Waste Management 69 (2017) 187–201

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) production and gasification in a pilot plant

integrated with an Otto cycle ICE through Aspen plusTM modelling:
Thermodynamic and economic viability
Albany Milena Lozano Násner a,⇑, Electo Eduardo Silva Lora b, José Carlos Escobar Palacio b,
Mateus Henrique Rocha b, Julian Camilo Restrepo b, Osvaldo José Venturini b, Albert Ratner c
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The St. Thomas University Tunja, St. 19 #11-64, Tunja, Boyacá, Colombia
b
NEST – Excellence Group in Thermal Power and Distributed Generation, Institute of Mechanical Engineering, Federal University of Itajubá, Av. BPS 1303, Itajubá,
Minas Gerais State CEP: 37500-903, Brazil
c
Seamans Center for the Engineering Arts and Sciences, University of Iowa, 3131 Iowa City, IA 52242, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This work deals with the development of a Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) gasification pilot plant using air as a
Received 19 February 2017 gasification agent. A downdraft fixed bed reactor is integrated with an Otto cycle Internal Combustion
Revised 5 June 2017 Engine (ICE). Modelling was carried out using the Aspen PlusTM software to predict the ideal operational
Accepted 2 August 2017
conditions for maximum efficiency. Thermodynamics package used in the simulation comprised the Non-
Available online 7 August 2017
Random Two-Liquid (NRTL) model and the Hayden-O’Connell (HOC) equation of state. As expected, the
results indicated that the Equivalence Ratio (ER) has a direct influence over the gasification temperature
Keywords:
and the composition of the Raw Produced Gas (RPG), and effects of ER over the Lower Heating Value
Gasification
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
(LHV) and Cold Gasification Efficiency (CGE) of the RPG are also discussed. A maximum CGE efficiency
Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) of 57–60% was reached for ER values between 0.25 and 0.3, also an average reactor temperature values
Syngas in the range of 680–700 °C, with a peak LHV of 5.8 MJ/Nm3. RPG was burned in an ICE, reaching an elec-
Techno-economic analysis trical power of 50 kWel. The economic assessment of the pilot plant implementation was also performed,
showing the project is feasible, with power above 120 kWel with an initial investment of approximately
US$ 300,000.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction emissions, reduced excess air requirements during combustion, as

Refused Derived Fuel (RDF) is the product of the treatment of
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) to create a fuel easily burnt in a
combustion chamber. To produce RDF, waste must first be shred-
ded and then carefully sorted to remove all non-combustible mate-
rial such as glass, metal and plastics (allowing the reuse/recycling
of these materials). While shredding and separating is carried out
using a series of mechanical processes, which are energy intensive,
RDF still has advantages over mixed MSW as a fuel, because of the
quality and uniformity of its physical and chemical characteristics,
as well as the fact that converting MSW to RDF results in a higher
Lower Heating Value (LHV). These characteristics lead to a more
homogeneous physical and chemical composition, lower pollutant
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mlnasner@gmail.com (A.M.L. Násner), electo@unifei.edu.br
(E.E.S. Lora), jocescobar@gmail.com (J.C.E. Palacio), mateus0@yahoo.com.br
(M.H. Rocha), jcrestrepol@hotmail.com (J.C. Restrepo), osvaldo@unifei.edu.br
(O.J. Venturini), albert-ratner@uiowa.edu (A. Ratner).
well as, easier storage, handling, and transportation (Bosmans
et al., 2013; Consonni et al., 2005; Rotter et al., 2004; Caputo and
Pelagagge, 2002), having a LHV remarkably higher (Bosmans
et al., 2013), varying from 16.1 to 26.3 MJ/kg (dry ash free), in
MSW having from 12.1 to 22.5 MJ/kg (dry ash free).
Gasification is a process of conversion of any carbonaceous fuels
(solid or liquid feedstock) into gaseous fuel, through partial oxida-
tion with an oxidizing agent (air, O2, H2O vapour, CO2, or their mix-
ture). It can also be defined as a thermochemical process limited to
a partial combustion and pyrolysis. Raw Produced Gas (RPG) com-
position depends mainly on the temperature in the reactor, which
is in turn influenced by the Equivalence Ratio (ER); H2 content in
the RPG ranges from 12% to 40%, CO content ranges from 15% to
30% and CH4 ranges from 4.5% to 9.0%. LHV of the RPG ranges from
4.0 to 13.0 MJ/Nm3, depending on the oxidizing agent used in gasi-
fication and the operating conditions, among other factors. Gasifi-
cation temperature is one of the most important operating
parameters affecting the performance of the process due to the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.08.006
0956-053X/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
188 A.M.L. Násner et al. / Waste Management 69 (2017) 187–201

