% 0.53% 1.50% 0.00% 2.62%
Atlanta 11.24% 1.37% 2.04% 2.39% 0.77% 2.14%
3-22
0.08
0.06 0.07
0.07
0.06 0.06
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.04 0.04
0.04
0.04 0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
3-23
0.01
0.00
Carbon Emissions (MTCE)/ metric ton

0.00 -0.001
-0.01 Aires
Figure 3.2-10 Net Total Carbon Emissions by City

Final Report
Recycling Using Manual Sorting
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
3-24
-0.4
Carbon Emissions (MTCE)/ metric ton f or each process

-0.5
Buenos
Aires
Collection 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001
MRF 0.001 0.005 0.006 0.003 0.009 0.004 0.009 0.006 0.003
LF 0.081 0.077 0.047 0.061 0.072 0.064 0.071 0.088 0.086
Transportation 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Final Report
Figure 3.2-11 Carbon Emissions by City and Process (Manual MRF Design)
Recycling Using Mechanical Sorting
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
3-25
-0.4

-0.5
Buenos
Aires
Collection 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001
MRF 0.001 0.010 0.013 0.005 0.018 0.007 0.018 0.010 0.006
LF 0.081 0.077 0.047 0.061 0.072 0.064 0.071 0.088 0.086
Transportation 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Final Report
Figure 3.2-12 Carbon Emissions by City and Process (Mechanical MRF Design)
On the other hand, Conakry is the city with the highest overall emissions and even higher than
Lahore, which is the city with the lowest percentage of recyclables being sent to remanufacturing.
From looking at Table 3.2-4 Conakry has smaller amounts of aluminum and plastic material than
Lahore, which begins to explain the differences in their overall emissions. Furthermore, Conakry
has a larger percentage of fossil fuels (primarily oil) in its electricity grid mix.
Kathmandu has higher emissions than Sarajevo despite of having a higher percentage of
aluminum and plastics and a hydro electricity grid mix. In this case, the emissions behavior is
explained by looking at the percentage and composition of the residuals being sent to the landfill.
Kathmandu has a higher percentage of landfill disposed residuals than Sarajevo and most of them
are food waste, which have the highest landfill gas generation rate.
3-26
3.2.3 Mixed Waste Composting Using Manual Turning and

Mechanical Windrow Turner
Two types of designs are considered for the composting scenarios: composting using manual pile
turning and composting using a mechanical pile turner (i.e., a windrow turner). For these
composting scenarios, mixed waste collected and sent to either a manual turning or a mechanical
turner design. The overall results are recorded in Figure 3.2-13 Net Total Cost by City (with Land
Price), Figure 3.2-16 Net Total Cost by City (without Land Price), Figure 3.219 Net Total Energy
Consumption by City, and Figure 3.2-22 Net Total Carbon Emissions by City. Each figure shows
the results for the nine cities under analysis on a per ton basis (i.e., the net total
cost/energy/emissions divided by the amount of waste generated in each city).
To aid the analysis, the composting results were further broken down by processes (i.e., collection,
composting, landfill disposal and transportation) dividing the net totals from each process by the
amount of waste managed by that process as presented in Figures 3.2-14, 3.2-15, 3.2-17, 3.2-18,
3.2-20, 3.2-21 and 3.2-22. It should be noted that the values in the last figures cannot be summed
to obtain the Net Totals by City in Figures 3.2-13, 3.2-16, 3.2-19 and 3.2-22, since the result of
this sum will be on a per ton of waste as generated and not as managed by a mix of different
processes.
For the composting scenarios, there is no product (e.g., fertilizer) that the compost product is
assumed to displace because it is difficult to determine what exactly the compost product
displaces, if anything. If the compost product can be shown to reduce the consumption of another
product, then there would be an added environmental benefit associated with composting.
Table 3.2-5 indicates how much waste is available for composting and how much waste goes to
each of the management processes. By design these scenarios aim to composting all the
available organics. Therefore, the pre-screening inefficiencies of a conventional composting
process were avoided by setting the pre-trommel efficiencies to 100% (i.e., all the available
organics are separated and composted under these scenarios). Table 3.2-5 is sorted in
descending order by percentage of material being composted. There are not differences in the
percentage of waste going to the different processes between the manual and the mechanical
windrow turner design.
3-27
Table 3.2-5 Percentage of Compostable Organics and Waste Flow by City

(Sorted by Percent of Organics Composted)
Percentage of Waste Flow
Cities Organics Available for
Composting (a) Composting (a x 100%) Disposal
Kathmandu 81.68% 81.68% 18.32%
Kawasaki 71.70% 71.70% 28.30%
Shanghai 69.72% 69.77% 30.23%
Conakry 64.87% 64.87% 35.13%
Amman 62.06% 62.04% 37.96%
Buenos Aires 60.35% 60.35% 39.65%
Sarajevo 54.40% 54.44% 45.56%
Lahore 51.09% 51.11% 48.89%
Atlanta 47.98% 47.93% 52.07%
In general the composting cost results do not show a clear correlation with the cities socio-
economic groups defined by their income level (e.g. Kathmandu has the lowest income level and
Atlanta has the highest income level). Cost data inputs (e.g., landfill capital, O&M, and energy
costs) were not consistently found for all the cities. Therefore, cost variations observed in the
results among cities in the same socio-economic group may not accurately reflect reality.
Cost variation by process design
In Figures 3.2-14 and 3.2-15 (see the corresponding composting values) the costs for the
mechanical windrow turner design are consistently 20-30% higher than those for the manual
design. This range of variation mostly depends on each city’s diesel fuel price and electricity cost
affecting the results of the mechanical windrow turner design.
Differences in the net total cost across cities can be explained by (1) the total cost per ton for
disposal at a landfill using gas flaring and (2) net costs at the composting facility, which include
the revenues from compost sale. Kawasaki is the city with the largest collection cost due to having
the highest wage rates for drivers and collectors along with a low usable capacity in its collection
vehicles.
When looking at costs across cities, Kawasaki, Conakry, and Sarajevo have the highest overall
cost. This is primarily due to having the highest landfill capital (e.g., very high land price) and
electricity costs in the case of Kawasaki and Sarajevo and having the highest equipment and
maintenance costs in the case of Conakry. The overall costs for the other cities are very similar
and the net costs at the composting facility play a very important role. Differences in the net costs
from composting facilities across cities are due to differences in the overall cost of energy (i.e.,
diesel and electricity) and the revenues from compost sale.
3-28
200.0 185.6
180.0
160.0 147.1
140.0
115.5
120.0
101.6 99.3 102.3 100.8 101.1
92.7 94.6
100.0
81.7
76.9
80.0 72.2 71.0
63.6 63.3 65.6 66.3
60.0
3-29
40.0
20.0
0.0
Aires
Composting Using Manual Turning Composting Using Windrow Turner

Final Report
Composting Using Manual Turning (with Land Price)
250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
3-30
50.0

0.0
Buenos
Aires
Collection 34.362 34.384 30.347 27.434 28.024 28.188 28.286 57.009 36.294
Composting 13.875 23.556 21.368 17.079 18.224 17.966 18.076 17.866 17.943
LF 44.794 45.437 27.568 27.096 46.397 32.028 44.738 203.812 28.234
Transportation 0.453 0.618 0.494 0.491 0.561 0.661 0.413 1.159 1.348
Final Report
Figure 3.2-14 Unit Cost by City and Process (with Land Price: Manual Composting Design)
Composting Using Windrow Turner (with Land Price)
250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
3-31
50.0

0.0
Buenos
Aires
Collection 34.362 34.384 30.347 27.434 28.024 28.188 28.286 57.009 36.294
Compost 48.456 54.219 45.993 43.708 46.583 44.295 49.591 52.841 40.034
LF 44.794 45.437 27.568 27.096 46.397 32.028 44.738 203.812 28.234
Transportation 0.452 0.618 0.494 0.491 0.561 0.661 0.411 1.159 1.348
Final Report
Figure 3.2-15 Unit Cost by City and Process (with Land Price: Mechanical Composting Design)
200.0
180.0
160.0
140.0 132.6
115.0
120.0
101.4 100.6
96.1 92.9 94.6 96.6
100.0 91.8 94.0
81.2 76.4
80.0 69.0
63.4 62.4 61.6 65.6
62.1
60.0
3-32
40.0
20.0
0.0
Aires

Final Report
Composting Using Manual Sorting (without land price)
250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
3-33
50.0
0.0
Buenos
Aires
Collection 34.36 34.38 30.35 27.43 28.02 28.19 28.29 57.01 36.29
Composting 13.88 23.56 21.37 17.08 18.22 17.97 18.08 17.87 17.94
LF 44.21 44.13 21.65 25.31 24.05 31.97 32.10 33.52 27.36
Transportation 0.45 0.62 0.49 0.49 0.56 0.66 0.41 1.16 1.35
Final Report
Figure 3.2-17 Unit Cost by City and Process (without Land Price: Manual Composting Design)
Composting Using Windrow Turner (without land price)
250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
3-34
50.0

0.0
Buenos
Aires
Collection 34.36 34.38 30.35 27.43 28.02 28.19 28.29 57.01 36.29
Compost 48.46 54.22 45.99 43.71 46.58 44.29 49.59 52.84 40.03
LF 44.21 44.13 21.65 25.31 24.05 31.97 32.10 33.52 27.36
Transportation 0.45 0.62 0.49 0.49 0.56 0.66 0.41 1.16 1.35
Final Report
Figure 3.2-18 Unit Cost by City and Process (without Land Price: Mechanical Composting Design)
Energy variation by process design

Figures 3.2-20 and 3.2-21 (see the corresponding composting values) shows energy requirements
for the mechanical windrow turner design that are consistently 6-9% higher than those for the
manual design. This difference can be attributed to the avoided energy requirements from
equipment fuel (i.e., mostly diesel) consumption at the manual composting facility.

Composting energy consumption among cities does not exhibit as much variation as it did for the
recycling scenarios. From Figures 3.2-20 and 3.2-21, the energy requirements at the composting
facility are the main drivers behind the differences across cities. Kawasaki is the city with the
largest collection energy mostly due to the low usable capacity (half of the usable capacity of other
cities’) in its collection vehicles, which increases the energy requirements associated with vehicles
fuel production.
Consistent with the cost results Kawasaki is the city with the highest overall energy consumption
followed closely by Lahore and Conakry. Kawasaki’s energy results can be explained by having
the highest collection energy demand, a moderately high composting energy demand, and the
second highest (after Atlanta) landfill energy demand. By having one of the highest percentages of
organics Kawasaki’s energy requirements at the composting facility will be high and the
combustion and pre-combustion energy from an electricity grid mix with a large amount of natural
gas will also be high (i.e., according to Table 2.5-3, natural gas is the fuel with the highest ratio
BTU per kWh of electricity delivered).
3-35
0.9
0.817
0.8 0.732 0.765
0.708 0.709 0.704
0.678 0.679
0.7
0.653 0.653 0.641 0.657

0.624
0.591
0.6 0.549
0.503
0.5 0.445
0.407
0.4
0.3
0.2
3-36
0.1

0.0
Aires
Figure 3.2-19 Net Total Energy Comsumption by City

Final Report
Composting Using Manual Turning
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
3-37
0.04
0.02

0.00
Buenos
Aires
Collection 0.042 0.042 0.037 0.033 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.073 0.046
Compost 0.026 0.066 0.062 0.028 0.070 0.053 0.071 0.062 0.031
LF 0.109 0.108 0.108 0.111 0.111 0.113 0.115 0.123 0.131
Transportation 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.005 0.006
Final Report
Figure 3.2-20 Energy Comsumption by City and Process (Manual Composting Design)
Composting Using Windrow Turner
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
3-38
0.02

0.00
Buenos
Aires
Collection 0.042 0.042 0.037 0.033 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.073 0.046
Compost 0.035 0.078 0.074 0.039 0.083 0.064 0.084 0.073 0.041
LF 0.109 0.108 0.108 0.111 0.111 0.113 0.115 0.123 0.131
Transportation 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.005 0.006
Final Report
Figure 3.2-21 Energy Comsumption by City and Process (Mechanical Composting Design)
Carbon emissions variation by process design

Figures 3.2-22, 3.2-23 and 3.2-24 show that in general the differences in the carbon emissions
between the manual and the mechanical windrow design are very small ranging from
approximately 10E-6 to 10E-3.

Figures 3.2-23 and 3.2-24 show that the key drivers behind the differences across cities are: (1)
landfill emissions and (2) composting facility emissions. Atlanta has the highest overall emissions
from having the highest amount of material disposed at a landfill (see Table 3.2-5) and using an
electricity grid mix that includes a high percentage of fossil fuels.
3-39
0.04
0.034
0.04 0.033
0.03
0.024
0.03
0.022
0.02 0.017
0.016 0.015
0.02 0.013
0.010
0.009 0.009 0.010
0.01 0.008
0.008 0.008
3-40
0.006 0.007
0.005
0.01

0.00
Aires

Final Report
Composting Using Manual Turning
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
3-41
0.01

0.00
Buenos
Aires
Collection 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001
Compost 0.000 0.005 0.005 0.002 0.005 0.003 0.006 0.004 0.002
LF 0.034 0.039 0.018 0.009 0.016 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.051
Transportation 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001
Final Report
Figure 3.2-23 Carbon Emissions by City and Process (Manual Composting Design)
Composting Using Windrow Turner
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
3-42
0.01

0.00
Buenos
Aires
Collection 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001
Compost 0.001 0.007 0.006 0.003 0.006 0.004 0.007 0.005 0.003
LF 0.034 0.039 0.018 0.009 0.016 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.051
Transportation 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001
Final Report
Figure 3.2-24 Carbon Emissions by City and Process (Mechanical Composting Design)
3.2.4 Incineration Without and With Energy Recovery

The modeled incineration facility is assumed to be modern mass burn combustor with an assumed
plant heat rate of 17,500 BTU/kWh, 70% ferrous recovery rate from ash, and conforms to EU
incinerator emission standards. The incineration scenarios consist of sending all the mixed waste
collected to an incineration facility. Two variations are analyzed: (1) without energy recovery and
(2) with energy recovery, both with ferrous recovery. The overall results are recorded in Figure
3.2-25 Net Total Cost by City (with Land Price), Figure 3.2-26 Net Total Cost by City (without Land
Price), Figure 3.2-27 Net Total Energy Consumption by City, and Figure 3.2 Net Total Carbon
Emissions by City. Because most of the cost, energy, and emissions are related to the
combustion process (see percentages of waste going to the combustion process vs. other
processes in Table 3.2-6), the results were not further broken down by process.
Table 3.2-6 presents the total heating value of the waste in each of the cities, which in
combination with the percentage of ferrous material recovered (i.e., waste sent to
remanufacturing) from the waste stream are going to define the energy life cycle assessment
results.
Table 3.2-6 Percentage of Waste Going to the Different Processes
(Sorted by Average Heat Content)
Heating Content
Cities Combustion Remanufacturing Disposal of Waste Stream
(kcal/kg, dry-base)
Atlanta 79.33% 3.04% 17.63% 7,643

Kawasaki 82.22% 1.68% 16.10% 6,289
Amman 89.11% 0.00% 10.89% 6,007
Buenos Aires 85.90% 0.93% 13.17% 5,862
Shanghai 76.44% 0.10% 10.88% 5,834
Lahore 80.96% 0.25% 18.80% 5,080
Sarajevo 71.52% 0.00% 28.48% 4,787
Conakry 83.08% 1.91% 15.01% 4,356
Kathmandu 90.66% 0.25% 8.91% 874
For incineration without energy recovery the costs results will depend on the capital, O&M, and
energy costs for the combustion process in each city. Because this data were not consistently
found, then the costs variations observed in the results among cities may not accurately reflect
reality. For incineration with energy recovery each city receives revenues from electricity sales,
which will vary according to the sale price, and revenues from ferrous recovery that will depend on
the percentage of ferrous in the system and the ferrous material sale price.
The energy results for incineration without energy recovery will vary according to the energy
savings from ferrous recovery and in general, according to the combustion and pre-combustion
energy associated with the production of the fuels in each city’s electricity grid mix. For
3-43
incineration with energy recovery the initial energy requirements are offset by the energy produced
and the energy savings from ferrous recovery.
The carbon emission results from the incineration scenario without energy recovery will mainly
depend on (1) the fuels in electricity grid mix of each city and their associated combustion and
pre-combustion emissions (e.g., fossil fuels generated energy has higher emissions than nuclear
generated energy) and (2) the percentage of plastics in the waste being burned. For the scenario
with energy recovery, there will be emissions offsets from the energy produced and the ferrous
material recovered.

Figures 3.2-25 and 3.2-26 shows that Kawasaki is the city with the highest overall cost resulting
from having the highest capital, O&M, and energy costs at the incineration facility. On the other
hand Shanghai has the lowest costs from having the lowest capital and O&M costs.
3-44
900.0
813.5
800.0 754.5
700.0
600.0
500.0
400.0
300.0
3-45
148.5 149.8

146.4 145.1 143.4 143.0 151.6
200.0
131.2 144.7 131.8 125.2 131.4 124.6 129.4
110.4
86.5
100.0
0.0
Aires
Incineration Incineration With Energy Recovery
Figure 3.2-25 Net Total Cost by City (with Land price)

Final Report
900.0
802.0
800.0
742.9
700.0
600.0
500.0
400.0
300.0
148.4 149.7 145.9 144.9 143.0
3-46
200.0 144.7 142.4 151.6
131.1 131.3 125.0 131.4 124.0 129.3
109.4
86.3
100.0
0.0
Aires
Figure 3.2-26 Net Total Cost by City (without Land price)

Final Report
In Figure 3.2-27 the key drivers behind the differences among the cities are (1) the heating value
of the waste in each of the cities, (2) the electricity grid mix displaced by the energy recovered and
(3) the energy savings from ferrous recovery. For example, Atlanta is the city with the highest
waste heating value and amount of ferrous materials in the waste stream, which explain why it has
the highest energy savings from the incineration scenarios. On the other hand, Sarajevo and
Amman do not have any ferrous material in their waste stream and they are not showing any
energy savings from the incineration scenario without energy recovery.
3-47
0.5
0.06 0.05 0.00
0.0
-0.06 -0.06 Aires
-0.5 -0.39
-0.50
-0.70
-0.84
-1.0
-0.98
-1.5 -1.37
-1.75
-2.0
-2.05 -2.11
3-48
-2.26
-2.5
-2.51
-2.61

-3.0
-3.00
-3.5

Final Report

Figure 3.2-28 offers an interesting picture of the carbon emissions from the incineration scenarios
in all the cities. Different from previous figures there is much more variation in the emissions
across cities. In the case of incineration with energy recovery this variation depends on each city’s
potential to offset electricity generation emissions from the utility sector, the amount of plastics
burned, and the emission savings from ferrous material recovery and recycling.
For example, Kathmandu does not have overall carbon emission offsets from incineration with
energy recovery since 90% of its electricity is hydroelectricity with assumed zero carbon emissions.
Contrary, Conakry has the highest emissions savings from having the lowest amount of plastics,
the highest amounts of ferrous, and offsetting energy from an electricity grid with ~75% residual oil,
which has the highest combustion and pre-combustion emissions.
Shanghai, which has the highest carbon emissions from incineration without energy recovery, also
has the highest amount of plastics and among the smallest amounts of ferrous material. This
city’s percentage of plastics is very similar to Atlanta, which also has high carbon emissions from
incineration without energy recovery. For the scenario with energy recovery Shanghai perceives
higher emission offsets than Atlanta from having an electricity grid mix richer in fossil fuels. Table
3.2-7 presents the percentage of each waste category being incinerated.
Table 3.2-7 Percentage of Each Waste Category Incinerated by City

(Sorted by Percentage of Plastics)
Organics Inorganics
Miscella
Cities Yard Food Plastics Ferrous Aluminum
Paper Total Glass Total neous
waste waste * materials materials
Shanghai 1.37% 57.49% 6.11% 64.97% 15.48% 0.03% 0.10% 0.11% 15.72% 8.43%
Atlanta 4.67% 11.16% 27.81% 43.64% 13.21% 0.08% 3.05% 0.06% 16.39% 22.34%
Amman 1.84% 41.18% 15.57% 58.59% 13.06% 0.04% 0.00% 0.00% 13.10% 17.42%
Buenos Aires 4.49% 34.16% 18.26% 56.91% 11.39% 0.11% 0.93% 0.04% 12.47% 17.46%
Kawasaki 3.13% 34.35% 29.24% 66.72% 10.33% 0.11% 1.68% 0.04% 12.16% 5.03%
Lahore 16.29% 28.77% 10.51% 55.57% 7.41% 0.03% 0.25% 0.02% 7.70% 17.93%
Kathmandu 2.50% 65.81% 7.71% 76.03% 6.45% 0.05% 0.25% 0.00% 6.74% 8.31%
Sarajevo 0.83% 37.14% 13.48% 51.46% 4.96% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.96% 15.10%
Conakry 7.35% 39.64% 14.66% 61.65% 4.47% 0.02% 1.91% 0.00% 6.40% 16.94%
*The plastics non-recyclables were added to the plastics here.
3-49
0.20
0.14
0.15
0.12 0.12
0.10
0.10
0.07
0.06 0.06 0.07
0.04 0.04
0.05
0.01 0.00
0.00
Aires
-0.05
-0.05
3-50
-0.06 -0.06 -0.07
-0.08

-0.10 -0.09
-0.15

Final Report
3.2.5 Landfill with Gas Venting, Gas Collection and Flaring,

and Gas Collection and Energy Recovery
The modeled landfill is assumed to be a modern U.S. EPA Subtitle D type landfill with a liner and
leachate collection and treatment system. The scenarios modeled consist of collecting and
sending all waste to a landfill, with three types of landfill gas management practices being
analyzed: (1) venting, (2) flaring, and (3) energy recovery. For scenarios that include gas
management a 70% gas collection efficiency is assumed. For all scenarios, a 100-year time
period is used for calculating landfill gas generation and emissions.
The overall results were recorded in Figure 3.2-29 Net Total Cost by City (with Land Price), Figure
3.2-30 Net Total Cost by City (without Land Price), Figure 3.2-31 Net Total Energy Consumption
by City, and Figure 3.2-32 Net Total Carbon Emissions by City. The same was done sending all
the mixed waste to a landfill with gas collection and flaring and to one with gas collection and
energy recovery.
Cost variation by landfill type and city

The cost variations across different landfills observed in Figures 3.2-29 and 3.2-30 are due to the
additional equipment cost for gas collection and flaring and for gas collection and energy recovery
and the revenues from energy sale in the energy recovery scenario.
Across cities the differences are due (1) the capital, O&M, and energy costs and (2) the revenues
from energy sale, which are going to depend on the composition of the waste (i.e., food waste and
grass have the highest decay rate- methane gas yield and consequently the highest potential for
energy recovery) and the energy sale price. In some cases the collection costs play an important
role (e.g., Kathmandu, Buenos Aires, Atlanta, and Lahore) and this can be observed in the cost
break downs by processes presented in Table 3.2-8. It should be noted that all the three landfill
types have the same cost breakdown by process.
Table 3.2-8 Percentage of Cost Attributed to the Different Landfill Scenario Processes
(Sorted by Disposal Cost)
Cities Collection Disposal
Sarajevo 18% 82%
Conakry 19% 81%
Kawasaki 22% 78%
Amman 38% 62%
Shanghai 39% 61%
Kathmandu 44% 56%
Buenos Aires 47% 53%
Atlanta 57% 43%
Lahore 58% 42%
3-51
Kawasaki has the highest costs as a result of having the highest electricity cost and landfill land
price. This city and Shanghai also present the highest revenues from energy recovery due to
having the highest energy sale prices and very high percent of methane/energy generating
materials (i.e., most of Shanghai’s waste is food waste). Amman and Shanghai have almost the
same cost for landfill venting and flaring and this is due to very similar capital, O&M, and energy
costs. For example, Amman has higher land prices but a lower utility rate than Shanghai. Even
thought Shanghai has much more organics in its waste stream than Amman, the revenues
perceived from electricity sale are very similar since Amman is offsetting a mostly natural gas
electricity grid mix, which has the highest ratio BTU per kWh of electricity delivered.
Kathmandu has similar landfill venting and flaring costs to Amman and Shanghai even thought its
landfill capital, O&M, and energy costs are much lower than either of these two countries.
However, according to Table 3.2-8 collection constitutes a much higher percentage of the net total
costs and Kathmandu’s diesel fuel prices are much higher than Amman and Shanghai’s. On the
other hand, Lahore has the lowest overall costs and most of them can be attributed to collection.
Then, Lahore’s low diesel fuel prices explain its low overall costs.
3-52
350.0
293.0
300.0 287.2
265.1
250.0
200.0
150.0
88.8 89.6 83.7 81.9 72.1