Nomenclature

Abbreviations Latin symbols

A ashes content C costs (US$)
APM Aspen Plus Model CF cash flow (US$)
BFB Bubbling Fluidized Bed E expenditures (US$)
BWI Bond Work Index ER Equivalence Ratio (dimensionless)
CFB Circulating Fluidized Bed I discount rate (%)
CGE Cold Gas Efficiency IRR Internal Rate of Return (US$)
COFINS Contribution to the Social Security Funding LHV Lower Heating Value (MJ/kg or MJ/Nm3)
ER Equivalence Ratio m_ mass flow rate (kg/s)
FB Fixed Bed NPV Net Present Value (US$)
FC Fixed carbon R revenues (US$)
HHV Higher Heating Value t lifetime of investment (years)
HOC Hayden-O’Connell W _ power (kW)
ICE Internal Combustion Engine X molar fraction (%)
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IRR Internal Rate of Return Greek symbols
LHV Lower Heating Value Η efficiency (%)
MM Mathematical Model
MRA Minimum Rate of Attractiveness Subscripts
MSW Municipal Solid Waste air air
NEST Excellence Group in Thermal Power and Distributed aux auxiliary
Generation
CGE Cold Gas Efficiency
NRTL Non-Random Two-Liquid CH4 methane
NPV Net Present Value CO carbon monoxide
PIS Program of Social Integration El electrical
PSD Particle Size Distribution
gas gas
RDF Refuse Derived Fuel gross gross
RPG Raw Produced Gas H2 hydrogen
SELIC Settlement and Custody Rate
IC installation costs
SFC Specific Fuel Consumption MSW Municipal Solid Waste
SRF Solid Recovered Fuel net net
Syngas Synthesis Gas O&M operation and maintenance costs
UNIFEI Federal University of Itajubá
RDF Refuse Derived Fuel
V volatiles content real actual conditions
W moisture content Stoic stoichiometric
Th thermal

balance between endothermic and exothermic reactions involved.
The synergy of endothermic and exothermic reactions leads to a
high thermodynamic efficiency, higher temperatures favor the
reactants during exothermic reactions, while the same conditions
favor the products in endothermic reactions (Consonni and
Viganò, 2012; Martínez et al., 2012; Belgiorno et al., 2003).
Recent efforts include the application of an equilibrium model
to predict performance of commercial gasifiers. Thermodynamic
equilibrium calculations, which are independent of gasifier design,
may be more suitable for process studies on the influence of the
most important fuel processing parameters. At chemical equilib-
rium, a reacting system is at its most stable composition, a condi-
tion achieved when the entropy of the system is maximized while
its Gibbs free energy is minimized. However, thermodynamic equi-
librium may not be achieved, mainly due to a relatively low oper-
ational temperature (product gas outlet temperatures range from
750 to 1000 °C). These models are simple but inaccurate when
used to calculate tar formation, CH4 generation, and higher hydro-
carbon yields (Hwang et al., 2014; Niu et al., 2013; Barba et al.,
2011).
There are many types of gasifiers and gasification processes that
confirm the interest and prove the potential availability and capa-
bility of this technology to produce energy from wastes. RDF gasi-
fication is rather complex and many researchers have focused on
Aspen PlusTM modelling, in order to reach better understanding of
gasification processes and to carry out the design, simulation, opti-
mization of gasifiers and to perform process analysis (Shehzad
et al., 2016; Begum et al., 2014; Chen et al., 2013; Ramzan et al.,
2011; Chen et al., 2010). Several works developed different gasifi-
cation schemes showing promising results in a wide range of
potential applications (Hadidi et al., 2017; Kabalina et al., 2017;
Couto et al., 2016; Materazzi et al., 2016; Vounatsos et al., 2016;
Antonopoulos et al., 2012).
Kabalina et al. (2017) performed a retrofit in a district heating
and cooling facility to use RDF as fuel in an atmospheric pressure
gasifier with downstream gas clean-up, gas turbine and heat
recovery steam generator, along with heat exchangers for heat
integration. The authors found that the lower production costs
for value-added products are achieved at maximum simultaneous
char and Synthesis Gas (syngas) production, with these costs esti-
mated in 6.1 USD/GJ.
Couto et al. (2016) carried out a thermodynamic evaluation of
wastes gasification according to the First and Second Law analysis.
A thermodynamic method was coupled with a previously
developed numerical model by the same authors and this model
was validated using data from a pilot plant scale, with optimal
operating point at 900 °C for an ER of 0.25. They found tar content
decreased 80% when temperature reached from 700 to 900 °C.
 A.M.L. Násner et al. / Waste Management 69 (2017) 187–201
Materazzi et al. (2016) has studied the wastes gasification to
transform the solid waste into clean syngas at a commercial scale.
For the two RDF materials considered by the authors, carbon con-
version efficiency is independent of feed type, with both efficien-
cies higher than 96%. LHV of the syngas is affected by extent of
the exothermic reactions. Cold Gas Efficiency (CGE) remains unvar-
ied, with values as high as 82%.
Vounatsos et al. (2016) evaluated the RDF production, sampling,
characterization and gasification for the potential energy utiliza-
tion of this fuel in an air blown gasifier. The authors reported a
materials recovery facility of 15,000 ton/year of packing waste,
plastic and paper, developed thermodynamic calculations of the
gasification process and found optimum operational temperature,
in terms of carbon conversion and CGE, between 850 and 900 °C.
Antonopoulos et al. (2012) carried out a non-stoichiometric
model for a downdraft gasifier in order to simulate the overall gasi-
fication process of residues. The composition of the RPG was calcu-
lated by the authors, as well as, the mass and energy balances of
the gasifier. Overall thermal energy produced by the gasifier was
considered to be 0.5 MW, with an ER of 0.45 and an operating tem-
perature range of 800–1200 °C. Authors found that the syngas LHV
was about (around) 4–6 MJ/Nm3 and was reduced between 23 and
40% when the feedstock moisture was increased.
Key objective of this work is to perform a thermodynamic anal-
ysis and an economic assessment of energy recovery, based on the
gasification of RDF, also to model it to support project decisions in
a pilot plant built at the Federal University of Itajubá (UNIFEI) in
Brazil. In the present paper, a thermodynamic simulation model
was developed in Aspen PlusTM software to determine the technical
feasibility of RDF production and gasification steps for electricity
generation, using the produced syngas in an Otto Cycle Internal
Combustion Engine (ICE) in this pilot plant. The study also provides
an economic assessment, with a sensitivity analysis, of the most