100.0 87.1 87.8 87.8 85.2 82.1 67.8
3-53
65.0 61.4 80.3

63.7 66.4 64.2 58.8
70.7 65.4
54.5 60.2 49.9 59.0
50.0
0.0
Aires
Landfill With Gas Venting
Landfill With Gas Collection And Flaring
Landfill With Gas Collection And Energy Recovery

Final Report
350.0
300.0
250.0
200.0
150.0
101.7
88.2 88.1 99.7
100.0 86.4 87.2 86.4 67.7 71.1
83.7 67.7
3-54
58.3 59.4 58.6 66.4 64.2 66.4 73.7 69.7

57.2 58.2 57.4 64.4
47.9 47.9 44.6
50.0 33.8
0.0
Aires


Final Report
Energy variation by landfill type and city

The energy requirements for the landfill with gas venting and the landfill with gas flaring exhibit
very little variation across cities (see Figure 3.2-31). Kawasaki has the highest energy
requirements mostly attributed to collection (see Table 3.2-9). Then, Kawasaki’s low vehicle
usable capacity (half of the usable capacity of other cities’) in combination with a moderately high
BTU per kWh electricity produced explains its high overall energy requirements.
Variation in the energy offsets from the landfill with energy recovery can be explained by the
electricity grid mix in each city and the corresponding energy requirements that are being offset.
For example, Amman, the city with the highest energy offsets, has an electricity grid mix with
about 95% natural gas, which is the fuel with the highest ratio BTUs consumed per kWh of
electricity produced. Therefore, for every BTU of energy recovered the energy savings from
Amman’s electricity grid mix are much higher than other cities with a different grid mix. Contrary,
90% of Kathmandu’s electricity is hydro-electricity, which has the lowest ratio BTU per kWh of
electricity produced.
Table 3.2-9 Percentage of Energy Attributed to the Different Landfill Scenario Processes
(Sorted by Disposal Energy Consumption)
Cities Collection Disposal
Shanghai 22% 78%
Conakry 23% 77%
Buenos Aires 23% 77%
Sarajevo 23% 77%
Amman 25% 75%
Lahore 26% 74%
Atlanta 26% 74%
Kathmandu 28% 72%
Kawasaki 36% 64%
3-55
0.3
0.23
0.21 0.23 0.19
0.16 0.21 0.17 0.19
0.2 0.15 0.16 0.15 0.16
0.16 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.17
0.15
0.1
0.0
-0.02 Aires
-0.1
-0.14
-0.2 -0.17
-0.20
-0.22
3-56
-0.3 -0.27
-0.33 -0.33

-0.4
-0.46
-0.5

Final Report
Carbon emissions variation by landfill type and city

The carbon emission variations across cities from the scenarios with gas venting and gas flaring
that can be observed in Figure 3.2-32 are explained by (1) each city’s waste composition which
governs the methane gas production and (2) the emissions associated with each city’s grid mix.
For example, Kathmandu’s landfill venting scenario has the highest carbon emissions explained
by 60% of its MSW stream consisting of food waste (this is the waste category with the highest
methane generation rate). Atlanta’s landfill flaring scenario has the highest carbon emissions even
though its energy requirements are lower than other cities such Kawasaki. However, when
compared with Kawasaki, Atlanta has a larger amount of fossil fuels in its electricity grid mix.
Emission variations in the results from the energy recovery scenario are due to both the waste
composition governing the methane gas production and the electricity grid mix governing the
emission offsets. For example, Kathmandu’s has the highest emissions from this scenario
because it has the largest amount of food waste and the lowest carbon offsets from a 90%
hydroelectricity grid. Shanghai has the lowest emissions by having the highest carbon offsets in an
electricity grid mix rich in fossil fuels.
3-57
0.35
0.29
0.30 0.28 0.28 0.28
0.26
0.25 0.24
0.22
0.21
0.20 0.19
0.15
0.09 0.10 0.10
0.10 0.09 0.09 0.08
0.07 0.07 0.08
3-58
0.07 0.06
0.06
0.05
0.04 0.04
0.05

0.03 0.03 0.03
0.00
Aires

Final Report
3.3 Optimization Scenario Results

In addition to the simulation-type scenarios analyzed in Section 3.2, a number of optimization-type
scenarios were analyzed. Under the optimization scenarios RTI’s MSW DST identifies and selects
the waste management strategy that best meets the defined optimization goal. For example, in
solving for an optimization goal of minimizing energy consumption, the MSW DST will identify the
waste management strategy that achieves the lowest net energy consumption, which is a function
of the total process energy consumption less energy production from waste.
Four optimization scenarios are analyzed for each city including:
• Group 3—maximizing materials recovery (via recycling and composting)
• Group 4—maximizing energy recovery
• Group 5—minimize carbon (global warming) emissions and,
minimize PM (global dimming) emissions.
For each optimization scenario, different variations for collection and process design and
operations were considered to assess their impact on the results. The variations analyzed
include:
• Daily and biweekly collection.
• Low and high percent capture of recyclables:
o low capture is defined by 50% participation factor3 and 50% capture rate4
o high capture is defined by 75% participation factor and 75% capture rate.
• Recycling and composting using manual sorting and pile turning, respectively.
• Recycling and composting using mechanical sorting and pile turning, respectively.
Table 3.3.1 presents the waste management processes that were selected according to each
scenario’s optimization goal. As shown in the table, similar strategies were generally selected by
scenario for each city.
The lessons learned from Section 3.2 where the simulation results were presented will be very
useful understanding the optimization results. For example, Table 3.2.1 Summary Contribution of
Key Input Parameters to Results by Process can be used to understand the optimization results
once the main (those managing most of the waste in the system) waste management processes
have been identified.
3 The participation factor indicates the average percentage of households within a region in a source segregated
recyclables collection program.
4 The capture rate is the fraction of recyclable material removed by households from the waste and put in the
recyclables collection bin.
3-59
Table 3.3-1 Waste Management Processes Selected by the MSW DST for Each Optimization Scenario
Non
Scenario Segregated Recycling3 Composting4 Incineration5
Variations 1 Collection2 Disposal6
Collection
OPTIMIZATION SCENARIOS
Daily -
High X X X X
Capture
Daily -
Low X X X X
Capture
Manual Sorting MRF
Biweekly
and Manual Turning
Collection
Composting X X X X
- High
Capture
Biweekly
Collection
X X X X
- Low
Group 3- maximizing
Capture
materials recovery (via
recycling and
Daily -
composting)
3-60
High X X X X
Capture
Daily -
Low X X X X
Mechanical Sorting
Capture
MRF and
Biweekly
Mechanical/
Collection
Windrow Turner X X X X
- High
Composting
Capture
Biweekly
Collection
X X X X
- Low
Capture
Final Report
Non
Variations Collection2 Disposal6
Collection1
Daily -
8
High X X X X X
Capture
Daily -
8
Low X X X X X
Capture
7
Group 4- maximizing energy recovery
Biweekly X8
Collection
X X X X
- High
Capture
Biweekly X8
Collection
X X X X
- Low
Capture
Daily - X8
9
High X X X X
3-61
Capture
8
Daily - X
Low X9 X X X
Capture
Minimize carbon X8
(global warming) Biweekly X8
emissions Collection
X9 X X X
- High
Group 5- Optimize Capture
Reduction of Global
Biweekly X8
Warming and Dimming
Collection 9
Emissions7 X X X X
- Low
Capture
Daily -
High X X X X
Minimize Particulate Capture
Final Report
Material (PM- global Daily -
dimming) emissions Low X X X X
Capture
Non
Variations Collection2 Disposal6
Collection1
Biweekly
Collection
X X X X
- High
Capture
Biweekly
Collection
X X X X
- Low
Capture
1
Non- segregated collection: mixed waste collection only.
2
Segregated collection: separate recyclables, organics, and residuals collection.
3
Recycling: Group 3 scenarios use a commingled MRF (Material Recovery Facility) and Group 4 and 5 scenarios use a mixed waste MRF with 55%
separation efficiency.
4
Composting: includes a mixed waste and a yard waste composting facility.
5
Incineration: includes a modern mass burn facility with 17,500 BTU/kWh heat rate and 70% ferrous recovery rate.
6
Landfill disposal: The default landfill (LF) is a conventional, modern (EPA Subtitle D type) LF, with 70% gas collection efficiency and gas flaring.
7
The selection of the waste management processes will vary from city to city. For example in some cities all the waste is collected through segregated
collection.
8
Ash LF
9
3-62
Conakry is the only city with non-segregated collection.
Final Report
3.3.1 Cost Results

Cost results are shown in Table 3.3-2 and illustrated in Figures 3.3-1 to 3.3-10. In general, we
found the most significant parameters affecting the cost results to include:
• MRF/ Composting/ Incineration/Landfill disposal costs
• Recyclables revenues
• Energy prices
• Labor prices
In addition, the optimization scenario cost results were found to exhibit the following general
trends:
• The combination manual MRF and composting is less expensive than mechanical MRF and
composting.
• Daily waste collection is typically more expensive than biweekly waste collection.
High recyclables capture is typically more expensive than low recyclables capture (due to cost of
recyclables collection being higher than mixed waste collection).
Variation by process design in the scenarios maximizing materials recovery

Figures 3.3-1, 3.3-2, 3.3-3 and 3.3-4 show the cost variation by MRF and composting process
design (i.e., manual and mechanical). Consistently in all the scenarios and settings, the net cost
for the manual design is lower than for the mechanical design. This is due to composting using
manual turning being significantly less expensive than using a windrow turner. If labor wages at
the composting facility increase, the margin of difference will decrease.
Variation by collection frequency

The waste collection frequency (daily vs. biweekly) does not change the overall amount or
composition of waste managed under each of the scenarios. Therefore, it is expected that daily
collection will be more costly than a biweekly collection and this is observed in the results for all
the cities (see Figures 3.3-1 to 3.3-10).
3-63
Table 3.3-2 Summary of Cost Variation by Scenario and Scenario Settings
Maximize Materials Recovery
Minimize Carbon (Global Minimize PM (Global Dimming )
(via recycling and Maximize Energy Recovery
Warming) Emissions Emissions
composting)
Criteri
Manual and Mechanical
a Daily Daily Biweekl Biweekl Daily Daily Biweekl Biweekl Daily Daily Biweekly Biweekl
Daily Daily Biweek Biweek
High Low y High y Low High Low y High y Low High Low High y Low
High Low ly High ly Low Cap. Cap. Cap. Cap. Cap. Cap. Cap. Cap. Cap. Cap. Cap. Cap.
Cap. Cap. Cap. Cap.
Cost Variation
By
Collection
Frequenc
More Less More Less More Less
y (See More expensive Less expensive
Figures expensive expensive expensive expensive expensive expensive
3.3.1 to
3.3.5)
By
Percent
Cap. of
Recyclable
s (See
More* Less* More* Less* More* Less* More* Less* More* Less* More* Less* More* Less* More* Less*
Figures
3.3.1 to
3.3.5)
3-64
Kawasaki: highest net cost due

to:
Kawasaki: highest net cost due to:
- Highest electricity cost
By city - Highest incineration cost (Highest capital and O & M costs)
- Among the lowest recycling
(See
revenues
Tables
3.3.3 to Shanghai: lowest net cost due
Atlanta: lowest net cost due to:
3.3.6) Atlanta and Buenos Aires: to:
- High incineration revenues (High waste heating content)
lowest net cost due to: - Highest recycling revenues
- Highest recycling revenues
- Highest recycling revenues (sale prices for all
recyclables )
* More: More expensive, Less: Less expensive
Final Repor
300
251.2
250
218.9
218.7
200
181.2
143.9
150 137.1
112.8
112.7
111.9
110.2
107.9
106.2
105.4
105.3
102.6
102.4
101.0
99.7
98.5
97.2
96.4
95.1
91.1
90.0
89.3
88.7
87.6
85.8
83.3
100
82.3
Cost ($)/ metric ton

75.5
75.2
73.7
71.0
55.3
3-65
50
11.9
0
Aires
DHC: Daily- High Capture Scenarios DLC: Daily- Low Capture Scenarios
BHC: Biweekly- High Capture Scenarios BLC: Biweekly- Low Capture Scenarios
Figure 3.3-1 Group 3: Maximizing Materials Recovery (Via Mechanical Recycling and Composting)- Net Total
Final Report
Cost by City (with Land Price)

300
265.7
233.2
250
224.5
186.8
200
162.1
145.6
144.0
143.3
136.4
150
124.1
118.6
124.9
111.1
115.1
108.7
107.4
107.1
105.7
104.4
101.0
101.0
100.1
98.4
97.7
97.0
95.8
93.4
89.8
88.4
88.2
88.0
86.6
100
80.4
75.5
74.9

70.8
3-66
50
0
Aires
Final Report
Cost by City (without Land Price)

300
280.6
254.7
248.1
250
217.0
200
176.4
169.5
150.3
146.9
143.9
142.6
142.5
142.4
141.4
140.1
139.1
137.5
134.6
134.2
150
131.2
131.2
130.6
129.0
127.8
126.4
126.1
124.3
120.9
119.5
119.0
117.8
116.4
115.9
110.9
105.7
103.9
96.9
100
3-67
50
0
Aires
Final Report
Cost by City (with Land Price)

350
295.1
300
262.6
260.3
250
222.6
191.8
184.2
200
175.7
175.3
168.9
165.1
163.6
158.1
149.6
147.2
144.3
143.2
141.9
140.7
138.9
137.4
133.9
150
128.6
127.5
127.4
127.2
124.9
122.5
121.3
119.7
118.2
116.9
115.7
113.5
112.7
105.5
96.7

100
3-68
50
0
Aires
Final Report
Cost by City (without Land Price)

1,800
1,585.9
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
694.6
800
658.0
625.5
600

400
3-69
166.8
152.0
159.2
145.2
142.5
142.5
141.9
142.3
141.1
141.2
139.7
138.8
132.4
132.0
131.1
130.3
118.2
110.5
108.1
108.2
107.5
107.3
107.3
107.3
107.0
106.7
105.1
104.6
103.8
100.6
99.2
200
52.8
0
Aires
Final Report
Figure 3.3-5 Group 4: Maximizing Energy Recovery- Net Total Cost by City (with Land Price)
1,800
1,585.9
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
694.6
800
658.0
625.5
600

400
3-70
166.8
159.2
152.0
145.2
142.5
142.5
142.3
141.9
141.2
141.1
139.7
138.8
132.4
132.0
131.1
130.3
118.2
110.5
108.1
108.2
107.5
107.3
107.3
107.3
107.0
106.7
105.1
104.6
103.8
100.6
99.2
200
52.8
0
Aires
Final Report
Figure 3.3-6 Group 4: Maximizing Energy Recovery- Net Total Cost by City (without Land Price)
800
748.6
748.2
715.7
710.8
700
600
500
400
300

205.7
198.8
191.6
182.4
178.1
175.2
174.1
169.8
164.4
160.0
158.5
158.1
156.5
154.9
200
153.0
151.7
150.3
149.6
149.4
149.1
148.4
148.0
143.2
141.7
139.6
132.1
127.0
126.0
124.7
122.7
120.3
116.9
3-71
100
0
Aires
Final Report
Figure 3.3-7 Group 5: Minimize Carbon (Global Warming) Emissions- Net Total Cost by City (with Land Price)
800
748.6
748.2
715.7
710.8
700
600
500
400
300

205.7
198.8
191.6
182.4
178.1
175.2
174.1
169.8
164.4
160.0
158.5
158.1
156.5
200
154.9
153.0
151.7
150.3
149.6
149.4
149.1
148.4
148.0
143.2
141.7
139.6
132.1
127.0
3-72
126.0
124.7
122.7
120.3
116.9
100
0
Aires
Final Report
Figure 3.3-8 Group 5: Minimize Carbon (Global Warming) Emissions- Net Total Cost by City (without Land Price)
800
708.9
697.4
671.2
664.9
700
600
500
400
300
204.6
197.8

180.7
170.6
167.4
162.9
157.9
157.6
155.7
154.9
200
146.9
145.6
141.2
141.1
140.1
138.8
134.8
133.4
132.0
126.5
123.0
115.5
112.1
111.6
110.1
109.9
107.6
105.4
103.9
104.0
96.9
3-73
89.4
100
0
Aires
Figure 3.3-9 Group 5: Minimize Particulate Material (PM- Global Dimming) Emissions- Net Total Cost by
Final Report
City(with Land Price)

800
708.9
697.4
671.2
664.9
700
600
500
400
300 204.6
197.8

180.7
170.6
167.4
162.9
157.9
157.6
155.7
154.9
200
146.9
145.6
141.1
141.2
140.1
138.8
134.8
133.4
132.0
126.5
123.0
115.5
112.1
111.6
110.1
109.9
107.6
105.4
104.0
103.9
96.9
3-74
89.4
100
0
Aires
Figure 3.3-10 Group 5: Minimize Particulate Material (PM- Global Dimming) Emissions- Net Total Cost by
Final Report
City(without Land Price)

Variation by percent capture of recyclables

Scenarios with high or low capture will vary in cost depending on the amount of waste going
to each of the selected management process (See Appendix 3.3.1. Optimization Scenarios
Mass Flows by City and Management Process). In general, we found that the higher
recyclables capture rate case is generally less expensive since it increases materials
recovery (and associated revenues) and reduces landfill disposal costs. However, this
behavior can be reversed by the lack of revenues/markets for recycling and/or a very low
landfill disposal cost. For example, the Group 3 low capture scenario results would be less
expensive than the high capture scenarios if composting and landfill disposal of additional
material were cheaper than recycling that material (i.e., higher MRF cost and lack of
significant revenues from the sale of recyclables).
A scenario with an optimization objective of minimizing energy will recover as much energy
as possible from either recycling and/or incineration. A tradeoff exists between energy saved
via recycling vs. incineration. For example, a city with low waste heating content and a high
amount of recyclables (e.g., metals and plastics) will have more energy recovered from
recycling. Therefore, for this city a scenario with high capture of recyclables will be less
expensive since the additional revenues from increased recycling will offset the additional
collection and MRF costs.
Cost variations among cities can be explained according to the process having the largest
effect on the overall results (e.g., recycling vs. incineration) and the input parameters
governing the results for that process. Tables 3.3-3 to 3.3-6 can be used to define the most
influential processes. The lessons learned from the analysis of the simulation scenarios
under Section 3.2 will aid determining the input parameters governing the results for those
processes. Cities with the highest and lowest cost results were chosen under Table 3.3-2 to
illustrate the cost variation. This table also provides explanations for the cost behavior of
these cities. For example, Kawasaki is the city with the highest costs for all the optimization
scenarios. For the Group 3 scenarios maximizing material recovery, the highest net costs
are mainly due to (1) having the highest electricity cost, which affects the cost for all
processes except collection and transportation, and (2) having the lowest recycling
revenues. For the other optimization scenarios the most influential process is incineration
with energy recovery, whose high net total cost is due to Kawasaki’s highest capital and
O&M costs.
3-75
Table 3.3-3 Group 3 Scenarios- Percentage of Net Total Cost Attributed to the Different Processes
Group 3: Maximizing Materials Recovery (Via Manual and Mechanical Recycling and Composting)
Daily- High Capture Daily - Low Capture Biweekly Collection - High Capture Biweekly Collection - Low Capture
Remanufacturing*
Remanufacturing*
Remanufacturing*
Remanufacturing*
Landfill Disposal
Landfill Disposal
Landfill Disposal
Landfill Disposal
Transportation
Transportation
Transportation
Transportation
City
Commingled
Commingled
Commingled
Commingled
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Collection
Collection
Collection
Collection
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Kathmandu
50.3% 4.7% 31.5% 5.9% 0.3% 7.4% 52.8% 2.1% 34.5% 6.8% 0.4% 3.3% 44.5% 5.2% 35.1% 6.6% 0.3% 8.2% 40.5% 2.7% 43.6% 8.6% 0.5% 4.1%
50.4% 4.7% 31.5% 5.8% 0.3% 7.4% 52.9% 2.1% 34.6% 6.8% 0.4% 3.3% 44.6% 5.2% 35.1% 6.5% 0.3% 8.2% 40.5% 2.7% 43.6% 8.5% 0.5% 4.1%
45.7% 3.3% 32.2% 10.3% 0.3% 41.6% 1.5% 44.4% 8.3% 0.5% 39.9% 3.6% 35.6% 11.4% 0.4% 33.8% 1.7% 50.4% 9.4% 0.6%
Conakry
8.2% 3.7% 9.1% 4.1%
45.9% 3.3% 32.3% 10.0% 0.3% 8.2% 41.7% 1.5% 44.5% 8.1% 0.5% 3.7% 40.1% 3.6% 35.8% 11.1% 0.4% 9.1% 33.9% 1.7% 50.5% 9.2% 0.6% 4.2%
41.1% 10.0% 31.3% 9.1% 0.4% 8.2% 39.3% 5.2% 40.4% 10.6% 0.5% 4.1% 37.3% 10.6% 33.3% 9.7% 0.4% 8.7% 33.9% 5.6% 43.9% 11.5% 0.5% 4.5%
Lahore
41.9% 10.2% 31.9% 7.3% 0.4% 8.4% 40.2% 5.3% 41.3% 8.5% 0.5% 4.2% 38.0% 10.8% 34.0% 7.8% 0.4% 8.9% 34.7% 5.8% 45.1% 9.3% 0.5% 4.6%
34.8% 16.1% 37.8% 2.5% 0.6% 33.6% 8.8% 48.9% 3.6% 0.8% 32.7% 16.7% 39.0% 2.5% 0.6% 30.5% 9.2% 51.1% 3.7% 0.9%
Sarajevo
8.2% 4.3% 8.5% 4.5%