significant parameters affecting the viability of the proposed
energy recovery from MSW.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Plant configuration and main design assumptions
The research and development project, whose partial results are
described in this work, included the design and construction of a
pilot plant for RDF production through gasification in an air blown
downdraft gasifier, integrated with an ICE coupled with an electric
generator, to generate electricity. This paper shows the results of
the pilot plant project, which involved the simulation of the system
in Aspen PlusTM software, in such a way that it was the starting
point for the initial calculations of mass and energy balances,
installed generation capacity and thermal and electric efficiencies.
Now pilot the plant is already built and operating at the Excellence
Group in Thermal Power and Distributed Generation (NEST) labo-
ratories, and it is expected to validate the results obtained in the
operational tests with this model.
MSW is a very complex mixture, characterized by its hetero-
geneity, both in chemical composition and Particle Size Distribu-
tion (PSD), when compared with coal. In this study the RDF was
used like fuel for thermochemical conversion in the pilot plant
described, and RDF production line accomplished through succes-
sive stages of sorting, screening, shredding, size reduction, sieving,
drying and densification. In this context, the detailed mass, energy
and the material streams balances of RDF production process were
modeled based on the reported values published by (Rotter et al.,
2004; Caputo and Pelagagge, 2002), in terms of its chemical com-
position, as proximate and ultimate analysis by (Montané et al.,
2013; Velis et al., 2011; Dunnu et al., 2010a, 2010b).
189
It can be found studies assessing the energy potential of the RDF
obtained from using the combustible fraction of solid wastes as a
fuel resource (Dong and Lee, 2009; Consonni et al., 2005), models
have been applied to MSW and RDF gasification to carry out the
gasification process analysis, obtaining results such as: RPG yield
and composition, LHV and CGE, however, those studies did not
evaluate separately the different stages in a RDF production and
gasification plant.
Although kinetic models provide essential information on
mechanisms and rates, equilibrium models are valuable because
they are independent from the gasifier type and they can predict
thermodynamic variables as a guide of process design, evalua-
tion and improvement (Chen et al., 2013). Equilibrium models
have two general approaches: stoichiometric and non-
stoichiometric. Stoichiometric approach requires a clearly
defined reaction mechanism that incorporates all chemical reac-
tions and species involved. In non-stoichiometric approach, no
particular reaction mechanisms or species are involved in the
numerical simulation. To specify the feed the only input needed
is its elemental composition which can be readily obtained from
ultimate analysis data. Non-stoichiometric equilibrium model is
based on minimizing Gibbs free energy in the system, without
specifying the possible reactions taking place (Puig-Arnavat
et al., 2010).
In order to calculate the ideal operational conditions for reach-
ing maximum efficiency a non-stoichiometric equilibrium a steady
state model approach in Aspen PlusTM software is developed in this
work. Models based on thermodynamic equilibrium have been
used widely (Shehzad et al., 2016; Arafat and Jijakli, 2013;
Begum et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2013; Niu et al., 2013; Ahmed
et al., 2012; Barba et al., 2011).
Different authors have developed MSW gasification equilibrium
models in steady state systems to evaluate the main gasification
process parameters having an impact on the system performance
and efficiency, like ER, operating temperature and feedstock feed-
ing rate. Table 1 summarizes the main results obtained by these
studies, including ER, temperature, gas composition (H2 and CO
molar fractions), LHV and CGE, according with gasification agent,
wastes moisture and different types of reactors. These authors
have shown reasonable agreement between chemical equilibrium
predictions and experimental data, noticing the greater the mois-
ture of the wastes the lower the LHV of the RPG. LHV of the RPG
ranges from 3.7 to 8.0 MJ/Nm3 when using a mixture of oxygen
and steam as gasification agent. ER values could range from 0.20
to 0.40, reaching temperatures from 600 °C to 1015 °C, when using
the circulating fluidized bed technology and air as an oxidizing
agent.
The pilot plant of MSW at NEST-UNIFEI was divided into three
different areas: RDF production, RDF gasification and power gener-
ation. RDF production line consists of several steps performed in
series carrying out unit operations to separate undesirable compo-
nents and thereby improving the combustible matter, to obtain a
RDF that meets the required specifications as fuel, so RDF produc-
tion (mechanical treatment) consists of different stages of MSW
reception, handling and storage:

Manual or mechanical sorting of heavy materials (compounds
of higher molecular weight and long chains, inorganics, metals,
inert materials and glass).

Drying of light materials (plastics, paper, organic matter and all
residues with lower weight). During the commissioning of the
pilot plant it was decided to change the operations schedule
and size reduction was performed before drying.

Size reduction (shredding and grinding).

Briquetting of RDF, packing and storage.
190 A.M.L. Násner et al. / Waste Management 69 (2017) 187–201

Table 1
Summary of operating conditions and performances of wastes gasification units.

Reference Waste type Moisture Oxidizing Aspen PlusTM ER Temperature H2 (%) CO LHV CGE Fixed Bed (FB), Bubbling
(%) agent Model (APM) or (–) (°C) (%) (MJ/ (%) Fluidized Bed (BFB) or
Mathematical Nm3) Circulating Fluidized
Model (MM) Bed (CFB)
Barba et al. (2011) RDF 8.0 Air MM 0.27 1015 29.0 25.0 4.45 34.0 CFB
Niu et al. (2013) MSW 10.0 Air APM 0.35 800 16.0 24.0 5.4 62.0 BFB
Niu et al. (2013) MSW 30.0 Air APM 0.35 800 12.0 25.0 4.8 48.0 BFB
Niu et al. (2013) MSW 50.0 Air APM 0.35 800 8.5 26.0 4.2 38.0 BFB
Chen et al. (2013) MSW 48.0 Air APM 0.30 700 43.0 42.0 5.8 N.A. FB
Al Amoodi et al. (2013) Polyethylene 0.02 Air APM 0.20 727 35.0 25.0 7.1 40.0 BFB
Chen et al. (2010) MSW 48.0 Air APM 0.40 600 42.0 26.0 3.7 N.A. FB
Materazzi et al. (2013) RDF 11.5 O2/Steam MM N.A. 750 35.0 24.0 8.0 55.0 BFB
Mitta et al. (2006) Tires (dry) N.A. Air APM 0.30 950 15.5 8.10 N.A. N.A. BFB
Ramzan et al. (2011) MSW 50.9 Air APM 0.30 650 24.0 30.0 N.A. 54.0 FB
Begum et al. (2013) RDF 12.0 Air APM 0.40 700 5.2 60.0 N.A. N.A. FB
Shehzad et al. (2016) MSW 51.7 O2 APM 0.20 900 28.0 25.0 N.A. 88.9 CFB
Couto et al. (2015) MSW N.A. Air MM 0.30 687 6.20 9.73 7.0 53.0 BFB
Vounatsos et al. (2012) RDF/SRF 26.8 Air APM 0.30 800 25.5 19.4 6.1 54.2 BFB

N.A.: is not available.

In this paper, the maximum thermal power of the gasifier
(250 kWth) is taken as a starting point, determined by a previous
proposal when carrying out the MSW gasification research project.
A LHV for the MSW was determined as 12.0 MJ/kg, according to lit-
erature (Niu et al., 2013; Cheng and Hu, 2010), considering MSW
moisture content in Brazil is 30% (Gonçalves, 2007). Fig. 1 shows
a schematic representation of the integrated three steps installa-
tion Fig. 2 shows the picture of the pilot plant of RDF production
and gasification installed at the laboratories of NEST/UNIFEI.
MSW composition is divided into two main categories: organics
(food residue, wood waste, paper, textiles, rubber and plastic) and
inorganics (ash, tiles, glass, metals and other inert materials). Inor-
ganics can be regarded as inert materials that do not have an
impact on thermochemical reactions (Luz et al., 2015). Typical
average physical composition of the MSW in Itajubá municipality
in Brazil without any type of pre-treatment is shown in Fig. 3.
A physical-chemical characterization of RDF was carried out
through ultimate and proximate analysis. Primary data were esti-
mated based on the gravimetric composition of MSW generated
in the Itajubá municipality, as estimated by Gonçalves (2007). Its
average proximate and ultimate analysis was calculated using data
reported by the IPCC (2006), as these results are stated by Leme
et al. (2014) and they are shown in Table 2.
2.2. Plant stages simulation
Fig. 4 shows a comprehensive flowchart to better understand
the simulation process developed in this paper. Simulation started
with the determination of the untreated MSW mass flow and
gravimetric composition to calculate RDF mass flow rate and com-
position. Model developed in Aspen PlusTM for gasification has as
input the elemental decomposition of the RDF based on the ulti-
mate and proximate analysis. This procedure is based on empirical
correlations developed in an ExcelÒ module interface connected to
the RYield (B1). Composition of the RPG from RDF gasification was
simulated by means of chemical equilibrium reactor in Aspen
PlusTM. Temperature profile in the gasifier along the height was cal-
culated in a model developed in MatlabÒ software, as described by
Centeno et al. (2012).
A sensitivity analysis was carried out to evaluate the gasifier
performance as a function of the main process parameters. Devel-
oped model calculated the main parameters related to RPG, which
has influence over the power generation in the ICE (RPG yield and
composition, thermal power generated, Higher Heating Value
(HHV), LHV and CGE), also predicted the steady state regime per-
formance of a RDF gasification power system coupled to an Otto
Cycle ICE.

Fig. 1. RDF gasification pilot plant layout.

 A.M.L. Násner et al. / Waste Management 69 (2017) 187–201 191

Fig. 2. Picture of the pilot plant of RDF production and gasification installed at NEST/UNIFEI laboratories.

Fig. 3. Typical average gravimetric composition of the MSW in Brazil without any type of pretreatment and selection (Gonçalves, 2007).

Table 2
Estimated ultimate and proximate analyses of the RDF from Itajubá.

Parameter Symbol/unit Elemental composition (% as–received basis) and heating value (MJ/kg)
Components Paper Plastics Organic matter RDF
Proximate analysis
Fixed carbon FC 25 0 35 26.3
Volatiles V 70 90 60 67.6
Moisture W 10 0 60 12.0
Ashes A 6 10 5 6.0
Ultimate analysis
Carbon C 44 60 48 49.4
Hydrogen H 6 7 6 6.5
Nitrogen N 0 0 2 1.5
Sulphur S 0 0 0.3 0.3
Oxygen O 44 23 38 36.1
Heating value
LHV MJ/kg 19.83 31.82 12.45 15.20
192 A.M.L. Násner et al. / Waste Management 69 (2017) 187–201

Fig. 4. Flowchart of the simulation process procedure.

Table 3 its function is to extract moisture from the MSW, as the inlet mois-
Parameters considered for calculations. ture of the MSW is considered to be 30%.
Parameters Value Unit
Feeding dryer is fed with hot air (AIR) and it outflow (WET-AIR)
is composed only of moist air, this stream enters a dehumidifier
MSW inlet mass flow rate 312 kg/h
(DU1) represented by a flash separator in Aspen PlusTM and result-
MSW – LHV 12.00 MJ/kg
RDF yield from MSW 50.0 % ing dry air (DRY-AIR) is used as the gasification agent in the pro-
Milling losses 3.0 % cess. Dry flow (DRY-MSW), with approximately 12% of moisture,
Briquetting losses 2.0 % enters a grinding unit (R1) to reduce its SMW particle size. A
Briquetting inlet mass flow rate 109 kg/h
description of the unit operation blocks used in the Aspen PlusTM
Gasifier thermal power 250 kWth
Gasifier inlet mass flow rate 107 kg/h model for drying process is presented in Table S1 (Supplementary
Material).