3-76
34.8% 16.2% 37.9% 2.3% 0.6% 8.2% 33.7% 8.8% 49.0% 3.3% 0.8% 4.4% 32.7% 16.7% 39.1% 2.4% 0.6% 8.5% 30.6% 9.2% 51.3% 3.5% 0.9% 4.6%
47.2% 6.4% 29.9% 4.7% 0.4% 11.31% 42.3% 3.7% 36.3% 10.5% 0.5% 6.6% 45.3% 6.6% 31.0% 4.9% 0.4% 11.7% 39.2% 3.9% 38.2% 11.1% 0.5% 7.0%
Amman
48.3% 6.6% 30.6% 2.5% 0.4% 11.57% 44.6% 3.9% 38.2% 5.8% 0.5% 7.0% 46.4% 6.8% 31.7% 2.6% 0.4% 12.0% 41.4% 4.2% 40.4% 6.1% 0.6% 7.4%
40.2% 9.4% 20.8% 4.9% 0.3% 24.4% 37.9% 5.7% 35.6% 6.6% 0.5% 13.7% 38.3% 9.7% 21.4% 5.1% 0.3% 25.1% 34.8% 5.9% 37.4% 7.0% 0.5% 14.4%
Buenos
Aires
41.0% 9.6% 21.1% 3.2% 0.3% 24.8% 38.9% 5.8% 36.5% 4.3% 0.5% 14.0% 39.1% 9.9% 21.8% 3.3% 0.3% 25.6% 35.7% 6.1% 38.4% 4.5% 0.5% 14.7%
Shanghai
46.2% 16.1% 27.6% 4.8% 0.3% 5.0% 41.5% 9.3% 38.7% 7.2% 0.4% 2.9% 44.3% 16.7% 28.6% 4.9% 0.3% 5.2% 38.4% 9.9% 40.6% 7.5% 0.5% 3.1%
46.9% 16.3% 28.0% 3.5% 0.3% 5.1% 42.4% 9.5% 39.5% 5.2% 0.5% 2.9% 44.9% 16.9% 29.0% 3.6% 0.3% 5.3% 39.2% 10.1% 41.5% 5.5% 0.5% 3.2%
Kawasaki
50.2% 14.8% 13.8% 12.5% 0.3% 8.5% 47.9% 8.0% 19.8% 19.7% 0.4% 4.3% 44.9% 16.3% 15.2% 13.8% 0.3% 9.4% 39.7% 9.2% 22.9% 22.8% 0.5% 4.9%
56.0% 16.5% 15.4% 2.3% 0.3% 9.5% 57.3% 9.5% 23.7% 3.9% 0.5% 5.1% 50.8% 18.5% 17.2% 2.6% 0.3% 10.6% 49.0% 11.4% 28.3% 4.6% 0.6% 6.1%
Final Report
41.1% 9.4% 23.4% 3.1% 0.6% 22.3% 43.6% 5.2% 33.2% 4.8% 0.9% 12.3% 35.3% 10.4% 25.7% 3.4% 0.7% 24.5% 35.2% 6.0% 38.2% 5.5% 1.1% 14.1%
Atlanta
41.2% 9.5% 23.4% 3.0% 0.6% 22.3% 43.7% 5.2% 33.3% 4.6% 0.9% 12.3% 35.3% 10.4% 25.7% 3.3% 0.7% 24.6% 35.2% 6.0% 38.3% 5.3% 1.1% 14.1%
* Upper percentage includeo land price for landfill disposal cost. Lower are is without land price
* Net negative contributor to the net total cost. Remanufacturing includes recycling revenues.
Table 3.3-4 Group 4 Scenarios- Percentage of Net Total Cost Attributed to the Different Processes
Group 4: Maximizing Energy Recovery
Separation Separation Separation Separation
Incineration w/ER*
Incineration w/ER*
Incineration w/ER*
Incineration w/ER*
Remanufacturing*
Remanufacturing*
Remanufacturing*
Remanufacturing*
Landfill Disposal
Landfill Disposal
Landfill Disposal
Landfill Disposal
Transportation
Transportation
Transportation
Transportation
City
Collection
Collection
Collection
Collection
Mixed Waste
Mixed Waste
Mixed Waste
Mixed Waste
Commingled
Commingled
Commingled
Commingled
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Kathmandu
30.0% 15.3% 7.0% 36.4% 0.7% 1.2% 9.4% 27.1% 14.1% 1.6% 47.7% 0.4% 1.4% 7.6% 27.3% 15.9% 7.3% 37.8% 0.7% 1.3% 9.7% 23.8% 14.7% 1.6% 50.0% 0.6% 1.5% 7.9%
30.0% 15.3% 7.0% 36.4% 0.7% 1.2% 9.4% 27.1% 14.1% 1.6% 47.7% 0.4% 1.4% 7.6% 27.3% 15.9% 7.3% 37.8% 0.7% 1.3% 9.7% 23.8% 14.7% 1.6% 50.0% 0.6% 1.5% 7.9%
27.8% 5.7% 1.6% 53.2% 1.1% 1.5% 25.5% 6.2% 0.7% 56.9% 1.2% 1.7% 24.4% 6.0% 1.7% 55.7% 1.2% 1.6% 21.9% 6.5% 0.8% 59.7% 1.3% 1.7%
Conakry
9.0% 7.7% 9.5% 8.1%
27.8% 5.7% 1.6% 53.2% 1.1% 1.5% 9.0% 25.5% 6.2% 0.7% 56.9% 1.2% 1.7% 7.7% 24.4% 6.0% 1.7% 55.8% 1.1% 1.6% 9.5% 21.9% 6.5% 0.8% 59.7% 1.2% 1.7% 8.1%
23.3% 12.7% 2.3% 50.2% 1.7% 1.6% 8.2% 22.3% 12.8% 1.2% 53.2% 1.8% 1.7% 7.0% 22.9% 12.4% 2.6% 50.6% 1.7% 1.7% 8.1% 22.1% 12.7% 1.3% 53.3% 1.8% 1.8% 7.1%
Lahore
23.4% 12.7% 2.3% 50.3% 1.4% 1.6% 8.2% 22.4% 12.8% 1.2% 53.3% 1.5% 1.8% 7.1% 23.0% 12.5% 2.6% 50.7% 1.4% 1.7% 8.2% 22.1% 12.8% 1.3% 53.5% 1.5% 1.8% 7.1%
20.5% 14.1% 7.3% 45.4% 2.3% 1.6% 20.0% 14.2% 3.6% 50.8% 2.5% 1.8% 20.4% 13.7% 8.1% 45.1% 2.3% 1.6% 18.8% 14.4% 3.6% 51.6% 2.6% 1.9%
Sarajevo
8.8% 7.0% 8.9% 7.1%

3-77
20.6% 14.1% 7.3% 45.4% 2.2% 1.6% 8.8% 20.1% 14.2% 3.6% 50.9% 2.4% 1.8% 7.0% 20.4% 13.7% 8.1% 45.1% 2.2% 1.6% 8.9% 18.8% 14.4% 3.6% 51.7% 2.4% 1.9% 7.2%
27.0% 0.0% 0.9% 69.1% 2.2% 0.2% 0.7% 28.5% 0.0% 0.4% 68.3% 2.2% 0.2% 0.3% 27.0% 0.0% 0.9% 69.1% 2.2% 0.2% 0.7% 26.6% 0.0% 0.4% 70.2% 2.3% 0.2% 0.3%
Amman
27.2% 0.0% 1.0% 69.7% 1.3% 0.2% 0.7% 28.8% 0.0% 0.4% 68.9% 1.4% 0.2% 0.3% 27.2% 0.0% 1.0% 69.7% 1.3% 0.2% 0.7% 26.8% 0.0% 0.4% 70.9% 1.4% 0.2% 0.3%
21.7% 11.2% 3.7% 37.3% 0.5% 1.1% 24.5% 18.5% 11.2% 1.6% 44.5% 0.6% 1.3% 22.2% 19.1% 11.6% 3.8% 38.5% 0.5% 1.1% 25.3% 18.4% 11.1% 1.8% 44.4% 0.6% 1.3% 22.3%
Buenos
Aires
21.7% 11.2% 3.7% 37.3% 0.4% 1.1% 24.5% 18.5% 11.2% 1.6% 44.5% 0.6% 1.3% 22.2% 19.1% 11.6% 3.8% 38.5% 0.5% 1.1% 25.3% 18.4% 11.1% 1.8% 44.4% 0.6% 1.3% 22.3%
Shanghai
27.4% 20.5% 2.1% 41.0% 1.2% 2.2% 5.5% 28.1% 19.4% 1.2% 43.1% 1.3% 2.3% 4.5% 26.8% 20.4% 2.4% 41.3% 1.2% 2.2% 5.8% 26.1% 20.0% 1.3% 44.3% 1.3% 2.4% 4.6%
27.5% 20.5% 2.1% 41.2% 0.8% 2.2% 5.6% 28.3% 19.5% 1.2% 43.3% 0.9% 2.3% 4.5% 26.9% 20.4% 2.4% 41.5% 0.8% 2.2% 5.8% 26.3% 20.1% 1.3% 44.5% 0.9% 2.4% 4.6%
Kawasaki
12.0% 2.7% 1.6% 78.9% 0.9% 0.2% 3.6% 11.1% 3.5% 0.7% 81.0% 0.9% 0.3% 2.5% 8.9% 2.8% 1.7% 81.7% 0.9% 0.3% 3.8% 7.5% 3.6% 0.7% 84.3% 1.0% 0.3% 2.6%
12.1% 2.7% 1.7% 79.5% 0.1% 0.2% 3.7% 11.2% 3.5% 0.7% 81.7% 0.2% 0.3% 2.5% 9.0% 2.8% 1.7% 82.3% 0.2% 0.3% 3.8% 7.6% 3.7% 0.7% 85.0% 0.2% 0.3% 2.6%
29.5% 13.3% 5.6% 23.5% 0.6% 0.8% 26.6% 30.6% 13.7% 3.0% 29.5% 0.8% 1.0% 21.4% 23.8% 14.4% 6.0% 25.4% 0.6% 0.9% 28.8% 23.2% 15.2% 3.3% 32.6% 0.9% 1.2% 23.7%
Atlanta
29.5% 13.3% 5.6% 23.5% 0.6% 0.8% 26.6% 30.6% 13.7% 3.0% 29.5% 0.8% 1.0% 21.4% 23.8% 14.4% 6.0% 25.4% 0.6% 0.9% 28.8% 23.2% 15.2% 3.3% 32.6% 0.8% 1.2% 23.7%
Final Report
* Net negative contributor to the net total cost. Remanufacturing includes recycling revenues and incineration with energy recovery includes energy sale
revenues
Due to rounding zero values may actually be very small values.
Table 3.3-5 Group 5 (Carbon) Scenarios- Percentage of Net Total Cost Attributed to the Different Processes
Group 5: Minimizing Carbon (Global Warming) Emissions
Incineration w/ER*
Incineration w/ER*
Incineration w/ER*
Incineration w/ER*
Remanufacturing*
Remanufacturing*
Remanufacturing*
Remanufacturing*
Transportation
Transportation
Transportation
Transportation
City
Ash-Landfill
Ash-Landfill
Ash-Landfill
Ash-Landfill
Collection
Collection
Collection
Collection
Mixed Waste
Mixed Waste
Mixed Waste
Mixed Waste
Commingled
Commingled
Commingled
Commingled
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Kathmandu
28.5% 8.8% 6.6% 28.1% 0.3% 0.8% 26.9% 25.1% 10.8% 3.6% 36.4% 0.5% 1.1% 22.5% 26.7% 9.0% 6.8% 28.8% 0.3% 0.8% 27.5% 22.5% 11.2% 3.7% 37.7% 0.5% 1.6% 10.3%
28.5% 8.8% 6.6% 28.1% 0.3% 0.8% 26.9% 25.1% 10.8% 3.6% 36.4% 0.5% 1.1% 22.5% 26.7% 9.0% 6.8% 28.8% 0.3% 0.8% 27.5% 22.5% 11.2% 3.7% 37.7% 0.5% 1.6% 10.3%
28.5% 6.1% 1.8% 52.8% 1.1% 1.5% 26.1% 6.7% 0.8% 57.9% 1.2% 1.7% 27.8% 6.0% 2.0% 52.9% 1.1% 1.5% 25.7% 6.6% 0.9% 58.0% 1.2% 1.4%
Conakry
8.2% 5.6% 8.7% 17.5%
28.5% 6.1% 1.8% 52.8% 1.1% 1.5% 8.2% 26.1% 6.7% 0.8% 57.9% 1.2% 1.7% 5.6% 27.8% 6.0% 2.0% 53.0% 1.1% 1.5% 8.7% 25.7% 6.6% 0.9% 58.0% 1.2% 1.4% 17.5%
30.6% 13.1% 7.2% 35.9% 1.2% 1.1% 10.9% 28.0% 14.9% 3.6% 42.1% 1.4% 1.3% 8.7% 28.1% 13.6% 7.5% 37.3% 1.2% 1.2% 11.3% 23.6% 15.8% 3.8% 44.6% 1.5% 1.9% 4.8%
Lahore
30.6% 13.2% 7.2% 36.0% 1.0% 1.1% 10.9% 28.0% 14.9% 3.6% 42.2% 1.2% 1.3% 8.7% 28.1% 13.6% 7.5% 37.3% 1.1% 1.2% 11.3% 23.7% 15.8% 3.8% 44.7% 1.3% 1.9% 4.8%
3-78
26.1% 12.4% 5.5% 45.8% 2.2% 1.6% 24.5% 13.4% 2.7% 50.4% 2.4% 1.8% 23.9% 12.7% 5.7% 47.1% 2.3% 1.7% 21.7% 13.9% 2.8% 52.3% 2.5% 1.1%
Sarajevo
6.4% 4.7% 6.6% 23.3%
26.1% 12.4% 5.5% 45.8% 2.1% 1.6% 6.4% 24.6% 13.4% 2.7% 50.5% 2.3% 1.8% 4.7% 24.0% 12.7% 5.7% 47.2% 2.2% 1.7% 6.6% 21.7% 13.9% 2.8% 52.4% 2.4% 1.1% 23.3%
36.9% 7.5% 4.7% 35.7% 0.9% 1.2% 13.1% 32.4% 9.1% 2.5% 43.4% 1.2% 1.5% 9.8% 34.9% 7.7% 4.8% 36.9% 1.0% 1.2% 13.5% 29.4% 9.5% 2.6% 45.4% 1.3% 1.7% 5.8%
Amman
37.0% 7.5% 4.7% 35.9% 0.6% 1.2% 13.2% 32.6% 9.1% 2.5% 43.6% 0.8% 1.5% 9.9% 35.0% 7.7% 4.9% 37.0% 0.6% 1.2% 13.6% 29.5% 9.5% 2.6% 45.6% 0.8% 1.7% 5.8%
28.5% 8.8% 6.6% 28.1% 0.3% 0.8% 26.9% 25.1% 10.8% 3.6% 36.4% 0.5% 1.1% 22.5% 26.7% 9.0% 6.8% 28.8% 0.4% 0.8% 27.5% 22.5% 11.2% 3.7% 37.7% 0.5% 1.4% 9.2%
Buenos
Aires
28.5% 8.8% 6.6% 28.1% 0.3% 0.8% 26.9% 25.1% 10.8% 3.6% 36.4% 0.5% 1.1% 22.5% 26.7% 9.0% 6.8% 28.8% 0.3% 0.8% 27.5% 22.5% 11.2% 3.7% 37.7% 0.5% 1.4% 9.3%
Shanghai
36.8% 17.6% 12.8% 24.8% 0.6% 1.0% 6.5% 32.4% 21.8% 7.2% 30.3% 0.8% 1.4% 6.2% 34.9% 18.2% 13.2% 25.5% 0.6% 1.1% 6.6% 29.5% 22.7% 7.5% 31.7% 0.8% 0.2% 2.5%
36.8% 17.7% 12.8% 24.8% 0.4% 1.0% 6.5% 32.5% 21.8% 7.2% 30.4% 0.5% 1.4% 6.2% 34.9% 18.2% 13.2% 25.5% 0.4% 1.1% 6.7% 29.5% 22.8% 7.5% 31.7% 0.6% 0.2% 2.6%
Kawasaki
14.7% 3.9% 4.2% 73.1% 0.8% 0.2% 3.0% 12.1% 5.8% 1.9% 76.6% 0.9% 0.2% 2.5% 12.0% 4.0% 4.3% 75.5% 0.8% 0.2% 3.1% 8.8% 6.0% 1.9% 79.5% 0.9% 1.4% 6.5%
14.8% 3.9% 4.2% 73.6% 0.1% 0.2% 3.0% 12.2% 5.8% 1.9% 77.2% 0.2% 0.2% 2.5% 12.1% 4.1% 4.4% 76.1% 0.1% 0.2% 3.1% 8.9% 6.0% 1.9% 80.2% 0.2% 1.4% 6.5%
29.5% 12.3% 5.6% 31.3% 0.7% 1.1% 19.5% 30.6% 13.5% 2.7% 35.4% 0.9% 1.2% 15.7% 23.2% 13.3% 6.1% 34.0% 0.8% 1.2% 21.3% 22.7% 15.0% 3.0% 39.4% 1.0% 1.1% 23.3%
Atlanta
Final Report
29.5% 12.3% 5.6% 31.3% 0.7% 1.1% 19.5% 30.7% 13.5% 2.7% 35.4% 0.9% 1.2% 15.7% 23.2% 13.3% 6.1% 34.0% 0.8% 1.2% 21.3% 22.7% 15.0% 3.0% 39.4% 1.0% 1.1% 23.3%
* Net negative contributor to the net total cost. It includes recycling revenues. Remanufacturing includes recycling revenues and incineration with
energy recovery includes energy sale revenues.
Table 3.3-6 Group 5 (PM) Scenarios- Percentage of Net Total Cost Attributed to the Different Processes
Group 5: Minimizing PM (Global Dimming) Emissions
Separation Disposal Separation Disposal Separation Disposal Separation Disposal
Incineration w/ER*
Incineration w/ER*
Incineration w/ER*
Incineration w/ER*
Remanufacturing*
Remanufacturing*
Remanufacturing*
Remanufacturing*
Transportation
Transportation
Transportation
Transportation
City
Collection
Collection
Collection
Collection
Mixed Waste
Mixed Waste
Mixed Waste
Mixed Waste
Commingled
Commingled
Commingled
Commingled
Ash-landfill
Ash-landfill
Ash-landfill
Ash-landfill
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Kathmandu
29.6% 8.0% 6.9% 23.6% 0.0% 0.3% 0.7% 30.9% 25.3% 10.2% 3.8% 32.6% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 26.7% 27.9% 8.2% 7.1% 24.2% 0.0% 0.3% 0.7% 31.6% 22.8% 10.5% 3.9% 33.7% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 27.6%
29.6% 8.0% 6.9% 23.6% 0.0% 0.3% 0.7% 30.9% 25.3% 10.2% 3.8% 32.6% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 26.7% 27.9% 8.2% 7.1% 24.2% 0.0% 0.3% 0.7% 31.6% 22.8% 10.5% 3.9% 33.7% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 27.6%
37.7% 4.8% 2.7% 40.8% 0.0% 0.9% 1.2% 34.8% 5.6% 1.3% 46.7% 0.0% 1.0% 1.4% 32.4% 5.2% 2.9% 44.4% 0.0% 0.9% 1.3% 27.7% 6.3% 1.4% 51.8% 0.0% 1.1% 1.5%
Conakry
11.9% 9.2% 12.9% 10.2%
37.8% 4.8% 2.7% 40.9% 0.0% 0.8% 1.2% 11.9% 34.9% 5.6% 1.3% 46.7% 0.0% 1.0% 1.4% 9.2% 32.4% 5.2% 2.9% 44.4% 0.0% 0.9% 1.3% 12.9% 27.7% 6.3% 1.4% 51.8% 0.0% 1.1% 1.5% 10.2%
31.1% 12.9% 7.4% 34.5% 0.0% 1.2% 1.1% 11.8% 28.1% 14.7% 3.8% 40.9% 0.0% 1.4% 1.3% 9.8% 28.0% 13.5% 7.8% 36.1% 0.0% 1.2% 1.1% 12.3% 23.8% 15.6% 4.0% 43.4% 0.0% 1.5% 1.4% 10.4%
Lahore
31.1% 12.9% 7.5% 34.6% 0.0% 1.0% 1.1% 11.8% 28.1% 14.7% 3.8% 41.0% 0.0% 1.2% 1.3% 9.8% 28.0% 13.5% 7.8% 36.1% 0.0% 1.0% 1.1% 12.4% 23.8% 15.6% 4.0% 43.5% 0.0% 1.2% 1.4% 10.4%
24.3% 10.1% 8.4% 46.8% 0.0% 2.4% 1.7% 23.9% 11.8% 4.0% 51.1% 0.0% 2.5% 1.9% 21.9% 10.4% 8.7% 48.2% 0.0% 2.4% 1.8% 20.9% 12.2% 4.1% 53.1% 0.0% 2.6% 2.0%
Sarajevo
6.4% 4.9% 6.6% 5.1%
24.3% 10.1% 8.4% 46.8% 0.0% 2.3% 1.7% 6.4% 23.9% 11.8% 4.0% 51.1% 0.0% 2.4% 1.9% 4.9% 21.9% 10.4% 8.7% 48.3% 0.0% 2.3% 1.8% 6.6% 20.9% 12.2% 4.1% 53.1% 0.0% 2.5% 2.0% 5.1%
3-79
46.0% 7.6% 6.3% 0.0% 18.9% 0.0% 0.8% 20.3% 40.1% 10.2% 3.5% 0.0% 26.5% 0.0% 1.1% 18.5% 44.5% 7.8% 6.5% 0.0% 19.4% 0.0% 0.8% 20.9% 37.1% 10.7% 3.7% 0.0% 27.9% 0.0% 1.2% 19.4%
Amman
47.4% 7.9% 6.5% 0.0% 0.0% 19.5% 0.8% 17.9% 41.2% 10.5% 3.6% 0.0% 0.0% 27.2% 1.2% 16.3% 45.9% 8.1% 6.7% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 0.9% 18.5% 38.1% 11.0% 3.8% 0.0% 0.0% 28.7% 1.2% 17.1%
29.6% 8.0% 6.9% 23.6% 0.0% 0.3% 0.7% 30.9% 25.3% 10.2% 3.8% 32.6% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 26.7% 27.9% 8.2% 7.1% 24.2% 0.0% 0.3% 0.7% 31.6% 22.8% 10.5% 3.9% 33.7% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 27.6%
Buenos
Aires
29.6% 8.0% 6.9% 23.6% 0.0% 0.3% 0.7% 30.9% 25.3% 10.2% 3.8% 32.6% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 26.7% 27.9% 8.2% 7.1% 24.2% 0.0% 0.3% 0.7% 31.6% 22.8% 10.5% 3.9% 33.7% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 27.6%
Shanghai
37.3% 16.9% 13.0% 23.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.9% 8.3% 32.7% 21.3% 7.4% 28.9% 0.0% 0.7% 1.3% 7.7% 35.5% 17.4% 13.4% 23.6% 0.0% 0.5% 0.9% 8.6% 29.9% 22.3% 7.7% 30.1% 0.0% 0.8% 1.3% 8.0%
37.4% 17.0% 13.0% 23.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.9% 8.3% 32.8% 21.4% 7.4% 28.9% 0.0% 0.5% 1.3% 7.7% 35.6% 17.5% 13.4% 23.7% 0.0% 0.4% 0.9% 8.6% 29.9% 22.3% 7.7% 30.2% 0.0% 0.5% 1.3% 8.0%
Kawasaki
16.6% 4.1% 4.8% 69.1% 0.0% 0.8% 0.2% 4.4% 13.1% 6.1% 2.1% 74.1% 0.0% 0.9% 0.2% 3.4% 13.8% 4.2% 5.0% 71.4% 0.0% 0.8% 0.2% 4.6% 9.7% 6.4% 2.2% 77.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.2% 3.5%
16.7% 4.1% 4.8% 69.5% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 4.4% 13.2% 6.2% 2.1% 74.6% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 3.4% 13.9% 4.3% 5.0% 71.9% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 4.6% 9.8% 6.4% 2.2% 77.6% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 3.6%
31.4% 11.1% 7.0% 22.7% 0.0% 0.6% 0.8% 26.4% 31.2% 13.1% 3.5% 29.0% 0.0% 0.8% 1.0% 21.4% 26.0% 11.9% 7.5% 24.5% 0.0% 0.6% 0.9% 28.5% 23.9% 14.5% 3.9% 32.0% 0.0% 0.9% 1.1% 23.7%
Atlanta
31.4% 11.1% 7.0% 22.7% 0.0% 0.6% 0.8% 26.4% 31.2% 13.1% 3.5% 29.0% 0.0% 0.8% 1.0% 21.5% 26.0% 11.9% 7.5% 24.5% 0.0% 0.6% 0.9% 28.5% 23.9% 14.5% 3.9% 32.0% 0.0% 0.8% 1.1% 23.7%
* Net negative contributor to the net total cost. It includes recycling revenues. Remanufacturing includes recycling revenues and incineration with
energy recovery includes energy sale revenues.
Final Report
3.3.2 Energy Results

Energy in the form of fuel and/or electricity is consumed by all processes. Some processes
produce energy (e.g., incineration and landfill disposal with gas collection and energy recovery).
Other processes, such as recycling, may avoid (or offset) energy use. The most significant
parameters affecting the energy consumption results include:
• Quantity and composition of recyclable materials in the waste stream.
• Waste heating value.
• Electricity grid mix
In addition, the optimization scenario energy results were found to exhibit the following general
trends:
• The combination manual MRF and composting consumes less energy than mechanical MRF
and composting.
• Daily collection typically consumes more energy than biweekly
• High capture typically has less net energy requirements than low capture
Additional details about the energy results can be found in Table 3.3-7 and Figures 3.3-11 to 3.3-
15.

Figures 3.3-11 and 3.3-12 show the energy variation by MRF and composting process design.
Consistently in all the scenarios and settings, the net energy consumed by the manual design is
lower than by the mechanical design. In both cases there are net energy savings due to recycling
related offsets.

It is expected than daily collection consumes more energy than biweekly collection as is observed
in the results for all the cities (see Figures 3.3-11 and 3.3-12). This is due to the difference
between daily and biweekly energy requirements since collection trucks going to the same number
of stops daily vs. biweekly will consume more fuel.
3-80
Table 3.3-7 Summary of Energy Variation by Scenario and Scenario Settings

Maximize Materials Recovery (via Minimize Carbon (Global Warming) Minimize PM (Global Dimming )
Maximize Energy Recovery
recycling and composting) Emissions Emissions
Criteria Daily Biweekly Biweekly Daily Biweekly Biweekly Daily Biweekly Biweekly
Daily Daily Low Daily Low Daily Low
Daily Biweekly Biweekly High High Low High High Low High High Low
High Capture Capture Capture
Low High Low Capture Capture Capture Capture Capture Capture Capture Capture Capture
Captur
Capture Capture Capture
e
Energy Consumption Variation
By
Collection
Frequency
More energy Less energy More energy Less energy More energy Less energy More energy Less energy
(See
consumption consumption consumption consumption consumption consumption consumption consumption
Figures
3.3.6 to
3.3.10)
By Percent
Capture of
Recyclable Less
More Less More Less More Less More Less More Less More Less More Less More
s (See energ
energy energy energy energy energy energy energy energy energy energy energy energy energy energy energy
Figures y
3.3.6 to
3-81
3.3.10)
Kathmandu: highest net energy
consumption due to:
Sarajevo: highest net energy Sarajevo and Kathmandu: highest net energy consumption due to: - Lowest energy savings from
consumption due to: - Lowest energy savings from incineration and recycling (Lowest waste heating incineration and recycling (Lowest waste
- Lowest energy savings from value, lowest energy requirements for electricity production due to the large heating value, lowest energy
recycling (Lowest amounts of percent of hydro in their grid mix, and low amounts of ferrous material for requirements for electricity production
By city recyclables and metals among them). recycling). due to the large percent of hydro in their
(See grid mix, and low amounts of ferrous
Tables material for recycling).
3.3.8 to
3.3.11)
Atlanta: lowest net energy
consumption due to:
Atlanta: lowest net energy consumption due to:
- Highest energy savings from
- Highest energy savings from recycling and incineration (Highest waste heating value and amounts of metals for recycling).
recycling (Highest amounts of
recyclables and metals among them).
Final Repor
Buenos
Katmandu Conakry Lahore Sarajevo Amman Aires Shanghai Kawasaki Atlanta
0.0
-0.05
-0.06
-0.07
-0.07
-0.09
-0.10
-0.15
-0.15
-0.16
-0.17
-0.5
-0.29
-0.29
-0.30
-0.32
-0.34
-0.37
-0.40
-0.41
-0.41
-0.42
-0.51
-0.52
-0.54
-0.55
-0.55
-0.60
-1.0
-0.79
-0.82
-0.93
-0.95
-1.13
-1.14
-1.5
-1.56
3-82
-1.61
-2.0
-2.01

-2.03
-2.5
Figure 3.3-11 Group 3: Maximizing Materials Recovery (Via Manual Recycling and Composting)- Net Total
Energy Consumption by City
Final Report
Buenos
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.01
-0.01
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.03
-0.03
-0.03
-0.05
-0.07
-0.08
-0.10
-0.10
-0.11
-0.11
-0.13
-0.16
-0.18
-0.20
-0.5
-0.28
-0.37
-0.60
-0.76
-1.0
-0.78
-1.00
-1.19
-1.5
-1.33
-1.37
-1.39
3-83
-2.0

-2.11
-2.14
-2.5
Energy Consumption by City
Final Report
Buenos
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-0.8
-0.8
-1.0
-1.0
-1.1
-1.5
-1.06
-1.3
-1.31
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.5
-2.2
-2.2
-2.2
-2.3
-2.28
-2.15
-2.5
-2.5
-2.5
-2.5
-2.5
-2.6
-2.6
-3.0
-2.6
-2.53
-2.63
-2.8
-2.80
-3.5
3-84
-3.3
-3.4
-3.6
-4.0
-3.52
-4.5
-4.1
-4.2

-4.6
-5.0
-4.57
Figure 3.3-13 Group 4: Maximizing Energy Recovery- Net Total Energy Consumption by City
Final Report
Buenos
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-0.7
-0.7
-0.9
-0.9
-1.0
-1.0
-1.5
-1.2
-1.2
-2.0
-1.9
-1.9
-1.9
-1.9
-1.9
-1.9
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.1
-2.1
-2.5
-2.4
-2.4
-2.5
-2.5
-2.5
-2.5
-3.0
-2.7
-3.5 -2.7
-3.2
-3.3
-3.4
-3.4
3-85
-4.0
-4.0
-4.0
-4.5
Energy Consumption (MKcal/ metrric ton)

-4.3
-4.3
-5.0
Figure 3.3-14 Group 5: Minimize Carbon (Global Warming) Emissions- Net Total Energy Consumption by City
Final Report
Buenos
0.0
-0.5
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
-0.5
-0.6
-0.7
-1.0
-0.9
-0.9
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.1
-1.5
-2.0
-1.9
-1.9
-1.9
-1.9
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.5
-2.4
-2.4
-2.5
-2.5
-2.5
-2.5
-2.6
-2.6
-3.0
-3.5
-3.3
-3.3
3-86
-3.4
-3.5
-4.0

-4.1
-4.5
-4.2
-4.6
-4.6
-5.0
Figure 3.3-15 Group 5: Minimize Particulate Material (PM- Global Dimming) Emissions- Net Total Cost by City
Final Report

In general, the energy variation by percent capture of recyclables depends on:
• Segregated vs. non-segregated collection energy requirements
• MRF energy requirements
• Energy savings associated with materials recycling
• Energy recovery from incineration
• Energy requirements for residuals landfill disposal
It is expected that high capture scenarios will have less net energy consumption than low capture
scenarios due to energy savings associated with recycling. However, this trend could be reversed
in a city where most of the recyclables are paper and/or glass, which generally produce less
energy savings than metals.
Energy consumption variation among cities can be explained according to the process (e.g.,
recycling vs. incineration) having the largest effect on the overall results and the input parameters
driving the results for that process. Tables 3.3-8 to 3.3-11 can be used to define the most
influential processes. The lessons learned from the analysis of the simulation scenarios under
Section 3.2 will aid determining the input parameters governing the results for those processes.
Cities with the highest and lowest energy consumption results were chosen under Table 3.3-7 to
illustrate the energy consumption variation. This table also provides explanations for the energy
consumption behavior of these cities. For example, Atlanta is the city with the lowest net energy
consumption for all the optimization scenarios. For the Group 3 scenarios (maximizing material
recovery) having the lowest energy consumption is mainly due to Atlanta’s highest amount of
recyclables and metals in particular, which produce the highest energy offsets from recycling. For
the other optimization scenarios Atlanta’s highest waste heating value explains its high energy
offsets from incineration with energy recovery and having the highest amounts of metals explains
the offsets from recycling.
3-87
Table 3.3-8 Group 3 Scenarios- Percentage of Net Total Energy Attributed to the Different
Remanufacturing*
Remanufacturing*
Remanufacturing*
Remanufacturing*
Landfill Disposal
Landfill Disposal
Landfill Disposal
Landfill Disposal
Transportation
Transportation
Transportation
Transportation
Commingled
Commingled
Commingled
Commingled
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Collection
Collection
Collection
Collection
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
City
Sarajevo Lahore Conakry Kathmandu
15.0 1.0 5.2 3.4 0.3 75.0 28.5 0.7 9.1 6.5 0.6 54.6 12.0 1.0 5.4 3.5 0.3 77.7 17.4 0.8 10.5 7.5 0.7 63.1
7.0 1.2 5.2 3.9 0.2 82.4 11.7 1.0 12.7 6.0 0.5 68.0 5.5 1.2 5.3 4.0 0.2 83.8 8.3 1.0 13.2 6.3 0.5 70.6
10.2 1.7 8.7 6.5 0.3 72.6 14.9 1.3 16.5 11.4 0.6 55.3 8.7 1.7 8.8 6.6 0.3 73.8 11.7 1.3 17.1 11.8 0.6 57.4
3-88
12.7 1.7 9.2 2.8 0.8 72.7 17.7 1.4 17.0 6.2 1.5 56.3 11.6 1.8 9.3 2.9 0.8 73.6 15.4 1.4 17.4 6.3 1.5 57.9
Amman
10.8 3.4 9.7 1.9 0.4 73.86 13.6 2.8 16.1 6.0 0.6 60.9 10.0 3.4 9.8 1.9 0.4 74.5 11.9 2.9 16.4 6.1 0.6 62.1
Buenos
Aires
6.8 1.8 3.6 2.3 0.2 85.3 9.6 1.5 9.1 4.8 0.5 74.5 6.3 1.8 3.7 2.3 0.2 85.8 8.3 1.6 9.2 4.9 0.5 75.6
Atlanta Kawasaki Shanghai
10.8 2.7 8.7 2.4 0.3 75.1 13.9 2.2 17.0 5.2 0.5 61.2 10.0 2.7 8.8 2.5 0.3 75.8 12.0 2.3 17.1 5.3 0.5 62.9
9.9 1.6 2.8 1.2 0.2 84.3 15.6 1.4 6.4 3.2 0.5 72.9 8.0 1.6 2.9 1.3 0.2 86.1 11.3 1.4 6.7 3.4 0.5 76.6
4.6 0.9 2.0 1.2 0.2 91.0 8.3 0.8 4.7 3.2 0.6 82.4 3.6 0.9 2.0 1.3 0.3 92.0 5.8 0.8 4.9 3.3 0.6 84.7
Final Report
*Net negative contributor to the net total energy. Remanufacturing includes recycling energy offsets
Table 3.3-9 Group 4 Scenarios- Percentage of Net Total Energy Attributed to the Different Processes
Incineration w/ER*
Incineration w/ER*
Incineration w/ER*
Incineration w/ER*
Remanufacturing*
Remanufacturing*
Remanufacturing*
Remanufacturing*
Landfill Disposal
Landfill Disposal
Landfill Disposal
Landfill Disposal
Transportation
Transportation
Transportation
Transportation
Collection
Collection
Collection
Collection
City
d Recycling
d Recycling
d Recycling
d Recycling
Commingle
Commingle
Commingle
Commingle
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Waste
Waste
Waste
Waste
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Amman Sarajevo Lahore Conakry Kathmandu
4.9 1.7 0.4 43.0 0.2 0.4 49.5 6.2 2.8 0.2 29.6 0.2 0.6 60.4 4.3 1.7 0.4 43.2 0.2 0.4 49.9 5.2 2.9 0.3 29.9 0.2 0.6 61.0
2.0 1.6 0.3 38.5 0.1 0.2 57.3 1.9 1.7 0.1 43.2 0.1 0.2 52.7 1.7 1.6 0.3 38.6 0.1 0.2 57.5 1.5 1.7 0.1 43.4 0.1 0.2 52.8
2.0 2.3 0.3 59.0 0.2 0.3 35.9 2.0 2.5 0.2 65.4 0.2 0.3 29.5 2.0 2.2 0.3 58.7 0.2 0.3 36.3 2.0 2.4 0.2 65.0 0.2 0.3 29.9
3-89
3.7 3.0 0.4 50.7 0.6 0.5 41.1 3.4 3.1 0.2 62.2 0.6 0.6 29.9 3.7 2.9 0.4 50.0 0.6 0.5 41.9 3.2 3.1 0.2 62.4 0.6 0.6 30.0
1.4 0.0 0.1 96.6 0.1 0.0 1.9 1.5 0.0 0.0 97.5 0.1 0.0 0.8 1.4 0.0 0.1 96.6 0.1 0.0 1.9 1.3 0.0 0.0 97.7 0.1 0.0 0.8
Buenos
Aires
1.9 1.6 0.4 39.7 0.1 0.2 56.2 1.5 1.8 0.2 47.5 0.1 0.2 48.7 1.6 1.6 0.4 39.8 0.1 0.2 56.4 1.5 1.8 0.2 47.2 0.1 0.2 49.1
1.6 2.4 0.1 78.7 0.1 0.2 16.8 1.7 2.4 0.1 81.5 0.1 0.2 14.0 1.6 2.4 0.1 78.5 0.1 0.2 17.0 1.5 2.4 0.1 81.7 0.1 0.2 14.0
3.8 1.2 0.5 37.7 0.1 0.1 56.7 3.9 1.4 0.2 42.0 0.1 0.1 52.3 2.7 1.2 0.5 38.2 0.1 0.1 57.3 2.5 1.4 0.2 42.6 0.1 0.2 53.1
2.0 0.8 0.3 23.7 0.1 0.1 73.0 2.1 0.9 0.2 29.0 0.1 0.1 67.6 1.5 0.8 0.3 23.9 0.1 0.1 73.4 1.4 0.9 0.2 29.2 0.1 0.1 68.1
*Net negative contributor to the net total energy. Remanufacturing and incineration with energy recovery include energy offsets.
Final Report
Table 3.3-10 Group 5 (Carbon) Scenarios- Percentage of Net Total Energy Attributed to the Different Processes
Incineration w/ER*
Incineration w/ER*
Incineration w/ER*
Incineration w/ER*
Remanufacturing*
Remanufacturing*
Remanufacturing*
Remanufacturing*
Transportation
Transportation
Transportation
Transportation
Ash-Landfill
Ash-Landfill
Ash-Landfill
Ash-Landfill
City
Collection
Collection
Collection
Collection
d Recycling
d Recycling
d Recycling
d Recycling
Commingle
Commingle
Commingle
Commingle
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Waste
Waste
Waste
Waste
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Amman Sarajevo Lahore Conakry Kathmandu
3.2 1.5 0.7 27.5 0.1 0.2 66.8 2.6 1.8 0.3 37.3 0.1 0.2 57.7 2.9 1.5 0.7 27.6 0.1 0.2 67.0 2.2 1.8 0.3 37.5 0.1 0.3 36.5
2.3 1.8 0.2 38.1 0.1 0.2 57.2 2.1 1.9 0.1 43.0 0.1 0.2 52.6 2.3 1.8 0.3 37.9 0.1 0.2 57.5 2.1 1.9 0.1 42.7 0.1 0.2 24.5
3.8 2.3 0.7 39.4 0.2 0.3 53.2 3.4 2.6 0.3 50.3 0.2 0.3 42.9 3.4 2.3 0.7 39.6 0.2 0.3 53.5 2.6 2.6 0.3 50.7 0.2 0.3 43.2
3-90
5.3 3.1 0.3 57.3 0.7 0.6 32.6 4.7 3.2 0.2 66.0 0.7 0.6 24.6 4.7 3.2 0.3 57.7 0.7 0.6 32.8 3.9 3.2 0.2 66.5 0.7 0.2 52.9
4.1 2.8 0.9 58.2 0.1 0.2 33.7 2.9 2.8 0.4 69.2 0.1 0.2 24.4 3.7 2.8 0.9 58.5 0.1 0.2 33.9 2.5 2.8 0.4 69.5 0.1 0.2 61.2
Buenos
Aires
3.2 1.5 0.7 27.5 0.1 0.2 66.8 2.6 1.8 0.3 37.3 0.1 0.2 57.7 2.9 1.5 0.7 27.6 0.1 0.2 67.0 2.2 1.8 0.3 37.5 0.1 0.2 58.0
Kawasaki Shanghai
4.8 2.6 1.0 43.2 0.1 0.2 48.1 3.4 2.8 0.5 56.7 0.1 0.3 36.3 4.4 2.7 1.0 43.4 0.1 0.2 48.3 2.9 2.8 0.5 57.0 0.1 0.6 24.8
5.1 1.2 0.6 27.8 0.1 0.1 65.1 4.6 1.5 0.3 33.2 0.1 0.2 60.3 4.0 1.2 0.6 28.2 0.1 0.1 65.8 3.1 1.5 0.3 33.7 0.1 0.2 58.0
Atlanta
1.9 0.9 0.2 30.8 0.1 0.1 66.0 2.1 1.0 0.1 34.7 0.1 0.1 61.9 1.4 0.9 0.2 31.0 0.1 0.1 66.4 1.3 1.0 0.1 34.9 0.1 0.1 62.4
Final Report
Table 3.3-11 Group 5 (PM) Scenarios- Percentage of Net Total Energy Attributed to the Different Processes
Incineration w/ER*
Incineration w/ER*
Incineration w/ER*
Incineration w/ER*
Separatio Separatio Separatio
Remanufacturing*
Remanufacturing*
Remanufacturing*
Remanufacturing*
Separation Disposal Disposal Disposal Disposal
Transportation
Transportation
Transportation
Transportation
n n n
City
Collection
Collection
Collection
Collection
Mixed Waste
Mixed Waste
Mixed Waste
Mixed Waste
Commingled
Commingled
Commingled
Commingled
Ash-landfill
Ash-landfill
Ash-landfill
Ash-landfill
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Aires Amman Sarajevo Lahore Conakry Kathmandu
3.6 1.4 0.9 22.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 71.9 2.7 1.8 0.4 33.7 0.0 0.1 0.2 61.1 3.3 1.4 0.9 22.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 72.1 2.3 1.8 0.4 33.8 0.0 0.1 0.2 61.3
3.5 1.6 0.6 26.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 67.9 3.3 1.8 0.3 34.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 60.4 2.7 1.6 0.6 26.3 0.0 0.1 0.2 68.5 2.2 1.8 0.3 34.4 0.0 0.1 0.2 61.0
4.0 2.3 0.8 36.6 0.0 0.2 0.3 55.8 3.4 2.6 0.4 48.4 0.0 0.2 0.3 44.7 3.4 2.3 0.8 36.9 0.0 0.2 0.3 56.2 2.6 2.6 0.4 48.8 0.0 0.2 0.3 45.1
3-91
4.3 2.7 0.4 64.7 0.0 0.6 0.5 26.7 4.2 2.9 0.2 72.8 0.0 0.6 0.6 18.7 3.7 2.7 0.4 65.1 0.0 0.6 0.5 26.9 3.5 3.0 0.2 73.3 0.0 0.6 0.6 18.8
7.4 4.0 2.4 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.3 81.1 6.8 5.8 1.4 0.0 7.3 0.0 0.4 78.2 7.0 4.0 2.4 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.3 81.5 5.9 5.9 1.4 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.4 79.0
Buenos
3.6 1.4 0.9 22.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 71.9 2.7 1.8 0.4 33.7 0.0 0.1 0.2 61.1 3.3 1.4 0.9 22.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 72.1 2.3 1.8 0.4 33.8 0.0 0.1 0.2 61.3
5.0 2.5 1.3 35.9 0.0 0.1 0.2 55.1 3.5 2.7 0.6 51.6 0.0 0.1 0.2 41.3 4.6 2.5 1.3 36.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 55.3 3.0 2.7 0.6 51.9 0.0 0.1 0.2 41.5
5.3 1.1 0.8 22.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 70.4 4.7 1.4 0.4 28.7 0.0 0.1 0.1 64.6 4.3 1.1 0.8 22.5 0.0 0.1 0.1 71.2 3.2 1.5 0.4 29.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 65.6
2.2 0.7 0.4 23.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 73.2 2.2 0.9 0.2 28.7 0.0 0.1 0.1 67.8 1.6 0.7 0.4 23.5 0.0 0.1 0.1 73.6 1.5 0.9 0.2 28.9 0.0 0.1 0.1 68.3
Final Report
3.3.3 Emissions Results

In the optimization scenario analysis, carbon and PM emissions were selected for their
contribution to global warming and global dimming, respectively. PM emissions from solid
waste systems result from any handling, loading, sorting, and turning operations. When
operations occur within buildings, or are part of processes such incineration, air pollution
control systems are used to reduce emissions from the buildings or process equipment.
Carbon and PM emissions result from the combustion of fossil fuels or products (e.g.,
plastic). Carbon emissions in the form of methane are also produced via anaerobic
decomposition in landfills. Carbon emissions are analyzed for all the optimization scenarios
and both carbon and PM emissions are analyzed for Group 5—minimizing PM emissions.
We found the key parameters that affect the carbon and PM emissions results to include:
Quantity and composition of recyclables (metals and plastics recycling produce higher
carbon emission offsets and aluminum and corrugated cardboard recycling produces higher
PM emissions offsets).
Residuals amount and composition being disposed at a LF (food and yard waste generate
the highest amounts of methane at a LF).
The electricity grid mix (cities with a high percent of hydro in their grid mix will not have as
high emission offsets from recycling and incineration with energy recovery as cities with a
mostly fossil based grid mix)
In addition, the carbon and PM optimization scenario results were found to exhibit the
following general trends:
The combination manual MRF and composting produces less carbon emissions than
mechanical MRF and composting.
Daily collection typically produces more carbon emissions than biweekly. It also produces
more carbon and PM emissions than biweekly collection for the scenario minimizing PM
emissions.
High capture of recyclables typically results in less carbon emissions than low capture of
recyclables. This is consistent with the lower energy consumption trend and also based on
less waste going to the landfill where it can produce methane.
Additional details about the energy results can be found in Table 3.3-12 and Figures 3.3-16
to 3.3-21.

Figures 3.3-16 and 3.3-17 show the carbon emissions variation by MRF and composting
process design. Consistently in all the scenarios and settings, the net carbon emissions
3-92
from the manual design are lower than from the mechanical design. This is due to emissions
from fuel combustion or electricity consumption by equipment in the mechanical design.
It is expected that daily collection produces more carbon and PM emissions than biweekly
collection as observed in the results for all the cities (see Figures 3.3-16 and 3.3-17). This is
due to much higher fuel consumption by collection trucks in the daily collection system.
In general, the carbon and PM emissions variation by percent capture of recyclables
depends on:
• Segregated vs. non-segregated collection vehicle emissions
• MRF emissions
• Emission offsets from recycling
• Emissions savings from incineration energy recovery
• Emissions from residuals LF disposal
Consistent with the energy results, it is expected that high capture scenarios will have less
net carbon and PM emissions than low capture scenarios. Different behavior for carbon
emissions could be observed in cities where most of the recyclables are paper and/or glass,
which produce less carbon emissions offsets from recycling than other recyclables
categories such metals and plastics. Aluminum recycling also produces the highest PM
emissions offsets followed by corrugated cardboard and ferrous materials recycling.
Carbon and PM emissions variation among cities can be explained according to the process
(e.g., recycling vs. incineration) having the largest effect on the overall results and the input
parameters driving the results for that process. Tables 3.3-13 to 3.3-17 can be used to
define the most influential processes. The lessons learned from the analysis of the
simulation scenarios under Section 3.2 will aid determining the input parameters governing
the results for those processes. Cities with the highest and lowest cost results were chosen
under Table 3.3-12 to illustrate the emissions variation. This table also provides
explanations for the emissions behavior of these cities. For example, for Group 3
(maximizing material recovery) scenarios, Conakry is the city with the highest carbon
emissions mainly due to (1) the lack of recyclables, in particular aluminum and plastics,
which are responsible for high carbon emission offsets and (2) having high amounts of
methane producing waste going to the landfill.
For Group 4—maximizing energy recovery and Group 5—minimizing carbon emissions and
minimizing PM emissions, Kathmandu has the lowest waste heating content and an
electricity grid mix with 90% hydro, which explain why this city has the lowest carbon
emission offsets and consequently the highest carbon emissions. For Group 5—minimizing
PM emissions Lahore is the city with the highest PM emissions due to having the lowest
amounts of recyclables and consequently the lowest emission offsets.
3-93
Table 3.3-12 Summary of Carbon and PM Emissions Variation by Scenario and Scenario Settings
Maximize Materials Recovery (via Minimize Carbon (Global Warming) Minimize PM (Global Dimming )
Maximize Energy Recovery
recycling and composting) Emissions Emissions
Criteria Biweekly Biweekly Biweekly Biweekly Biweekly Biweekly
Daily Biweekly Biweekly Daily High Daily Low Daily High Daily Low Daily High Daily Low
Daily Low High Low High Low High Low
High High Low Capture Capture Capture Capture Capture Capture
Capture Capture Capture Capture Capture Capture Capture
Capture Capture Capture
Carbon and PM Emissions Variation
By Collection
Frequency (See More carbon Less carbon More carbon Less carbon More carbon Less carbon More carbon and Less carbon and
Figures 3.3.11 emissions emissions emissions emissions emissions emissions PM emissions PM emissions
to 3.3.16)
By Percent
Capture of Less More Less More
Less More Less More Less More Less More Less More Less More
Recyclables carbon carbon carbon carbon
carbon carbon carbon carbon carbon carbon carbon carbon carbon carbon carbon carbon
(See Figures and PM and PM and PM and PM
emission. emissions emission. emissions emission. emissions emission. emissions emission. emissions emission. emissions
3.3.11 to emissions emissions emissions emissions
3.3.16)
Conakry: highest net carbon emissions Kathmandu: highest net carbon emissions
due to: due to:
- Lowest carbon emission offsets from - Lowest carbon emission offsets from
recycling (Among the lowest amounts of recycling and incineration (Lowest waste
Kathmandu: highest net carbon emissions due to:
recyclables and the lowest amount of heating content and an electricity grid mix
- Lowest carbon emission offsets from recycling and incineration (Lowest waste heating
aluminum and plastic materials among with 90% hydroelectricity).
content and an electricity grid mix with 90% hydroelectricity).
them).
- High carbon emissions from LF (Among Lahore: highest net PM emissions due to:
3-94
the highest amounts of material going to - Lowest PM emission offsets from recycling
the LF). (Lowest amount of recyclables).
Kawasaki: lowest net carbon emissions due
By city (See
to:
Tables 3.3.13 to
- Highest carbon emissions offsets from
3.3.17)
Kawasaki: lowest net carbon emissions due recycling and incineration (Among the
Buenos Aires and Kawasaki: lowest net to: highest amounts of metals for recycling, the
Sarajevo: lowest net carbon emissions due
carbon emissions due to: - Highest carbon emissions offsets from second highest waste heating content and
to:
- Highest carbon emission offsets from recycling and incineration (Among the not as many plastics as other cities with
- Lowest carbon emissions from incineration
recycling (Highest amounts of recyclables highest amounts of metals for recycling, the similar waste heating content).
(Lowest amounts of plastics and aluminum
and aluminum and plastic materials second highest waste heating content and Atlanta: lowest net PM emissions due to:
material).
among them). not as many plastics as other cities with - Highest PM emissions offsets from
similar waste heating content). recycling and incineration (The highest
amounts of metals and corrugated
cardboard for recycling, the highest waste
heating content).
Final Report
0.04
0.027
0.027
0.03
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.020
0.019
0.019
0.018
0.016
0.016
0.02
0.014
0.013
0.007
0.006
0.01
0.004
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.00
-0.01 Aires
-0.006
-0.006
-0.001
-0.001
-0.0004
-0.02
-0.0003
-0.013
3-95
-0.014
-0.020
-0.020
-0.03
-0.04

-0.038
-0.038
-0.05
-0.040
-0.041
Final Report
Figure 3.3-16 Group 3: Maximizing Materials Recovery (Via Manual Recycling and Composting)- Net
Total Carbon Emissions by City
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.01 Aires
0.00
-0.01
-0.01
-0.02
-0.01
-0.01
3-96
-0.03

-0.04
-0.03
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
-0.05
Figure 3.3-17 Group 3: Maximizing Materials Recovery (Via Mechanical Recycling and Composting)- Net
Final Report
Total Carbon Emissions by City

Buenos
0.00
0.00
-0.01
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.03
-0.03
-0.03
-0.04
-0.03
-0.03
-0.04
-0.04
-0.05
3-97
-0.05
-0.05
-0.05
-0.05
-0.05
-0.05
-0.06
-0.06
-0.06
-0.06
-0.06
-0.06
-0.06
-0.06
-0.06
-0.07
-0.06
-0.06
-0.06
-0.06
-0.06
-0.06

-0.07
-0.07
-0.07
-0.07
-0.07
-0.07
-0.08
Final Report
Figure 3.3-18 Group 4: Maximizing Energy Recovery- Net Total Carbon Emissions by City
Buenos
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.04
-0.06
-0.05
-0.05
-0.07
-0.08
-0.07
-0.10
-0.09
-0.09
-0.09
-0.09
3-98
-0.10
-0.10
-0.10
-0.10
-0.10
-0.10
-0.10
-0.10
-0.12
-0.11
-0.11
-0.11
-0.11
-0.11
-0.11
-0.12
-0.12
-0.12
-0.12
-0.12
-0.13

-0.14
-0.13
-0.13
-0.14
-0.14
-0.16
Figure 3.3-19 Group 5: Minimize Carbon (Global Warming) Emissions- Net Total Carbon Emissions by
Final Report
City
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.00
-0.05
-0.03
-0.03
-0.04
-0.04
-0.05
-0.05
-0.06
-0.06
3-99
-0.07
-0.08
-0.10
-0.08
-0.08
-0.09
-0.09
-0.09
-0.09

-0.10
-0.10
-0.11
-0.11
-0.11
-0.11
-0.11
-0.11
-0.12
-0.12
-0.12
-0.13
-0.15
Aires
Figure 3.3-20 Group 5: Minimize Particulate Material (PM- Global Dimming) Emissions- Net Total
Final Report
Carbon Emissions by City

Buenos
0.0
-0.5
-0.4
-0.4
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.6
-0.6
-0.6
-0.6
-0.7
-0.7
-0.8
-0.8
-1.0
-0.8
-0.8
-0.9
-0.9
-0.9
-0.9
-1.1
-1.1
-1.1
-1.1
-1.2
-1.2
-1.5
-1.4
-1.4
-1.5
-1.5
-1.7
-1.7
-2.0
3-100
-2.0
-2.0
PM Emissions (kg)/ metric ton

-2.5
-2.5
-2.5
-3.0
Figure 3.3-21 Group 5: Minimize Particulate Material (PM- Global Dimming) Emissions- Net Total PM
Final Report
Emissions by City
Table 3.3-13 Group 3 Scenarios- Percentage of Net Total Carbon Emissions Attributed to the Different Processes
Remanufacturing
Remanufacturing
Remanufacturing
Remanufacturing
Landfill Disposal
Landfill Disposal
Landfill Disposal
Landfill Disposal
Transportation
Transportation
Transportation
Transportation
Commingled
Commingled
Commingled
Commingled
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Collection
Collection
Collection
Collection
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
City
*
Kathmandu
6.1 0.4 2.0 41.5 0.5 49.5 8.1 0.2 2.7 60.5 0.7 27.8 5.1 0.4 2.0 42.0 0.5 50.0 5.1 0.2 2.8 62.5 0.7 28.7
Amman Sarajevo Lahore Conakry
4.2 6.4 9.9 49.1 0.4 30.1 4.7 3.8 17.3 55.8 0.7 17.8 3.5 6.4 10.0 49.5 0.4 30.3 3.6 3.8 17.5 56.4 0.7 18.0
3.3 5.6 8.1 36.9 0.3 45.8 3.7 3.4 12.5 51.7 0.5 28.2 2.9 5.6 8.2 37.1 0.3 45.9 3.1 3.4 12.6 52.0 0.5 28.4
3-101
5.3 4.2 12.2 34.0 1.1 43.2 5.0 2.3 15.5 52.8 1.4 23.1 5.0 4.2 12.3 34.1 1.1 43.3 4.5 2.3 15.6 53.1 1.4 23.2
4.1 13.6 9.5 22.7 0.4 49.71 3.8 8.4 11.7 47.6 0.5 28.0 3.9 13.6 9.5 22.7 0.4 49.8 3.4 8.4 11.8 47.7 0.5 28.1
Buenos
Aires
3.0 4.4 3.5 21.4 0.2 67.4 3.4 3.1 7.2 37.3 0.5 48.4 2.8 4.4 3.5 21.5 0.2 67.6 3.0 3.2 7.2 37.5 0.5 48.6
Kawasaki Shanghai
3.7 10.8 9.1 18.5 0.3 57.7 4.0 7.8 15.5 31.6 0.5 40.6 3.5 10.8 9.1 18.6 0.3 57.8 3.6 8.0 15.6 31.6 0.5 40.6
5.2 6.3 3.8 18.1 0.3 66.3 6.1 4.3 6.9 36.7 0.7 45.4 4.4 6.4 3.8 18.2 0.3 66.8 4.7 4.4 7.0 37.3 0.7 46.0
Atlanta
3.5 4.1 4.5 31.0 0.6 56.3 3.9 2.4 6.9 52.8 1.0 33.1 2.9 4.2 4.6 31.2 0.6 56.6 2.9 2.5 7.0 53.3 1.0 33.4
Final Report
*Net negative contributor to the net total carbon emissions. Remanufacturing includes emission offsets.
Table 3.3-14 Group 4 Scenarios- Percentage of Net Total Carbon Emissions Attributed to the Different Processes
Incineration w/ER*
Incineration w/ER*
Incineration w/ER*
Incineration w/ER*
Remanufacturing*
Remanufacturing*
Remanufacturing*
Remanufacturing*
Landfill Disposal
Landfill Disposal
Landfill Disposal
Landfill Disposal
Transportation
Transportation
Transportation
Transportation
City
Collection
Collection
Collection
Collection
d Recycling
d Recycling
d Recycling
d Recycling
Commingle
Commingle
Commingle
Commingle
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Waste
Waste
Waste
Waste
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Kathmandu
4.4 2.9 0.3 19.7 0.2 1.1 71.5 3.2 2.9 0.1 43.0 0.1 1.0 49.8 4.0 2.9 0.3 19.7 0.2 1.1 71.8 2.8 2.9 0.1 43.1 0.1 1.0 50.0
Amman Sarajevo Lahore Conakry
1.9 11.1 2.4 70.6 0.1 0.6 13.2 1.5 11.0 1.0 74.6 0.1 0.6 11.2 1.6 11.2 2.4 70.8 0.1 0.6 13.3 1.3 11.0 1.0 74.8 0.1 0.6 11.2
1.4 13.3 2.0 44.5 0.1 0.5 38.2 1.3 14.3 1.1 52.4 0.1 0.6 30.2 1.3 13.2 2.2 44.0 0.1 0.5 38.7 1.3 14.2 1.2 51.9 0.1 0.6 30.7
3-102
1.6 6.5 0.9 65.6 0.2 0.7 24.4 1.4 6.3 0.4 72.9 0.2 0.7 18.1 1.6 6.5 1.0 65.3 0.2 0.7 24.6 1.3 6.3 0.4 73.0 0.2 0.7 18.1
1.6 0.0 0.9 91.9 0.1 0.1 5.5 1.7 0.0 0.4 95.2 0.1 0.1 2.5 1.6 0.0 0.9 91.9 0.1 0.1 5.5 1.6 0.0 0.4 95.3 0.1 0.1 2.5
Buenos
Aires
1.6 7.4 1.8 12.0 0.0 0.5 76.7 1.6 9.8 0.9 13.7 0.1 0.7 73.2 1.4 7.4 1.8 12.0 0.0 0.5 76.8 1.6 9.6 1.0 13.8 0.1 0.7 73.3
1.3 19.4 1.0 60.7 0.0 0.6 16.9 1.3 19.2 0.8 63.9 0.1 0.6 14.2 1.2 19.4 1.2 60.5 0.0 0.6 17.1 1.2 19.2 0.8 64.0 0.1 0.6 14.2
4.0 8.8 3.8 18.8 0.1 0.5 64.0 3.9 10.6 1.8 25.7 0.1 0.6 57.3 3.1 8.9 3.8 18.9 0.1 0.5 64.6 2.8 10.8 1.8 26.0 0.1 0.6 58.0
2.2 5.0 2.3 24.7 0.1 0.4 65.4 2.5 6.8 1.3 24.5 0.1 0.5 64.2 1.7 5.0 2.3 24.8 0.1 0.4 65.7 1.8 6.9 1.3 24.7 0.1 0.5 64.6
Final Report
*Net negative contributor to the net total carbon emissions. Remanufacturing and incineration with energy recovery include emission offsets.
Table 3.3-15 Group 5 (Carbon) Scenarios- Percentage of Net Total Carbon Emissions Attributed to the Different Processes
Incineration w/ER*
Incineration w/ER*
Incineration w/ER*
Incineration w/ER*
Remanufacturing*
Remanufacturing*
Remanufacturing*
Remanufacturing*
Transportation
Transportation
Transportation
Transportation
Ash-Landfill
Ash-Landfill
Ash-Landfill
Ash-Landfill
Collection
Collection
Collection
Collection
City
Mixed Waste
Mixed Waste
Mixed Waste
Mixed Waste
Commingled
Commingled
Commingled
Commingled
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Conakry Kathmandu
1.7 4.4 2.1 21.5 0.0 0.3 70.0 1.7 6.4 1.2 19.7 0.0 0.4 70.5 1.6 4.4 2.1 21.5 0.0 0.3 70.0 1.5 6.4 1.2 19.8 0.0 0.4 70.6
1.3 7.5 1.1 65.3 0.1 0.4 24.3 1.2 8.0 0.5 69.3 0.1 0.4 20.4 1.3 7.3 1.2 65.2 0.1 0.4 24.5 1.2 8.0 0.6 69.2 0.1 0.3 58.4
Lahore
1.6 8.6 3.1 39.9 0.1 0.3 46.5 1.4 10.4 1.6 46.3 0.1 0.4 39.8 1.4 8.5 3.1 40.0 0.1 0.3 46.6 1.2 10.4 1.6 46.4 0.1 0.4 31.4
3-103
Amman Sarajevo
1.5 4.8 0.6 65.0 0.2 0.5 27.3 1.4 5.1 0.3 70.9 0.2 0.6 21.5 1.4 4.8 0.6 65.1 0.2 0.5 27.4 1.2 5.1 0.3 71.0 0.2 0.4 20.6
1.6 10.3 3.8 48.0 0.0 0.3 36.1 1.3 12.4 1.9 52.6 0.0 0.4 31.3 1.5 10.3 3.8 48.0 0.0 0.3 36.1 1.2 12.4 1.9 52.7 0.0 0.6 21.6
Buenos
Aires
1.7 4.4 2.1 21.5 0.0 0.3 70.0 1.7 6.4 1.2 19.7 0.0 0.4 70.5 1.6 4.4 2.1 21.5 0.0 0.3 70.0 1.5 6.4 1.2 19.8 0.0 0.4 70.6
1.7 9.7 4.4 42.0 0.0 0.3 41.9 1.3 12.0 2.3 47.7 0.0 0.3 36.4 1.6 9.8 4.4 42.1 0.0 0.3 41.9 1.2 12.0 2.3 47.7 0.0 0.4 39.9
2.8 4.8 2.6 28.4 0.0 0.3 61.2 2.6 6.3 1.3 31.3 0.0 0.3 58.1 2.4 4.8 2.6 28.5 0.0 0.3 61.5 1.9 6.4 1.3 31.6 0.1 0.7 79.3
2.2 5.9 1.5 7.0 0.1 0.5 82.8 2.6 7.7 0.8 9.4 0.1 0.7 78.7 1.7 5.9 1.5 7.0 0.1 0.5 83.3 1.9 7.7 0.8 9.5 0.1 0.3 36.5
Final Report
Table 3.3-16 Group 5 (PM) Scenarios- Percentage of Net Total Carbon Emissions Attributed to the Different Processes
Incineration w/ER*
Incineration w/ER*
Incineration w/ER*
Incineration w/ER*
Remanufacturing*
Remanufacturing*
Remanufacturing*
Remanufacturing*
Transportation
Transportation
Transportation
Transportation
City
Collection
Collection
Collection
Collection
Mixed Waste
Mixed Waste
Mixed Waste
Mixed Waste
Commingled
Commingled
Commingled
Commingled
Ash-landfill
Ash-landfill
Ash-landfill
Ash-landfill
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Kathmandu
2.1 4.4 3.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.3 73.6 1.9 6.6 1.8 16.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 73.2 2.0 4.4 3.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.3 73.7 1.7 6.6 1.8 16.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 73.4
Sarajevo Lahore Conakry
2.4 8.5 3.7 56.6 0.0 0.1 0.5 28.3 2.0 9.2 1.6 64.1 0.0 0.1 0.5 22.5 2.0 8.5 3.7 56.8 0.0 0.1 0.5 28.5 1.5 9.2 1.6 64.4 0.0 0.1 0.5 22.7
1.7 8.8 3.6 38.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 47.5 1.5 10.6 1.8 45.2 0.0 0.1 0.4 40.4 1.5 8.8 3.6 38.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 47.6 1.2 10.7 1.8 45.3 0.0 0.1 0.4 40.5
3-104
2.2 7.2 1.2 82.0 0.0 0.3 0.9 6.3 1.8 6.8 0.5 84.7 0.0 0.3 0.8 5.1 2.0 7.2 1.2 82.2 0.0 0.3 0.9 6.3 1.6 6.8 0.5 84.9 0.0 0.3 0.8 5.1
Atlanta Kawasaki Shanghai Aires Amman
2.2 11.5 7.6 0.0 38.1 0.0 0.2 40.4 1.6 13.7 3.6 0.0 48.0 0.0 0.3 32.8 2.1 11.5 7.6 0.0 38.1 0.0 0.2 40.5 1.5 13.7 3.6 0.0 48.0 0.0 0.3 32.9
Buenos
2.1 4.4 3.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.3 73.6 1.9 6.6 1.8 16.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 73.2 2.0 4.4 3.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.3 73.7 1.7 6.6 1.8 16.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 73.4
1.9 10.1 5.7 36.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 45.8 1.5 12.5 2.9 43.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 39.4 1.8 10.1 5.7 36.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 45.9 1.3 12.5 2.9 43.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 39.4
3.3 4.9 3.7 23.6 0.0 0.0 0.3 64.2 2.9 6.7 1.8 27.6 0.0 0.1 0.3 60.6 2.8 4.9 3.7 23.8 0.0 0.0 0.3 64.5 2.2 6.8 1.8 27.8 0.0 0.1 0.3 61.0
2.4 4.8 2.6 23.3 0.0 0.1 0.4 66.5 2.6 6.7 1.4 23.5 0.0 0.1 0.5 65.1 1.9 4.8 2.6 23.4 0.0 0.1 0.4 66.8 1.9 6.8 1.5 23.7 0.0 0.1 0.5 65.6
Final Report
Table 3.3-17 Group 5 (PM) Scenarios- Percentage of Net Total PM Emissions Attributed to the Different Processes
Incineration w/ER*
Incineration w/ER*
Incineration w/ER*
Incineration w/ER*
Remanufacturing*
Remanufacturing*
Remanufacturing*
Remanufacturing*
Transportation
Transportation
Transportation
Transportation
Collection
Collection
Collection
Collection
City
Mixed Waste
Mixed Waste
Mixed Waste
Mixed Waste
Commingled
Commingled
Commingled
Commingled
Ash-landfill
Ash-landfill
Ash-landfill
Ash-landfill
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Landfill
Kathmand
0.4 0.4 0.2 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 97.2 0.4 0.6 0.1 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 96.3 0.4 0.4 0.2 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 97.2 0.3 0.6 0.1 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 96.3
u
Sarajevo Lahore Conakry
0.3 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 98.4 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 98.3 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 98.5 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 98.4
0.7 1.6 0.6 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 95.6 0.7 2.3 0.3 2.6 0.0 0.1 0.5 93.5 0.6 1.6 0.6 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 95.7 0.6 2.3 0.3 2.6 0.0 0.1 0.5 93.6
0.3 1.8 0.3 38.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 59.3 0.3 2.2 0.2 48.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 49.0 0.2 1.8 0.3 38.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 59.3 0.2 2.2 0.2 48.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 49.0
3-105
Amman
0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.1 97.6 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.1 96.7 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.1 97.6 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.1 96.7
Buenos
Aires
0.4 0.4 0.2 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 97.2 0.4 0.6 0.1 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 96.3 0.4 0.4 0.2 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 97.2 0.3 0.6 0.1 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 96.3
0.8 1.2 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 96.6 0.7 1.7 0.3 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 94.4 0.7 1.2 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 96.7 0.6 1.7 0.3 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 94.5
0.5 1.0 0.8 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 92.4 0.5 1.5 0.4 7.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 89.8 0.5 1.0 0.8 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 92.4 0.4 1.5 0.4 7.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 89.9
0.2 0.5 0.3 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 92.8 0.2 0.7 0.2 8.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 90.0 0.1 0.5 0.3 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 92.9 0.1 0.7 0.2 8.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 90.0
* Net negative contributor to the net total PM emissions. Remanufacturing and incineration with energy recovery include emission offsets.
Final Report
Due to rounding zero values may actually be very small values
3.4 Option Comparison per City

This section shows summary charts that compare the technology options per city so that
each target city may consider which option would be better to be adopted from the
viewpoints of cost, energy consumption and carbon emissions.
However, since the comparison charts include various assumptions and default data, it
should be noted that the results in this report should be seen only as a reference for each
city to gain a rough idea of adoption of a suitable waste treatment option.
3.4.1 Amman
Summary of Simulation Scenarios
Costs Results
Figures 3.4-1 and 3.4-2 show the cost results of the simulation scenarios using one primary
technology. The total unit cost per tonne-waste including collection cost (which is same for
all options) for incineration only is most expensive than that for composting with windrow
turner, and incineration with energy recovery follows. The cheapest option is landfill with
energy recovery in both case with and without land price for landfill cost.
Energy Recovery Results
Figure 3.4-3 shows the energy recovery results. As is easily understood, adoption of
incineration with energy recovery contributes greatly by saving energy. Energy recovery by
collecting the landfill gas can be also expected as well as saving energy through the use of
recovered material by recycling.
Carbon Emission Results
As Figure 3.4-4 shows, the carbon emission results show that the worst option can be said
to be landfill with gas venting. The second worst option is incineration only. Incineration with
energy recovery is the best option because of offsetting electricity generation emissions
from the utility sector. Composting with both manual turning and windrow turner is a better
option with less carbon emissions.
Summary of Optimization Scenarios

Costs Results
Figures 3.4-5 and 3.4-6 show the cost results of the optimization scenarios. It shows that
the unit cost per tonne-waste is less expensive for the scenario which is maximizing material
recovery with manual MRF and composting with manual turning, than other options. On the
3-106
other hand, the cost for the scenario for minimizing carbon emissions is rather more
expensive than others.
Figure 3.4-7 shows the energy recovery results. Needless to say, the energy optimization
scenario achieves the lowest energy consumption, then the scenario for minimizing carbon
emissions follows. The scenario for maximizing material recovery but with a low capture rate
contributes much less for reduction of energy consumption.
As Figure 3.4-8 shows, other than the scenario for minimizing carbon emissions, only the
scenario for energy optimization will contribute to the reduction of carbon emissions. The
other scenarios, maximizing the material recovery and minimizing PM emissions, still show
positive carbon emissions except the material recovery case with manual operation and high
capture rate.
3-107
160
Composting with manual turning and
140 landfill with energy recovery are the
least options, in case the land price is
considered for the landfill cost.
120
100
80
60
40
Cost ($)/metric ton

20
3-108
-20
-40
Recycling - Composting - Composting - Incineration - Landfill-
Recycling - Landfil - Landfill -
Mechanical manual windrow Incineration energy energy
manual sort vent flare
sort turning turner recovery recovery
Transportation 1.84 1.84 0.56 0.56 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00
Disposal 42.97 42.97 19.42 19.42 2.58 2.58 51.17 51.99 39.63
Treatment 0.00 0.00 20.10 51.38 109.65 76.66 0.00 0.00 0.00
Separation 21.66 18.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Transfer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Collection 30.91 30.91 30.91 30.91 30.91 30.91 30.91 30.91 30.91
Remanufacturing -22.44 -22.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Figure 3.4-1 Cost Results of Simulation Scenarios (Amman: with Land Price)
Final Report
160
Without considering land price for the
landfill cost, the option for landfill with
140
energy recovery is the least expensive.
120
100
80
60
40
Cost ($)/metric ton

20
3-109
-20
-40
Recycling - Composting - Composting - Incineration - Landfill -
Recycling - Landfill - Landfill -
Transportation 1.84 1.84 0.56 0.56 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00
Disposal 22.28 22.28 10.07 10.07 1.59 1.59 26.53 27.10 14.73
Treatment 0.00 0.00 20.10 51.38 109.65 76.66 0.00 0.00 0.00
Separation 21.66 18.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Transfer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Collection 30.91 30.91 30.91 30.91 30.91 30.91 30.91 30.91 30.91
Figure 3.4-2 Cost Results of Simulation Scenarios (Amman: without Land Price)
Final Report
2.0
0.0
-2.0
-4.0
-6.0
Incineration with energy recovery
contributes greatly by saving energy.
-8.0 Energy recovery by collecting the
landfill gas can be also expected as well
as saving energy through the use of
-10.0 recovered material by recycling.
Energy Consumption (MJ)/metric ton
3-110
-12.0
Transportation 0.018 0.018 0.010 0.010 0.002 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000
Disposal 0.377 0.377 0.195 0.195 0.012 0.012 0.475 0.475 -2.096
Treatment 0.000 0.000 0.326 0.385 0.043 -10.756 0.000 0.000 0.000
Separation 0.177 0.316 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Transfer 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Collection 0.158 0.158 0.158 0.158 0.158 0.158 0.158 0.158 0.158
Figure 3.4-3 Energy Recovery Results of Simulation Scenarios (Amman)

Final Report
0.30
The worst option is landfill with gas venting. The second
0.25 worst option is incineration only.
Incineration with energy recovery is the best option
because of offsetting electricity generation emissions from
0.20 the utility sector.
Composting with both manual turning and windrow turner
0.15 is a better option with less carbon emissions.
0.10
0.05
0.00
3-111
Carbon Emissions (MTCE)/metric ton
-0.05
-0.10
Transportation 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Disposal 0.068 0.068 0.007 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.259 0.082 0.040
Treatment 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.007 0.116 -0.063 0.000 0.000 0.000
Separation 0.010 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Transfer 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Collection 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
Figure 3.4-4 Carbon Emissions Results of Simulation Scenarios (Amman)

Final Report
Daily - High Capture Daily - Low Capture Biweekly Collection - High Capture Biweekly Collection - Low Capture
180.0
Maximizing material The scenario for Minimizing PM
recovery with manual minimizing carbon emissions is also
160.0 MRF and composting emissions is rather 154.9 less expensive
is less expensive more expensive than 148.4 option.
143.9
option. others. 139.6 Low capture rate is

137.5
140.0 Low capture rate is rather cheaper than
rather cheaper than 132.1
126.4 high capture rate.
high capture rate. 119.0
120.0 115.5 115.7
111.9 110.5
105.4 107.3 107.3 107.5
95.1 96.9
100.0
87.6 89.4
80.0
Cost ($)/metric ton
3-112
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
Group 3: Manual MRF and Group 3: Mechanical MRF and Group 4: Energy Optimization Group 5: Mininimize Carbon-eq Group 5: Mininimize PM
Compost Compost Emissions Emissions
Optimization Scenarios (Amman)
Figure 3.4-5 Cost Results of Optimizations Scenarios (Amman: with Land Price)
Final Report
180.0
Due to the small land price, cost without land price is not so
different than that with land price for any scenarios.
160.0 154.1
147.7
139.7 138.7
140.0 133.3 131.3
119.0 121.1
120.0 115.7
111.6 109.6
107.6 106.4 106.4 106.6
101.2 100.9
100.0
93.5
87.7
80.2
80.0
Cost ($)/metric ton
3-113
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
Figure 3.4-6 Cost Results of Optimizations Scenarios (Amman: without Land Price)
Final Report
0.0
-0.7 -0.6
-0.6 -0.5
-2.0
-2.1 -2.0 -2.1

-2.2
-2.7 -2.8
-4.0 The scenario for minimizing carbon

emissions follows the energy optimization -3.9 -4.0
scenario.
The scenario for maximizing material
recovery but with a low capture rate
-6.0 contributes much less for reduction of
energy consumption.
3-114
-8.0
-8.4 -8.4

-8.9 -9.0
-10.0
-10.7 -10.6 -10.7 -10.6
-12.0
Figure 3.4-7 Energy Recovery Results of Optimizations Results (Amman)

Final Report
0.06
0.05 0.04
0.04
0.02 0.03 0.03
0.02
0.02 0.02
0.02
0.00 0.00
0.00
-0.01 Compost Compost Emissions Emissions
-0.02
-0.01
Other than the scenario for minimizing

-0.04 carbon emissions, only the scenario for
energy optimization will contribute to the
reduction of carbon emissions.
3-115
-0.06 The other scenarios, maximizing the
material recovery and minimizing PM -0.06 -0.06 -0.06 -0.06
emissions, still show positive carbon
-0.08 emissions except the material recovery

case with manual operation and high
capture rate.
-0.10
-0.10 -0.10
-0.12 -0.12 -0.12
-0.14
Figure 3.4-8 Carbon Emissions Results of Optimizations Results (Amman)

Final Report
3.4.2 Buenos Aires

Costs Results
Figures 3.4-9 and 3.4-10 show the cost results of the simulation scenarios using one
primary technology. The total unit cost per tonne-waste including collection cost (which is
same for all options) for incineration with and without energy recovery is rather expensive.
Composting with manual turning and landfill with any gas treatment options are less
expensive options.
incineration with energy recovery contributes greatly by saving energy. Greater energy
recovery can be also expected by material recovery scenarios with both manual and
mechanical operation.
to be landfill with gas venting. Composting and incineration with energy recovery produce
less carbon emissions. Material recycling can also contribute greater reduction of carbon
emissions.

Costs Results
recovery with manual MRF and composting with manual turning, than other options.
Figure 3.4-15 shows the energy recovery results. Scenarios for minimizing carbon and for
minimizing PM emissions can reduce energy consumption into the same level as the energy
optimization scenario.
As Figure 3.4-16 shows, as well as the scenario for minimizing carbon emissions, the
scenario for minimizing PM emissions can also largely reduces carbon emissions. Scenarios
for energy optimization and maximizing the material recovery with high capture rate will
contribute to the reduction of carbon emissions but less than previous mentioned scenarios.
3-116
160
Incineration with and without energy recovery is
140 rather expensive.
Composting with manual turning and landfill with
any gas treatment options are less expensive
120
options, in case with land price for landfill cost.
100
80
60
40
Cost ($)/metric ton

20
3-117
-20
-40
Recycling- Composting- Composting- Incineration- e Landfill-
Recycling-
Mechanical manual windrow Incineration nergy Landfill- vent Landfill- flare energy
manual sort
Transportation 1.82 1.82 0.66 0.66 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00
Disposal 29.30 29.30 14.01 14.01 1.93 1.93 35.33 36.00 34.23
Treatment 0.00 0.00 19.82 48.86 109.68 98.05 0.00 0.00 0.00
Separation 32.72 30.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Transfer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Collection 31.10 31.10 31.10 31.10 31.10 31.10 31.10 31.10 31.10
Figure 3.4-9 Cost Results of Simulation Scenarios (Buenos Aires: with Land Price)
Final Report
160
140
120
Due to the small land price, cost
without land price is not so
100 decreased than that with land
price.
80
60
40
Cost ($)/metric ton

20
3-118
-20
-40
Transportation 1.82 1.82 0.66 0.66 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00
Disposal 29.24 29.24 13.99 13.99 1.93 1.93 35.27 35.93 34.17
Treatment 0.00 0.00 19.82 48.86 109.68 98.05 0.00 0.00 0.00
Separation 32.72 30.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Transfer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Collection 31.10 31.10 31.10 31.10 31.10 31.10 31.10 31.10 31.10
Figure 3.4-10 Cost Results of Simulation Scenarios (Buenos Aires: without Land Price)
Final Report
2.0
0.0
-2.0
-4.0
-6.0
Incineration with energy recovery contributes greatly by
saving energy.
Greater energy recovery can be also expected by
-8.0 material recovery scenarios with both manual and
3-119
-10.0
Recycling- Composting- Composting- Incineration- e
Recycling- Landfill- energ
Mechanical manual windrow Incineration nergy Landfill- vent Landfill- flare
manual sort y recovery
sort turning turner recovery
Transportation 0.0177 0.0177 0.0122 0.0122 0.0027 0.0027 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Disposal 0.4239 0.4239 0.2084 0.2084 0.0156 0.0156 0.5320 0.5320 -0.8705
Treatment 0.0000 0.0000 0.2445 0.2972 0.0412 -6.9674 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Separation 0.1437 0.2370 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Transfer 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Collection 0.1588 0.1588 0.1588 0.1588 0.1588 0.1588 0.1588 0.1588 0.1588
Remanufacturing -5.4223 -5.4223 0.0000 0.0000 -1.8605 -1.8605 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Figure 3.4-11 Energy Recovery Results of Simulation Scenarios (Buenos Aires)

Final Report
0.25
The worst option is the landfill with gas venting.
Composting and incineration with energy recovery
0.20 produce less carbon emissions.
Material recycling can also contribute greater reduction
of carbon emissions.
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
-0.05
3-120
-0.10
Recycling- Composting- Composting- Incineration- e
Recycling- Landfill- energ
Mechanical manual windrow Incineration nergy Landfill- vent Landfill- flare
manual sort y recovery
sort turning turner recovery
Transportation 0.0004 0.0004 0.0003 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Disposal 0.0592 0.0592 0.0005 0.0005 0.0001 0.0001 0.2130 0.0679 0.0496
Treatment 0.0000 0.0000 0.0030 0.0045 0.0992 0.0076 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Separation 0.0047 0.0083 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Transfer 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Collection 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011
Figure 3.4-12 Carbon Emissions Results of Simulation Scenarios (Buenos Aires)

Final Report
160.0
Maximizing material
recovery with manual
140.0 MRF and composting
is less expensive
127.0
124.7
option. 120.3
120.0 116.4 116.9
110.6 112.1 111.6
108.6 107.3
103.9 105.1 104.6 105.4 103.9
100.6
100.0
85.8
83.3
79.1
80.0 75.5
Cost ($)/metric ton

60.0
3-121
40.0
20.0
0.0
Optimization Scenarios (Buenos Aires)
Figure 3.4-13 Cost Results of Optimizations Scenarios (Buenos Aires: with Land Price)
Final Report
160.0
Due to the small land price, cost without land price is not so
different than that with land price for any scenarios.
140.0
127.0
124.6
120.3
120.0 116.4 116.9
110.6 112.1 111.6
108.6 107.3
103.9 105.1 104.6 105.4 103.8
100.6
100.0
85.8
83.3
79.1
80.0 75.5
60.0
3-122
Cost ($)/metric ton
40.0
20.0
0.0
Figure 3.4-14 Cost Results of Optimizations Scenarios (Buenos Aires: without Land Price)
Final Report
0.0
-2.0 -1.7 -1.8 -1.6 -1.7

-4.0
-4.8 -4.8 -4.7 -4.7
-6.0
Scenarios for minimizing carbon and for

minimizing PM emissions can reduce energy
-8.0 consumption into the same level as the energy
3-123
The scenario for maximizing material recovery
but with a low capture rate contributes much
less for reduction of energy consumption.

-10.0
-10.6 -10.6 -10.6 -10.6

-10.9 -11.0 -11.1
-11.2 -11.3 -11.1
-12.0 -11.8 -11.8
-14.0
Figure 3.4-15 Energy Recovery Results of Optimizations Results (Buenos Aires)

Final Report
0.02
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
-0.02
-0.04 -0.03 -0.04 -0.03 -0.04

-0.04 -0.04
-0.05 -0.05
-0.06 As well as the scenario for minimizing carbon
emissions, the scenario for minimizing PM
emissions can also largely reduces carbon
emissions.
3-124
-0.08 Scenarios for energy optimization and
maximizing the material recovery with high
capture rate will contribute to the reduction of -0.09 -0.09
-0.09 -0.09

-0.10 carbon emissions but less than previous
mentioned scenarios.
-0.12 -0.12 -0.12
-0.13 -0.13
-0.14
Figure 3.4-16 Carbon Emissions Results of Optimizations Results (Buenos Aires)

Final Report
3.4.3 Conakry
Costs Results
primary technology. Since the total unit cost per tonne-waste for incineration with and
without energy recovery is rather expensive. Other options except composting with windrow
turner are ranked as less expensive options.
to be landfill with gas venting. Scenarios for composting with both manual and mechanical
turning produce less carbon emissions.

Costs Results
recovery with manual MRF and composting with manual turning under the condition of
biweekly collection and low capture rate. Other options are almost same level of the cost.
scenarios for minimizing PM emissions and energy optimization can also reduces carbon
emissions. Scenarios for maximizing the material recovery will still discharge carbon
emissions through its treatment processes.
3-125
250
Incineration with and without energy recovery is rather

expensive.
200 Other options except composting with windrow turner are
ranked as less expensive options, in case the land price is
150
100
50
Cost ($)/metric ton

0
3-126
-50
Transportation 1.95 1.95 0.61 0.61 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
Disposal 44.54 44.54 17.38 17.38 2.27 2.27 49.98 50.86 48.68
Treatment 0.00 0.00 25.91 59.64 109.36 104.31 0.00 0.00 0.00
Separation 15.21 12.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Transfer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Collection 37.82 37.82 37.82 37.82 37.82 37.82 37.82 37.82 37.82
Figure 3.4-17 Cost Results of Simulation Scenarios (Conakry: with Land Price)
Final Report
250

200 without land price is not so
decreased than that with land
price.
150
100
Cost ($)/metric ton

50
3-127
-50
Transportation 1.95 1.95 0.61 0.61 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
Disposal 43.26 43.26 16.88 16.88 2.19 2.19 48.54 49.41 47.23
Treatment 0.00 0.00 25.91 59.64 109.36 104.31 0.00 0.00 0.00
Separation 15.21 12.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Transfer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Collection 37.82 37.82 37.82 37.82 37.82 37.82 37.82 37.82 37.82
Figure 3.4-18 Cost Results of Simulation Scenarios (Conakry: without Land Price)
Final Report
2.0
0.0
-2.0
-4.0
Incineration with energy recovery contributes greatly

-6.0 by saving energy. Greater energy recovery can be
also expected by material recovery scenarios with
both manual and mechanical operation.
-8.0 In addition to those, incineration scenarios contribute
energy recovery from the remanufacturing process.
-10.0
3-128
-12.0
Transportation 0.0185 0.0185 0.0113 0.0113 0.0031 0.0031 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Disposal 0.5761 0.5761 0.1746 0.1746 0.0165 0.0165 0.6715 0.6715 -1.5808
Treatment 0.0000 0.0000 0.3063 0.3643 0.0419 -5.9305 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Separation 0.1232 0.2200 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Transfer 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Collection 0.1964 0.1964 0.1964 0.1964 0.1964 0.1964 0.1964 0.1964 0.1964
Figure 3.4-19 Energy Recovery Results of Simulation Scenarios (Conakry)

Final Report
0.3
The worst option is landfill with gas venting. Incineration
with energy recovery is the best option because of offsetting
0.3 electricity generation emissions from the utility sector.
Scenarios for composting with both manual and mechanical
turning produce less carbon emissions.
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
-0.1
3-129
-0.1

-0.2
Transportation 0.0004 0.0004 0.0002 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Disposal 0.0770 0.0770 0.0150 0.0150 0.0001 0.0001 0.2765 0.0889 0.0406
Treatment 0.0000 0.0000 0.0057 0.0073 0.0416 -0.0867 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Separation 0.0051 0.0109 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Transfer 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Collection 0.0012 0.0012 0.0012 0.0012 0.0012 0.0012 0.0012 0.0012 0.0012
Figure 3.4-20 Carbon Emissions Results of Simulation Scenarios (Conakry)

Final Report
250.0
Maximizing material
recovery with
manual MRF and
composting is less
expensive option.
200.0
In which, biweekly
collection and low
capture rate
157.9
scenario is the least 151.7 149.4 157.6
expensive option. 150.3 150.3 149.1
150.0 142.6
138.8 139.7 132.0
141.1 138.8
131.2 131.1
126.1
112.8 110.2
100.0 96.4
91.1
Cost ($)/metric ton
3-130
50.0
0.0
Optimization Scenarios (Conakry)
Figure 3.4-21 Cost Results of Optimizations Scenarios (Conakry: with Land Price)
Final Report
250.0
Due to the small land price, cost without land price is not so different than that with land
price for any scenarios.
200.0
157.9
150.3 149.0 157.5
149.9 139.6 151.6 149.3
150.0 142.1
138.8 131.9 141.1 138.8
130.8 131.1
125.6
112.3 109.8
95.9
100.0 90.7
Cost ($)/metric ton
3-131
50.0
0.0
Figure 3.4-22 Cost Results of Optimizations Scenarios (Conakry: without Land Price)
Final Report
0.0
-1.2 -1.1 -1.3

-1.3
-2.0
-4.0 -3.8
-3.9 -4.0 -3.9

-6.0 minimizing PM emissions can reduce energy
consumption into the same level as the energy
The scenario for maximizing material recovery
3-132
but with a low capture rate contributes much
-8.0 less for reduction of energy consumption.

-10.0
-10.2 -10.2 -10.2 -10.3
-10.5 -10.5 -10.4 -10.5
-10.6 -10.7
-11.1 -11.1
-12.0
Figure 3.4-23 Energy Recovery Results of Optimizations Results (Conakry)

Final Report
0.04
0.03 0.03
0.03 0.03
0.02 0.02
0.02 0.02
0.02
0.00
-0.02
-0.04
3-133
The scenarios for minimizing PM emissions
-0.06 and energy optimization can also reduces -0.06 -0.06
carbon emissions. -0.06 -0.06
Scenarios for maximizing the material
recovery will still discharge carbon emissions

-0.08 -0.07 -0.08
through its treatment processes. -0.08 -0.08
-0.10
-0.10 -0.10
-0.11 -0.11
-0.12
Figure 3.4-24 Carbon Emissions Results of Optimizations Results (Conakry)

Final Report
3.4.4 Kathmandu
Costs Results
same for all options) for incineration is rather expensive than other options. The cheapest
option is composting with manual turner because of the low treatment cost and reduction of
waste to be buried at the landfill.
incineration with energy recovery contributes greatly by saving energy. In addition, material
recovery by recycling can also contribute large saving of energy consumption.
to be landfill with gas venting. Composting, irrespective of its operation method, can
produce much less carbon emissions than others.

Costs Results
other hand, the cost for the scenario for minimizing carbon emissions is rather more
scenario achieves the lowest energy consumption, then the scenario for minimizing carbon
emissions follows. It is interesting in Kathmandu that there is a big gap of energy
consumption for all scenarios between the capture rate, high and low.
As Figure 3.4-32 shows, other than the scenario for minimizing carbon emissions, only the
scenario for energy optimization will contribute to the reduction of carbon emissions.
However, carbon emissions by the scenario for minimizing PM emissions will be much
higher than others.
3-134
160
The cheapest option is composting with manual Incineration with and without
140 sorting because of the low treatment cost and energy recovery is rather
reduction of waste to be buried at the landfill. expensive.
120
100
80
60
Cost ($)/metric ton

40
20
3-135
0
-20
Recycling - Composting - Composting- Incineration - Landfill -
Transportation 1.99 1.99 0.44 0.44 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00
Disposal 45.01 45.01 10.07 10.15 1.40 1.40 49.27 50.14 49.64
Treatment 0.00 0.00 15.26 53.20 109.15 91.83 0.00 0.00 0.00
Separation 32.18 28.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Transfer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Collection 37.80 37.80 37.80 37.80 37.80 37.80 37.80 37.80 37.80
Figure 3.4-25 Cost Results of Simulation Scenarios (Kathmandu: with Land Price )
Final Report
160
140 Due to the small land price, cost

without land price is not so
120 price.
100
80
60
Cost ($)/metric ton

40
20
3-136
0
-20
Transportation 1.99 1.99 0.44 0.44 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00
Disposal 44.43 44.43 9.94 10.01 1.30 1.30 48.64 49.50 49.00
Treatment 0.00 0.00 15.26 53.20 109.15 91.83 0.00 0.00 0.00
Separation 32.18 28.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Transfer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Collection 37.80 37.80 37.80 37.80 37.80 37.80 37.80 37.80 37.80
Figure 3.4-26 Cost Results of Simulation Scenarios (Kathmandu: without Land Price )
Final Report
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0 In addition, material recovery by
recycling can also contribute large
saving of energy consumption.
-1.5 Energy recovery is also expected
from the remanufacturing process at
the incineration scenarios.
-2.0
3-137
-2.5
Composting
Recycling - Composting- Incineration - Landfill -
Recycling - - Landfill - Landfill -
Mechanical windrow Incineration energy energy
manual sort manual vent flare
sort turner recovery recovery
turning
Transportation 0.01885 0.01885 0.00806 0.00803 0.00179 0.00179 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Disposal 0.44362 0.44362 0.10305 0.10380 0.01045 0.01045 0.50010 0.50010 -0.28944
Treatment 0.00000 0.00000 0.12238 0.16179 0.03896 -1.84395 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Separation 0.08606 0.12312 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Transfer 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Collection 0.19609 0.19609 0.19609 0.19609 0.19609 0.19609 0.19609 0.19609 0.19609
Figure 3.4-27 Energy Recovery Results of Simulation Scenarios (Kathmandu)

Final Report
0.4
0.3
0.3
The worst option is landfill with gas venting.

0.2
Composting, irrespective of its operation
method, can produce much less carbon
emissions than others.
0.2
0.1
0.1
3-138
0.0
-0.1
Recycling - Composting - Composting- Incineration - Landfill -
Transportation 0.00039 0.00039 0.00017 0.00017 0.00004 0.00004 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Disposal 0.08255 0.08255 0.00760 0.00775 0.00062 0.00023 0.29240 0.08855 0.08855
Treatment 0.00000 0.00000 0.00001 0.00097 0.05864 0.05864 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Separation 0.00152 0.00152 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Transfer 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Collection 0.00122 0.00122 0.00122 0.00122 0.00122 0.00122 0.00122 0.00122 0.00122
Figure 3.4-28 Carbon Emissions Results of Simulation Scenarios (Kathmandu)

Final Report
250.0
Maximizing material recovery with manual MRF and
composting is less expensive option.
On the other hand, the cost for the scenario for
minimizing carbon emissions is rather more
200.0 191.6
178.1 175.2
166.8
159.2 160.0
152.0
145.2 146.9
150.0 142.4
134.2 133.4
126.5
117.8
110.9
105.3 107.6
99.7
100.0
Cost ($)/metric ton

83.3
3-139
73.7
50.0
0.0
Optimization Scenarios (Kathmandu)
Figure 3.4-29 Cost Results of Optimizations Scenarios (Kathmandu: with Land Price)
Final Report
250.0
##
Due to the small land price, cost without land price is not so different than that with land
price for any scenarios.
200.0 191.6
178.1 175.2
166.8
159.1 160.0
152.0
145.1 146.9
150.0 142.3
134.1 133.4
126.5
117.7
110.7 107.6
105.1
99.6
100.0
Cost ($)/metric ton

83.2
3-140
73.5
50.0
0.0
Figure 3.4-30 Cost Results of Optimizations Scenarios (Kathmandu: without Land Price)
Final Report
0.0
-0.4 -0.2 -0.4
-0.2
-1.0
-1.5 -1.4 -1.4

-1.5 -1.5 -1.5
-2.0
-2.1 -2.2
-3.0 -2.9
Scenarios for minimizing can reduce -2.8
energy consumption into the same level as -3.4 -3.3
3-141
the energy optimization scenario.
It is observed that a big gap of energy
-4.0 consumption for all scenarios between the
capture rate, high and low.

-5.0
-4.9 -5.0
-5.5 -5.6
-6.0
Figure 3.4-31 Energy Recovery Results of Optimizations Results (Kathmandu)

Final Report
0.10
0.085 0.085
0.08
Other than the scenario for minimizing carbon 0.061

emissions, only the scenario for energy optimization will 0.058
0.06
contribute to the reduction of carbon emissions.
However, carbon emissions by the scenario for minimizing
PM emissions will be much higher than others.
0.04
0.02 0.015
0.014 0.013 0.014
3-142
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.00
0.000 -0.001 0.000

Compost Compost Emissions -0.002 Emissions
-0.002
-0.02
-0.020 -0.020
-0.023 -0.024
-0.04
Figure 3.4-32 Carbon Emissions Results of Optimizations Results (Kathmandu)

Final Report
3.4.5 Lahore
Costs Results
same for all options) for incineration only is most expensive than that for incineration with
energy recovery follows. Direct landfill is the least expensive options than any other options
with intermediate treatment.
to be landfill with gas venting. Incineration with energy recovery produces least carbon
emissions.

Costs Results
other hand, the cost for the scenario for minimizing carbon emissions and PM emissions is
rather more expensive than others.
scenario for minimizing PM emissions can also largely reduces carbon emissions. Scenarios
for energy optimization will also contribute to the reduction of carbon emissions but those for
maximizing material recovery still show the positive carbon emissions.
3-143
160
Incineration with and without
140 energy recovery is rather
expensive.
Direct landfill is the least
120
expensive options than any other
options with intermediate
100 treatment.
80
60
40
Cost ($)/metric ton

20
3-144
-20
-40
Transportation 2.03 2.03 0.50 0.50 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00
Disposal 28.26 28.26 14.83 14.83 3.20 3.20 30.32 30.96 25.74
Treatment 0.00 0.00 23.50 50.59 109.36 94.78 0.00 0.00 0.00
Separation 38.05 34.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Transfer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Collection 33.38 33.38 33.38 33.38 33.38 33.38 33.38 33.38 33.38
Figure 3.4-33 Cost Results of Simulation Scenarios (Lahore: with Land Price)
Final Report
160
140
120
Landfill cost without land price
100 shows a small decrease of the
total cost than that with land price.
80
60
40
Cost ($)/metric ton

20
3-145
-20
-40
Transportation 2.03 2.03 0.50 0.50 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00
Disposal 22.19 22.19 11.64 11.64 2.74 2.74 23.81 24.38 19.16
Treatment 0.00 0.00 23.50 50.59 109.36 94.78 0.00 0.00 0.00
Separation 38.05 34.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Transfer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Collection 33.38 33.38 33.38 33.38 33.38 33.38 33.38 33.38 33.38
Figure 3.4-34 Cost Results of Simulation Scenarios (Lahore: without Land Price)
Final Report
2.0
1.0
0.0
-1.0
-2.0
-3.0 Incineration with energy recovery

-4.0 Greater energy recovery can be also
expected by material recovery
-5.0 scenarios with both manual and
-6.0

-7.0
3-146
-8.0
-9.0
Transportation 0.0191 0.0191 0.0092 0.0092 0.0038 0.0038 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Disposal 0.4308 0.4308 0.2451 0.2451 0.0206 0.0206 0.4817 0.4817 -1.1142
Treatment 0.0000 0.0000 0.2894 0.3457 0.0424 -7.0997 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Separation 0.1343 0.2522 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Transfer 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Collection 0.1717 0.1717 0.1717 0.1717 0.1717 0.1717 0.1717 0.1717 0.1717
Figure 3.4-35 Energy Recovery Results of Simulation Scenarios (Lahore)

Final Report
0.3

0.2 Incineration with energy recovery produces
least carbon emissions.
Composting, irrespective of its operation
method, can produce much less carbon
0.2 emissions than others.
0.1
0.1
0.0

-0.1
3-147
-0.1
Transportation 0.0004 0.0004 0.0002 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Disposal 0.0488 0.0488 0.0095 0.0095 0.0001 0.0001 0.1875 0.0585 0.0293
Treatment 0.0000 0.0000 0.0051 0.0066 0.0655 -0.0651 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Separation 0.0065 0.0147 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Transfer 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Collection 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011
Figure 3.4-36 Carbon Emissions Results of Simulation Scenarios (Lahore)

Final Report
200.0
Maximizing material recovery with manual MRF and composting is 182.4 180.7
180.0 less expensive option. 174.1
On the other hand, the cost for the scenario for minimizing carbon 169.8 170.6
167.4
emissions and PM emissionsis rather more expensive than others.

158.1 155.7
160.0
142.5 141.1
141.9 141.2
139.1
140.0 131.2 129.0
119.5
120.0 112.7
101.0 102.6
100.0
89.3
Cost ($)/metric ton

80.0
3-148
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
Optimization Scenarios (Lahore)
Figure 3.4-37 Cost Results of Optimizations Scenarios (Lahore: with Land Price)
Final Report
200.0
##
Land price does not affect the tendency of any optimization 182.0 180.3
180.0 scenarios. 173.7
169.4 170.2
167.0
157.7
155.3
160.0
142.1 141.5 140.7 140.8
140.0 135.8
128.0 125.7
120.0 116.3
109.5
97.7 99.4
100.0
86.0
80.0
Cost ($)/metric ton
3-149
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
Figure 3.4-38 Cost Results of Optimizations Scenarios (Lahore: without Land Price)
Final Report
0.0
Compost -0.4 Compost Emissions Emissions
-0.3 -0.2 -0.3
-1.0
-1.6
-1.7 -1.7 -1.7

-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
-5.0
-6.0
3-150
-7.0 minimizing PM emissions can reduce
energy consumption into the same level as

-8.0
-8.0 -8.1 -8.0 -8.1
-8.3 -8.4 -8.3 -8.4
-8.6 -8.6
-9.0
-9.1 -9.1
-10.0
Figure 3.4-39 Energy Recovery Results of Optimizations Results (Lahore)

Final Report
0.04
0.022 0.022
0.020 0.019
0.02
0.006 0.006
0.002 0.002
0.00
-0.02
-0.04
As well as the scenario for minimizing
carbon emissions, the scenario for
minimizing PM emissions can also largely
3-151
-0.06 reduces carbon emissions.
Scenarios for energy optimization will also -0.062 -0.062
-0.066 -0.066
contribute to the reduction of carbon
-0.08 emissions but those for maximizing material

recovery still show the positive carbon
emissions.
-0.094 -0.094
-0.10 -0.098 -0.098
-0.107 -0.107
-0.113 -0.113
-0.12
Figure 3.4-40 Carbon Emissions Results of Optimizations Results (Lahore)

Final Report
3.4.6 Sarajevo
Costs Results
primary technology. Since the total unit cost per tonne-waste for incineration with and
without energy recovery is rather expensive. Other options except composting with windrow
turner are ranked as less expensive options. The cheapest option is landfill with energy
recovery.

mechanical operation and by landfill with energy recovery.
to be landfill with gas venting as well as most of other cities. Scenarios for composting with
both manual and mechanical turning produce less carbon emissions.

Costs Results
recovery with manual MRF and composting with manual turning, than other options.
minimizing PM emissions can reduce energy consumption into the almost same level as the
energy optimization scenario. Material recovery with high capture rate can also save energy
consumption more than low capture rate.
emissions. Scenarios for maximizing the material recovery will still discharge carbon
emissions through its treatment processes.
3-152
200
Incineration with and without energy recovery is rather expensive.
Other options except composting with windrow turner are ranked as less expensive options.
The cheapest option is landfill with energy recovery.
150
100
50
Cost ($)/metric ton

0
3-153
-50
Recycling - Recycling - Composting - Composting - Incineration - Landfill -
Landfill - Landfill -
manual Mechanical manual windrow Incineration energy energy
vent flare
sort sort turning turner recovery recovery
Transportation 2.04 2.04 0.50 0.50 0.62 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.00
Disposal 27.82 27.82 13.63 13.63 4.37 4.37 29.92 30.52 24.76
Treatment 0.00 0.00 18.86 48.26 109.78 89.95 0.00 0.00 0.00
Separation 17.15 16.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Transfer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Collection 30.29 30.29 30.29 30.29 30.29 30.29 30.29 30.29 30.29
Figure 3.4-41 Cost Results of Simulation Scenarios (Sarajevo: with Land Price)
Final Report
200
150
Landfill cost without land price

shows a small decrease of the

100 total cost than that with land price.
50
Cost ($)/metric ton

0
3-154
-50
Transportation 2.04 2.04 0.50 0.50 0.62 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.00
Disposal 25.99 25.99 12.73 12.73 4.17 4.17 27.95 28.53 22.77
Treatment 0.00 0.00 18.86 48.26 109.78 89.95 0.00 0.00 0.00
Separation 17.15 16.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Transfer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Collection 30.29 30.29 30.29 30.29 30.29 30.29 30.29 30.29 30.29
Figure 3.4-42 Cost Results of Simulation Scenarios (Sarajevo: without Land Price)
Final Report
2.0
1.0
0.0
-1.0

-2.0
Greater energy recovery can be also
expected by material recovery
scenarios with both manual and
-3.0 mechanical operation and by landfill
with energy recovery.
-4.0
3-155
-5.0
vent flare
Transportation 0.0192 0.0192 0.0091 0.0091 0.0057 0.0057 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Disposal 0.4586 0.4586 0.2364 0.2364 0.0336 0.0336 0.5031 0.5031 -0.9854
Treatment 0.0000 0.0000 0.1310 0.1794 0.0405 -4.3262 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Separation 0.1025 0.1647 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Transfer 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Collection 0.1543 0.1543 0.1543 0.1543 0.1543 0.1543 0.1543 0.1543 0.1543
Figure 3.4-43 Energy Recovery Results of Simulation Scenarios (Sarajevo)

Final Report
0.3
0.2 The worst option is landfill with gas venting.

Scenarios for composting with both manual and
mechanical turning produce less carbon
0.2 emissions.
0.1
0.1
0.0

-0.1
3-156
-0.1
vent flare
Transportation 0.0004 0.0004 0.0002 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Disposal 0.0641 0.0641 0.0043 0.0043 0.0002 0.0002 0.2227 0.0709 0.0301
Treatment 0.0000 0.0000 0.0026 0.0038 0.0397 -0.0799 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Separation 0.0031 0.0057 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Transfer 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Collection 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010
Figure 3.4-44 Carbon Emissions Results of Simulation Scenarios (Sarajevo)

Final Report
180.0
Maximizing material 169.3
163.8
recovery with 160.4
160.0 156.4
manual MRF and 153.1 153.3 154.0 152.0 150.9
composting is less 146.9 145.8 145.6
143.2
expensive option. 141.4

140.0
130.6
124.3
120.0
107.9
102.4
100.0
88.7
82.3
80.0
Cost ($)/metric ton
3-157
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
Optimization Scenarios (Sarajevo)
Figure 3.4-45 Cost Results of Optimizations Scenarios (Sarajevo: with Land Price)
Final Report
## 180.0
169.1
Land price does not affect the tendency of 163.6
any optimization scenarios. 160.2
160.0 156.2
152.9 153.1 153.8 151.8 150.7
146.6 145.6 145.4
143.0
141.1
140.0
130.3
123.9
120.0
107.6
102.1
100.0
88.4
82.0
80.0
Cost ($)/metric ton
3-158
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
Figure 3.4-46 Cost Results of Optimizations Scenarios (Sarajevo: without Land Price)
Final Report
0.0
Compost Compost -0.22 Emissions Emissions
-0.29
-0.5 -0.18
-0.25
-1.0
-1.14 -1.17
-1.22 -1.25
-1.5
-2.0
-2.5
3-159
-3.0
minimizing PM emissions can reduce
-3.5 energy consumption into the same level as

Material recovery with high capture rate
can also save energy consumption more
-4.0
than low capture rate. -4.01 -4.00 -4.04 -4.04
-4.26 -4.30
-4.5 -4.32 -4.34
-4.47 -4.41 -4.44
-4.49
-5.0
Figure 3.4-47 Energy Recovery Results of Optimizations Results (Sarajevo)

Final Report
0.04
0.018 0.018
0.02 0.016 0.016
0.005 0.005
0.003 0.003
0.00
-0.02
-0.04
3-160
-0.052 -0.052
-0.06 As well as the scenario for minimizing
carbon emissions, the scenario for -0.060 -0.060
minimizing PM emissions can also largely -0.067 -0.066
-0.071 -0.071
reduces carbon emissions.

-0.08 Scenarios for energy optimization will also
contribute to the reduction of carbon
emissions but those for maximizing material -0.090 -0.090
-0.10 recovery still show the positive carbon -0.095 -0.095
emissions.
-0.12
Figure 3.4-48 Carbon Emissions Results of Optimizations Results (Sarajevo)

Final Report
3.4.7 Shanghai
Costs Results
same for all options) for recycling at MRF and incineration without energy recovery is more
expensive than others. Composting with manual turning is less expensive option as well as
the option for landfill with energy recovery.
to be landfill with gas venting. The second worst option is incineration without energy
recovery. However, incineration with energy recovery can contribute to reduce the carbon
emissions greatly. Composting with both manual turning and windrow turner is a better
Costs Results
Figures 3.4-53 and 3.4-54 show the cost results of the optimization scenarios. It clearly
shows that the unit cost per tonne-waste is less expensive for the scenario which is energy
optimization, than other options except the scenario for maximizing material recovery with
low capture rate.
scenario achieves the lowest energy consumption, then the scenarios for minimizing carbon
emissions and PM emissions follow. The scenario for maximizing material recovery
contributes much less for reduction of energy consumption. There are more energy savings
for recycling options with high capture rate than low capture rate.
As Figure 3.4-56 shows, other than the scenario for minimizing carbon emissions, scenarios
for energy optimization and minimizing PM emissions will contribute to the reduction of
carbon emissions. Recycling options with high capture rate can contribute to reduce the
carbon emissions more than low capture rate.
3-161
140
Recycling at MRF and incineration without energy
recovery is more expensive than others.
120
Composting with manual turning is the least
expensive option than the option for landfill with
energy recovery in case the land price is
100
80
60
40
Cost ($)/metric ton

20
3-162
0
-20
Transportation 1.91 1.91 0.41 0.40 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00
Disposal 43.01 43.01 14.87 14.96 1.91 1.91 49.19 49.99 38.43
Treatment 0.00 0.00 19.87 54.38 91.37 53.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
Separation 53.66 50.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Transfer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Collection 31.10 31.10 31.10 31.10 31.10 31.10 31.10 31.10 31.10
Figure 3.4-49 Cost Results of Simulation Scenarios (Shanghai: with Land Price)
Final Report
140
120
In case without land price for
landfill cost, the option for landfill
100
with energy recovery is replaced
to the cheapest option.
80
60
40
Cost ($)/metric ton

20
3-163
0
-20
Transportation 1.91 1.91 0.41 0.40 0.20 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00
Disposal 30.86 30.86 10.67 10.73 1.32 1.59 35.30 35.96 24.40
Treatment 0.00 0.00 19.87 54.38 91.37 53.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
Separation 53.66 50.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Transfer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Collection 31.10 31.10 31.10 31.10 31.10 31.10 31.10 31.10 31.10
Figure 3.4-50 Cost Results of Simulation Scenarios (Shanghai: without Land Price)
Final Report
2.0
0.0
-2.0
-4.0
Greater energy recovery can be also
-6.0 expected by material recovery
scenarios with both manual and
-8.0
3-164
-10.0
Transportation 0.0183 0.0183 0.0075 0.0074 0.0018 0.0028 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Disposal 0.4688 0.4688 0.1606 0.1616 0.0100 0.0264 0.5487 0.5487 -1.5476
Treatment 0.0000 0.0000 0.3316 0.3882 0.0432 -8.8808 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Separation 0.1628 0.2898 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Transfer 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Collection 0.1590 0.1590 0.1590 0.1590 0.1590 0.2651 0.1590 0.1590 0.1590
Figure 3.4-51 Energy Recovery Results of Simulation Scenarios (Shanghai)

Final Report
0.3
The second worst option is incineration without energy recovery.
0.3
Incineration with energy recovery can contribute to reduce the carbon
emissions greatly.
Composting with both manual turning and windrow turner is a better
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0

-0.1
3-165
-0.1
Transportation 0.0004 0.0004 0.0002 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Disposal 0.0694 0.0694 0.0004 0.0006 0.0001 0.0020 0.2390 0.0735 0.0258
Treatment 0.0000 0.0000 0.0066 0.0081 0.1412 -0.0660 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Separation 0.0099 0.0206 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Transfer 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Collection 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0015 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011
Figure 3.4-52 Carbon Emissions Results of Simulation Scenarios (Shanghai)

Final Report
250.0
The scenario for energy optimization is less expensive than other
options except the scenarios for maximizing material recovery with
low capture rate.
205.7 204.6
198.8
197.8
200.0
176.4
169.5
164.4 162.9
156.5 154.9
143.9 142.5
150.0
137.1 134.6
106.2 108.1 107.0 106.7

103.8
98.5
100.0
3-166
Cost ($)/metric ton
50.0
0.0
Optimization Scenarios (Shanghai)
Figure 3.4-53 Cost Results of Optimizations Scenarios (Shanghai: with Land Price)
Final Report
## 250.0
Land price does not affect the tendency of
any optimization scenarios.
205.3 204.2
198.4 197.4
200.0
173.7
166.9 163.9 162.4
156.0 154.5
150.0 141.3 139.4
134.5 131.5
107.6 106.3
106.5
103.2 103.3
100.0 95.4
Cost ($)/metric ton
3-167
50.0
0.0
Figure 3.4-54 Cost Results of Optimizations Scenarios (Shanghai: without Land Price)
Final Report
0.0
-0.70 -0.61
-0.62 -0.54
-2.0
-2.29 -2.18 -2.22
-2.33
-4.0
The energy optimization scenario achieves

-6.0 the lowest energy consumption, then the
scenarios for minimizing carbon emissions
and PM emissions follow.
3-168
The scenario for maximizing material
recovery contributes much less for
-8.0 reduction of energy consumption. There -7.85
-7.81 -7.88 -7.92
are more energy savings for recycling -8.16 -8.20 -8.23 -8.28
options with high capture rate than low

capture rate.
-9.41 -9.43
-10.0 -9.61
-9.63
-12.0
Figure 3.4-55 Energy Recovery Results of Optimizations Results (Shanghai)

Final Report
0.02
0.010 0.010
0.007 0.006
0.00
-0.013 -0.013
-0.02
-0.020 -0.020
-0.04
-0.051 -0.050
-0.06 -0.051 -0.051
Other than the scenario for minimizing
carbon emissions, scenarios for energy
optimization and minimizing PM emissions
-0.08 will contribute to the reduction of carbon
3-169
emissions.
Recycling options with high capture rate can
contribute to reduce the carbon emissions
-0.10 more than low capture rate. -0.098 -0.098

-0.106 -0.107
-0.110 -0.110
-0.12
-0.124 -0.124
-0.14
Figure 3.4-56 Carbon Emissions Results of Optimizations Results (Shanghai)

Final Report
3.4.8 Kawasaki
Costs Results
same for all options) for incineration is most expensive than other options.
incineration with energy recovery contributes greatly by saving energy. In addition, recycling
can also save energy consumption.
to be landfill with gas venting. On the other hand, scenarios for recycling, composting and
incineration with energy recovery produce less carbon emissions.

Costs Results
recovery, than other options.
emissions. The other scenario for maximizing the material recovery with low capture rate
still shows little positive carbon emissions.
3-170
1,200
The total unit cost for incineration is most

1,000
expensive than other options.
800
600
400
Cost ($)/metric ton

200
3-171
-200
Transportation 1.75 1.75 1.14 1.14 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00
Disposal 179.32 179.32 63.51 63.51 13.87 13.87 224.44 227.31 213.38
Treatment 0.00 0.00 19.67 58.19 736.51 677.46 0.00 0.00 0.00
Separation 80.13 77.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Transfer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Collection 62.78 62.78 62.78 62.78 62.78 62.78 62.78 62.78 62.78
Figure 3.4-57 Cost Results of Simulation Scenarios (Kawasaki: with Land Price)
Final Report
1,200
1,000
In case without land price for landfill
cost, total cost for any scenarios except
800 incineration scenarios will be largely
decreased.
600
400
Cost ($)/metric ton

200
3-172
-200
Transportation 1.75 1.75 1.14 1.14 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00
Disposal 29.49 29.49 10.44 10.44 2.35 2.35 36.91 37.90 23.94
Treatment 0.00 0.00 19.67 58.19 736.51 677.46 0.00 0.00 0.00
Separation 80.13 77.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Transfer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Collection 62.78 62.78 62.78 62.78 62.78 62.78 62.78 62.78 62.78
Figure 3.4-58 Cost Results of Simulation Scenarios (Kawasaki: without Land Price)
Final Report
2.0
0.0
-2.0
-4.0
-6.0
-8.0
Incineration with energy recovery contributes
greatly by saving energy.
-10.0 Energy recovery also expected from the
remanufacturing process in the incineration
scenarios.
In addition, recycling can also save energy
3-173
-12.0

consumption.
-14.0
Transportation 0.0173 0.0173 0.0209 0.0209 0.0033 0.0033 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Disposal 0.4777 0.4777 0.1614 0.1614 0.0193 0.0193 0.6131 0.6131 -1.4572
Treatment 0.0000 0.0000 0.2863 0.3408 0.0422 -8.0302 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Separation 0.1580 0.2619 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Transfer 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Collection 0.3384 0.3384 0.3384 0.3384 0.3384 0.3384 0.3384 0.3384 0.3384
Figure 3.4-59 Energy Recovery Results of Simulation Scenarios (Kawasaki)

Final Report
0.4

0.3 On the other hand, scenarios for recycling, composting and
incineration with energy recovery produce less carbon
emissions.
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
3-174
-0.1
-0.1
Transportation 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Disposal 0.0789 0.0789 0.0004 0.0004 0.0001 0.0001 0.2819 0.0930 0.0628
Treatment 0.0000 0.0000 0.0041 0.0054 0.0758 -0.0422 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Separation 0.0062 0.0114 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Transfer 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Collection 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020
Figure 3.4-60 Carbon Emissions Results of Simulation Scenarios (Kawasaki)

Final Report
1200.0
984.3
972.1 946.6
1000.0
939.6
934.4 927.5
884.6 896.7 898.1 889.8
852.1 865.6
800.0
Maximizing material recovery scenarios

with both manual and mechanical MRF
600.0 and compost are much less expensive
than other options.
Cost ($)/metric ton
3-175
400.0
280.6
251.2 218.7 254.7 248.1
218.9 217.0
181.2
200.0
0.0
Optimization Scenarios (Kawasaki)
Figure 3.4-61 Cost Results of Optimizations Scenarios (Kawasaki: with Land Price)
Final Report
## 1,200.0
1,000.0 965.1 976.5

926.7 932.6 938.8 920.1

877.8 889.0 891.7 882.4
845.3 859.2
800.0
Land price does not affect the tendency of
any optimization scenarios.
600.0
3-176
Cost ($)/metric ton
400.0
245.3
215.9 208.9 212.8
200.0 173.1 183.4 171.1
135.3
0.0
Figure 3.4-62 Cost Results of Optimizations Scenarios (Kawasaki: without Land Price)
Final Report
0.0
-2.0
-2.2
-2.3
-2.5 -2.5
-4.0
-6.0
-6.6 -6.5 -6.7

-6.8
-8.0
3-177
-10.0 minimizing PM emissions can reduce
There are more energy savings for
-12.0

recycling options with high capture rate
than low capture rate.
-14.0 -13.6
-13.8 -13.8
-14.1 -14.1 -14.0
-14.3 -14.3 -14.4 -14.6
-14.8 -15.0
-16.0
Figure 3.4-63 Energy Recovery Results of Optimizations Results (Kawasaki)

Final Report
0.02
0.007 0.006
0.004 0.003
0.00
-0.02
-0.04 -0.036 -0.037

-0.040 -0.041
-0.06
-0.058 -0.059
-0.061
Other than the scenario for minimizing -0.062
carbon emissions, scenarios for energy
-0.08
will contribute to the reduction of carbon
3-178
emissions.
-0.10 The other scenario for maximizing the
material recovery with low capture rate still
shows little positive carbon emissions. -0.112
-0.12 -0.113

-0.124 -0.125 -0.125 -0.126
-0.14
-0.142 -0.143
-0.16
Figure 3.4-64 Carbon Emissions Results of Optimizations Results (Kawasaki)

Final Report
3.4.9 Atlanta
Costs Results
same for all options) for incineration is most expensive than others. The less expensive
option is still direct landfill. Considering the revenue from sales of collected recyclables,
recycling options are also the less expensive alternatives.
incineration with energy recovery contributes greatly by saving energy. In addition, recycling
can also save energy consumption.
to be landfill with gas venting. On the other hand, scenarios for recycling, composting and
incineration with energy recovery produce less carbon emissions. In which, incineration with
energy recovery is least option for carbon emissions.

Costs Results
recovery with manual operation and biweekly collection, than other options.
emissions. The other scenario for maximizing the material recovery with low capture rate
still shows little positive carbon emissions.
3-179
200
The total unit cost for incineration is
most expensive than other options.
The less expensive option is still
150 direct landfill.
Considering the revenue from sales
of collected recyclables, recycling
options are also the less expensive
alternatives.
100
50
Cost ($)/metric ton

0
3-180
-50
Transportation 1.79 1.79 1.37 1.37 0.38 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00
Disposal 25.41 25.41 16.10 16.10 2.62 2.62 30.92 31.62 28.30
Treatment 0.00 0.00 19.65 43.84 108.87 86.62 0.00 0.00 0.00
Separation 38.71 36.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Transfer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Collection 39.74 39.74 39.74 39.74 39.74 39.74 39.74 39.74 39.74
Figure 3.4-65 Cost Results of Simulation Scenarios (Atlanta: with Land Price)
Final Report
200

150 without land price is not so
price.
100
50
Cost ($)/metric ton

0
3-181
-50
Transportation 1.79 1.79 1.37 1.37 0.38 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00
Disposal 24.62 24.62 15.60 15.60 2.56 2.56 29.96 30.66 27.33
Treatment 0.00 0.00 19.65 43.84 108.87 86.62 0.00 0.00 0.00
Separation 38.71 36.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Transfer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Collection 39.74 39.74 39.74 39.74 39.74 39.74 39.74 39.74 39.74
Figure 3.4-66 Cost Results of Simulation Scenarios (Atlanta: without Land Price)
Final Report
2.0
0.0
-2.0
-4.0
-6.0
-8.0
-10.0 Incineration with energy recovery contributes greatly by

saving energy.
Energy recovery also expected from the remanufacturing
process in the incineration scenarios.
3-182
-12.0
In addition, recycling can also save energy consumption.
-14.0
Transportation 0.017 0.017 0.025 0.025 0.004 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000
Disposal 0.480 0.480 0.315 0.315 0.022 0.022 0.594 0.594 -0.813
Treatment 0.000 0.000 0.141 0.191 0.042 -6.838 0.000 0.000 0.000
Separation 0.120 0.195 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Transfer 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Collection 0.212 0.212 0.212 0.212 0.212 0.212 0.212 0.212 0.212
Figure 3.4-67 Energy Recovery Results of Simulation Scenarios (Atlanta)

Final Report
0.3
On the other hand, scenarios for recycling, composting and
0.3
incineration with energy recovery produce less carbon
emissions.
In which, incineration with energy recovery is least option
0.2
for carbon emissions.
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
3-183
-0.1
-0.1
Transportation 0.0004 0.0004 0.0005 0.0005 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Disposal 0.0787 0.0787 0.0291 0.0291 0.0001 0.0001 0.2789 0.0986 0.0749
Treatment 0.0000 0.0000 0.0023 0.0035 0.1258 0.0096 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Separation 0.0038 0.0069 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Transfer 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Collection 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013
Figure 3.4-68 Carbon Emissions Results of Simulation Scenarios (Atlanta)

Final Report
160.0
Maximizing material 148.0
recovery scenarios with 141.7
140.0 manual operation and
biweekly collection are 130.3 132.0
127.8
less expensive than 126.0

122.7 123.0
other options. 118.2
120.0 115.9
108.2 109.9
105.7 104.0
97.2 96.9 99.2
100.0
90.0
75.2
80.0
71.0
Cost ($)/metric ton

60.0
3-184
40.0
20.0
0.0
Optimization Scenarios (Atlanta)
Figure 3.4-69 Cost Results of Optimizations Scenarios (Atlanta: with Land Price)
Final Report
160.0
Land price does not affect the tendency of 148.0
any optimization scenarios. 141.7
140.0
130.2 132.0
127.5
125.9
122.6 122.9
118.2
120.0 115.7
108.2 109.9
105.4 103.9
99.2
100.0 97.0 96.7
89.8
80.0 74.9
70.8
Cost ($)/metric ton

60.0
3-185
40.0
20.0
0.0
Figure 3.4-70 Cost Results of Optimizations Scenarios (Atlanta: without Land Price)
Final Report
0.0
-3.3 -3.2 -3.4

-3.5
-5.0
-8.5 -8.6 -8.4 -8.5

-10.0

minimizing PM emissions can reduce
-15.0 the energy optimization scenario.
3-186
There are more energy savings for
recycling options with high capture rate
than low capture rate. -16.7 -16.8
-17.5 -17.6 -17.5 -17.6

-18.2 -18.3
-20.0 -19.3 -19.4 -19.3 -19.4
-25.0
Figure 3.4-71 Energy Recovery Results of Optimizations Results (Atlanta)

Final Report
0.03
0.021 0.021
0.019 0.018
0.02
0.01
0.00
-0.01
-0.010 -0.011
-0.013 -0.014
-0.02
Other than the scenario for minimizing -0.026 -0.026

-0.03 carbon emissions, scenarios for energy -0.027 -0.028
3-187
will contribute to the reduction of carbon -0.035
-0.04
emissions. -0.037 -0.038
The other scenario for maximizing the
-0.05 material recovery with low capture rate still

-0.046 -0.047
shows little positive carbon emissions.
-0.06
-0.065 -0.066
-0.07
-0.08
Figure 3.4-72 Carbon Emissions Results of Optimizations Results (Atlanta)

Final Report
CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSIONS
4.1 Key Findings of the Scenario Modeling
Exercise
As discussed in Section 2.5, there is a considerable amount of data and assumptions that
were used to model the MSW management scenarios for each city in this study. Key data
and assumptions used include a mixture of city-specific data that was collected through site
visits and default data and assumptions that are built into the MSW DST. Table 2.5-1
presented a summary of the most important input parameters and whether they represent
actual city data or MSW DST defaults. Cost data in particular were lacking in availability.
Therefore, cost results may not be an accurate reflection of actual costs in a given city. The
city of Lahore is one of the cities with least data availability, including cost and energy
related data. The city of Atlanta is one of the cities with the best data availability. These
city-specific data are carefully reviewed and some of them which are considered to be
unreliable are modified into the model. For example, the cost for equipment and
maintenance for landfill disposal in Conakry is not applied for the model because its value
collected at the field is quite expensive than others. Operation and maintenance cost for the
incineration plant in Shanghai is replaced to the MSW DST default because its value
collected is much less than usual cost for incineration.
In addition, we compare the landfill cost with and without the land price in the cost analysis
because usually the government does not pay for land in case the land is the government
land.
As a modeling exercise, we were able to successfully input the city-specific data into the
MSW DST and run both simulation and optimization type scenarios as presented in Section
3 of this report. In general, the following trends were observed through the scenario
modeling exercise and examination of scenario results:
Cost:
• The lowest cost MSW management strategy appears to be landfill disposal. The
highest cost MSW management strategy appears to be incineration without energy
recovery.
• High land prices in some cities (e.g., Kawasaki) can significantly increase the cost of
MSW management operations.
• Capital, labor and energy prices are keys in determining cost tradeoffs between
manual and mechanical operations. For example, composting manual operations
are more cost-effective than mechanical operations since those do not require any
equipment, and labor is cheaper than energy in most cities. Should labor prices
increase, this tradeoff can be minimized or reversed. Manual MRF operations are
4-1
less cost effective than mechanical MRF operations (Manual operations are 2- 4%
more expensive), which seems to contradict previous statements. However, the
cost difference is very small and due to manual operations being very labor
intensive and still requiring equipment.
• Potential cost savings associated with materials and energy recovery are large and
can significantly reduce the total cost of MSW management. Modeled revenues
from the sale of recyclables ranged from US$66- 197 per metric ton of recyclables.
Modeled revenues from the sale of electrical energy, for example in case of
incineration with energy recovery, ranged from US$3- 59 per ton of waste
incinerated.
• Markets for and market prices obtained for recyclables varies by city and causes
significant variation in recycling costs among cities. For recycling, the revenue
obtained from the sale of recyclables is dependent on available markets for
recyclables. This is important because the revenue stream from the sale of
recyclables can significantly lower the net cost of the recycling scenarios. If price
data were not found a US$0 market value was used for the recyclables that has no
market in the surveyed area, and defaults or prices for similar materials are used for
the recyclables which have the market. Conakry is the city with the least recyclable
price data available.
• Scenarios with high or low capture of recyclables will vary in cost depending on the
amount of waste going to each of the selected management scenarios. In general,
scenarios with higher capture of recyclables are less expensive since this increases
the revenues from material recovery and reduces landfill costs. However, this
behavior can be reversed by the lack of revenues/markets from recycling and/or
very low landfill disposal costs.
Energy:
• The strategies that appeared to be more effective minimizing net total energy
consumption included recycling of key materials (e.g., metals) and incineration with
energy recovery.
• The quantity and composition of recyclables in the MSW stream is key in

determining energy savings associated with recycling. For example, metals
production is very energy intensive so recycling metals achieves large energy
savings. A city that has a larger percentage of metals, and other energy intensive
materials, in its MSW stream can thus achieve higher levels of energy savings from
recycling.
• As expected, manual labor-based operations (MRF and compost) generally consume

less energy than mechanical-based operations.
• The amount of energy that can be recovered via incineration depends on the MSW
composition and characteristics, and higher income countries and major urban areas
within countries of higher income have more plastic, paper, cardboard, and textile
wastes that drive up calorific values of the wastes. For many of the Bank member
4-2
cities (i.e., excluding Atlanta and Kawasaki), the MSW stream generally has a low
average BTU/ton value due to high levels of food waste and other wet organics
waste, as well as inerts (ash and soil) in some cases. In general, incineration needs
to be more than 1500 kcal/kg of lower calorific value to sustain combustion, and few
cities in developing countries have wet, as received, waste that reaches this calorific
value.
• Energy offsets by virtue of incineration with energy recovery can be significant and
are directly dependent on the electricity grid mix used for each city. A city that relies
on fossil-based electricity production will achieve higher levels of energy savings
than a city with hydroelectricity or other renewable electricity production systems.
Emissions:
• The waste management strategies that appeared to be most effective minimizing

emissions included recycling of key materials (e.g., metals) and incineration with
energy recovery.
• The life cycle environmental burdens associated with electricity consumption are
highly variable between the cities studied and dependent on city-specific electricity
grid mixes of fuels. For example, a city that relies on fossil-fuel based electricity
production will have higher emissions associated with electricity use than a city that
relies on renewable electricity production (e.g., hydroelectricity).
• Energy consumption (fuels and electricity) is a key indicator for criteria type air
emissions and emission savings or offsets by virtue of materials and/or energy
recovery. Some cities (e.g., Katmandu) have high percentages of hydroelectricity
production and thus in these cities, electricity-related emissions are zero.
• Cities with high amounts of plastics in their waste stream will have higher GHG
emissions from any waste management strategy involving combustion.
• Landfill gas management can greatly reduce landfill-related GHG emissions. This
can be observed by comparing the results of landfill disposal with gas venting to the
results of landfill disposal with gas flaring or gas-to-energy.
• Landfill diversion (via recycling, composting, incineration) of organics can greatly

reduce net GHG emissions by avoiding landfill disposal and subsequent production
of landfill gas.
4-3
4.2 Discussion of Sensitivity for Parameters

of Interest
Up-front in the scoping phase of the study, several parameters were identified as
parameters of interest in regards to their overall impact on the total MSW management
system results. The sensitivity of the total results to these parameters were evaluated using
the scenario results and are discussed below.
• Landfill gas collection efficiency: For this study a landfill gas collection efficiency
of 70% was used. Landfill gas emissions (for cases where landfill gas is managed
via flaring or energy recovery systems) are highly dependent on gas collection
efficiency. A lower efficiency would directly increase landfill gas emissions and a
higher efficiency would directly reduce landfill gas emissions.
• Fuel Price: Fuel prices will primarily affect the cost for waste collection and other
operations that utilize fuel-burning equipment (e.g., compost windrow turner).
• Electricity cost: Electricity prices will primarily affect the cost for operations that
use power-based equipment such as MRFs that are equipment (balers, screens,
magnet, conveyor belts, etc.) intensive. Other operations, such as waste collection,
will not be significantly impacted by electricity costs.
• Price at which electricity can be sold back to the grid: The price for electricity
sale directly affects the net cost for landfill with gas-to-energy systems and
incineration with energy recovery operations. The cost of these operations can be
significantly reduced if a good sale price for electricity produced can be negotiated.
In general, the results showed a 34- 43% decrease in cost for landfills and 15- 47%
decrease in cost for incineration due to electricity sale revenues.
• Labor costs: Labor cost will primarily affect labor intensive operations such as
waste collection and manual recycling/composting. In the cities analyzed, labor
wages ranged from 0.08- 18$US/hour.
• Carbon Finance pricing: The prices obtained for reduction of carbon emissions
can significantly impact total costs for the waste treatment options. The results of
this modeling exercise did not consider revenues from carbon pricing, which would
be considered if comparing a given management strategy against a baseline
strategy. For example, a simple exercise comparing the emissions from a worst
case scenario in which all the waste is sent to a LF with gas venting vs. a best case
carbon minimization scenario indicate that revenues from carbon pricing may range
from US$516,000- 2,323,000 among the studied cities using a carbon price of 12
$US/MTCE.
• Recyclables market price: The availability of markets and prices obtained for the
sale of recyclable varies by city and by the composition of recyclables in the MSW
stream. For some cities, there are well established markets and good prices. In
other cities, there are poor markets and low (or no) prices. Revenues obtained from
4-4
the sale of recyclables ranged from US$66- 197 per metric ton of recyclables.
• Compost market price: The availability of markets and prices obtained for the sale
of compost product varies by city. For some cities, there are well established
markets and good prices. In other cities, there are poor markets and low prices.
Revenues obtained from the sale of compost product ranged from US$15- 60 per
metric ton of the compost products.
• Land price: The land price impacts significantly on the overall cost of landfill
disposal. For example, Kawasaki, which is the city with the highest land costs, has
also the highest landfill overall cost even though its O&M costs are relatively low
compared to other cities. Land price are usually not paid when the landfill is
constructed at the government land. Therefore, we calculated the net total cost in
all scenarios without land price for the landfill cost.
4-5
4.3 Appropriateness of Future Holistic

analysis of Waste Management in Bank
Member Countries
This study was a groundbreaking challenge that has tried to confirm whether or not the
MSW-DST developed jointly by the US EPA and RTI and developed based on the SWM
experiences and conditions in the US could be useful if applied to the cities in the
developing countries.
In summary, the study confirmed that the MSW DST can play an important role for the
decision making of the municipal solid waste management in those cities. However, it
should be said that the existing MSW DST needs to be more tailored so as to conform with
the actual conditions of those cities when preparing an individual detailed solid waste
management plan.
In the development of this kind of simulation model, , there are often many gaps in the
baseline data that a developer of the model does not know about the fields of solid waste
management, and in these instances the developer has no option but to use the default
settings, which can often be unsuitable to the city in question. In other words, the developer
should understand the actual situation of the SWM practices at the target city, in addition to
key aspects affecting cost and disposal techniques, such as waste composition, moisture
content, fuel prices and so forth. Furthermore, users of the model, such as decision makers
and SWM staff should similarly understand the essence of the model and the effects of
using or overriding the default values contained within the model.
The result of the study should therefore be widely released to the concerned people, as the
latest frontiers of SWM decision making, thus encouraging further additions to and
verifications of default data. Good baseline data to override the US-based defaults is key to
the accurate functioning of the model.
Needless to say, when planning the waste management system of a developing country, the
information that is the most necessary for the decision-maker is cost. However the
cheapest options such as open dumping or open burning cause severe environmental
pollution and unsanitary conditions, and adoption of such scenarios is definitely not better
choice for the decision makers who need to have the backing of their people because
secure of the hygiene circumstances is one of the most important public services that is
often committed by the decision makers.
Therefore, the present conditions in cities of many developing countries are such that the
landfill option is the cheapest realistic alternative to open burning or dumping.
When preparing the solid waste disposal plan, in general, several disposal options are
compared In order to assess the feasibility using cost benefit analysis for the final decision.
Because it is usually difficult to estimate such benefits, especially when putting the currency
4-6
value on it, the proposed project might be given the green light to go ahead when the project
is seen to be feasible by an economic analysis that considers some external cost as the
benefit, even though it is not feasible financially.
In this regard, MSW DST can surely bring much considerable information, such as cost,
energy consumption, carbon emissions and PM emissions by different disposal alternatives
such as landfill, incineration, composting and material recovery, to the decision makers.
Three points that the decision makers who could take such information may be facing are;
Firstly, alternatives showing better results from the views of energy consumption, carbon
emissions and PM emissions are not always the cheapest options. It is hard to the decision
makers to adopt such costly options unless some financial policy will be put on such efforts
to reduce of environmental impacts.
Secondly, sufficient capacity for the introduction and operation of the selected disposal
options are needed. For example, in order to adopt the incineration with energy recovery
option with the expectation of achieving a reduction of total net cost and total energy
consumption via sales of the energy produced, a large amount of investment and advanced
skills for the operation of the plant should be available.
Lastly, expected offsets by energy recovery or material recovery are not usually a direct
benefit for the decision makers of the target city. In addition, a certain judgment for the
economic perspectives should be also required because the oil price and sales price of
recycled materials will always fluctuate.
It is also stressed that the reliability of SWM and associated data which are inputted to the
model should be secured. Default values should be also tailored to reflect the actual
situation of the city in the developing countries.
The consulting team collected as much data as possible from the field visits in about two
weeks per city, with some follow-up communications, but these inputs were in practice
insufficient to optimally fulfill the model run. A considerable limitation of data availability at
the selected cities was encountered even though those cities are considered to be
representative cities with better SWM management than others in the regions. Therefore,
other data sources such as JICA, PAHO and METAP were also reviewed. Historical data
availability is commonly difficult to obtain in developing cities, as the management
authorities frequently have little capacity to gather and store accurate data, and so any
further application of the model should initiate a data collection programme well in advance.
This study relied on available data in the target cities. While the level of detail of analysis is
adequate to indicate how technologies and scenarios compare, more detail would normally
be required for deciding on the most cost-effective technology that addresses local
preferences to optimize energy security, land use minimization, carbon reduction, particulate
reduction, materials recovery, etc. For future use of the model beyond this study, when a
city would like to compare the disposal options of the waste in detail using MSW DST, more
detailed data will be recommended.. For example, as clearly understood from the
4-7
experiences of JICA development studies, a certain amount of input of human resources,

time and money are necessary to conduct the waste quantity and composition survey.
Though it is clear that even the basic surveys required for the detailed planning of solid
waste disposal needs a large sum of investment, the general guidance utilizing the result of
this study can be considered a useful tool for many cities to grasp the general perspectives
of appropriate waste disposal options.
4-8

Holistic Decision Model For MSW

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Holistic Decision Model For MSW

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The World Bank

GLOBAL STUDY FOR PURPOSE OF

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT HOLISTIC

Japan Country-Tied Fund

Nippon Koei Co., Ltd.

CHAPTER 2 DATA AND METHODOLOGY

CHAPTER 3 SCENARIO RESULTS

3.4.3 Conakry .................................................................................. 3-125

Table 2.2-1 Waste Management Scenarios Analyzed ................................... 2-5

Table 3.2-4 Percentages of Remanufactured Recyclables by City (Sorted

Table 3.3-15 Group 5 (Carbon) Scenarios- Percentage of Net Total Carbon

Figure 2.1-1 Life Cycle Inputs and Outputs of a Waste Management

Figure 3.2-27 Net Total Energy Consumption by City ....................................... 3-48

Figure 3.3-1 Group 3: Maximizing Materials Recovery (Via Manual

Figure 3.3-11 Group 3: Maximizing Materials Recovery (Via Manual

Figure 3.3-14 Group 5: Minimize Carbon (Global Warming) Emissions- Net

Figure 3.4-1 Cost Results of Simulation Scenarios (Amman: with Land

Figure 3.4-13 Cost Results of Optimizations Scenarios (Buenos Aires: with

Figure 3.4-60 Carbon Emissions Results of Simulation Scenarios (Kawasaki) 3-174

SWM: Solid Waste Management

SCAESAB: Shanghai City Appearance Environmental Sanitation Administrative

Collection Frequency: The number of MSW collections made from a specific

Combustion Process Energy: the electricity consumed in producing the product

Combustion Transportation Energy: the energy consumed to transport the

Commercial Waste: All municipal solid waste emanating from business

Commingled MRF: it is a material recovery facility that receives recyclables from a

Commingled Recyclables: Mixed recyclables that are collected together.

Greenhouse Gases: Components of the atmosphere that contribute to greenhouse

Manufacturing Energy Consumption: the total energy consumed in the

Materials Recovery Facility (MRF): Facility that processes residentially collected

Metric Tons of Carbon Equivalent: CO2eq or CO2e, is an internationally accepted

Non-segregated Collection: Collection of mixed refuse in a single compartment

Open Burning: Uncontrolled fires in a dump.

Pre-combustion Process Energy: the energy consumed in mining and

Pre-combustion Transportation Energy: the energy consumed in mining and

Recycle/Reuse: Recovering and re-processing useable MSW that might otherwise

Residuals: Unintended outputs of production processes. These include municipal

1.2 Goals and Scope of the Study

1.3 Consulting Team Formation

NIPPON KOEI (NK)

Research Triangle Institute (RTI) Individual Consultant

Figure 1.3-1 Consulting Team Formation

Table 1.3-1 Responsibility of Field Visit by NK and NK UK Team

1.4 Selection of Target Cities

Table 1.4-1 Comparative Information on the Countries of the 9 Target Cities

CHAPTER 2 DATA AND

Taking a life-cycle perspective encourages waste management planners to consider the

MTCE = [(Fossil CO2 x 1 + CH4 x 21) x 12/44] / 2200

2.2 Waste Management Scenarios Analyzed

Group 1: Open dumping X X

Recycling - manual sort X X

Minimize Carbon (Global

• Both yard waste and mixed MSW composting were considered.

Scenario Analysis Boundaries

Boundaries for Cost Analysis

Boundaries for Environmental Assessment

MSW Open Dumping

Figure 2.2-1 Boundaries for Group 1- Base Case

Compost Product Mixed

Composting Disposal at a Landfill

Figure 2.2-3 Boundaries for Group 3 Scenarios

Figure 2.2-4 Boundaries for Groups 4 and 5 Scenarios

2.3 Data Collection and Key City