Inlet mass flow rate for all of the existing equipment in the RDF
production line was calculated and considered the relative loss of
material in the size reduction and briquetting operations of the
RDF (2–3%). Table 3 shows the mass flow inlets, thermal power
and mass losses in the power generation facility.
In Aspen PlusTM it is required to define the conventional chemi-
cal compounds that will be considered as products of the reactions
in chemical equilibrium (C, S, O2, N2, H2, H2O, CO, CO2, CH4, C2H2,
C2H4, C2H6, H2S), as well as, the characterization of the RDF and
ashes. RDF and ashes were defined as non-conventional stream
in Aspen PlusTM and they were specified through ultimate and prox-
imate analysis.
2.3. RDF production
2.3.1. Drying
Fig. 5 shows the entire process flow diagram with unit opera-
tion reactors used to simulate the process of electricity generation
from RDF gasification in Aspen PlusTM. The entire process was
divided into 4 sub-flowsheets: drying, milling, gasification and
power generation island. First unit process is drying (S1), which
2.3.2. Milling
MSW drying enhances its grindability, which results in less
energy consumption during milling. Power requirement of the mill
system is calculated in Aspen PlusTM software, determining the
MSW grindability based on its physical properties, such as, hard-
ness, fracture, and tensile strength. Energy consumption for the
milling of MSW is proportional to crack length, as indicated by
Bond’s Law, and it is estimated by the Bond Work Index (BWI),
which is measured in kWh/t of MSW. The inlet moisture of the
MSW at the milling stage is 12%, and the description of the unit
operation blocks used in the Aspen PlusTM model for milling process
is presented in Table S2 (Supplementary Material). Such breaking
process creates fragments with the same composition as the inlet
flow, which means each solid sub-stream should have a PSD attri-
bute as shown in Table S3 (Supplementary Material).
2.3.3. Briquetting
Need of briquetting, in a fixed bed gasification system, arises
because all processes taking place in the reactor depend on particle
size. It was considered RDF was prepared using a screw extrusion
press machine which could be adapted from a conventional bio-
 A.M.L. Násner et al. / Waste Management 69 (2017) 187–201
Fig. 5. Aspen PlusTM simulation flow sheet for the RDF gasification plant.
mass briquetting machine. Briquettes production section is not
presented in the flow sheet in Fig. 5 to simplify it. Power require-
ment for RDF briquetting for this plant was calculated with data
from the consulted manufactures/suppliers in Brazil, and it was
estimated in 18 kWh. However, the energy use (per throughput)
by the piston press generally decreases with production scale, inlet
mass flow in the briquetting area is 109 kg/h and briquetting losses
are 2.0%.
For the overall mass flow balance of the RDF production pro-
cess, it was considered a MSW input of 312 kg/h, which resulted
in 107 kg/h of RDF fuel produced. The least costly and best estab-
lished current practice to produce RDF from MSW is the mechani-
cal pre-treatment. In this paper, a mechanical pre-treatment plant
was analysed and a manual sorting stage was used to separate
metals, glasses and inert materials in order to obtain higher calori-
fic fractions of mixed organic waste materials for RDF production.
Residual waste obtained after sorting out metals and inert materi-
als was dried in order to improve its calorific value, shredded for
size reduction, and put through a briquetting machine. RDF has a
higher density (400 kg/m3) and calorific value compared to the
MSW (Consonni and Viganò, 2012, Caputo and Pelagagge, 2002).
Of the total input of MSW, approximately 34% could be recovered
in the form of RDF. In the mechanical pre-treatment plant, the
input waste material (i.e. MSW) was only subjected to mechanical
sorting and no other materials were added to the process. The
energy balance of the input waste material stream was calculated
from the sum of energy content of output streams.
2.4. RDF gasification area
Gasification model was developed combining the mass conser-
vation (conservation of atomic species), energy balance (thermo-
dynamic energy conservation law) and laws of chemical
equilibrium. It is considered that chemical equilibrium is reached
by chemical reactions; therefore the chemical composition of the
RPG can be predicted by minimizing the Gibbs free energy of the
reactants and products involved, model was developed using
Aspen PlusTM software using an equilibrium reactor block (RGIBBS).
Equilibrium models are based on general assumptions, are less
computationally intensive than kinetic models and are in better
agreement with specific types of gasifiers. They are considered a
good approach when simulating entrained flow gasifiers or down-
draft fixed bed gasifiers, such as in this experimental work (Pandey
193
et al., 2015). Thermodynamic equilibrium model predicts the
maximum achievable yield of a desired product, from a reacting
system. In this work, a complete conversion of char it is
assumed, also, the tar formed during the gasification was not
accounted for.
For the simulation of the fixed bed downdraft gasification pro-
cess the following assumptions were considered (Niu et al., 2013;
Chen et al., 2013):

Gasification process happens at steady state.

Residence time is long enough to allow the chemical reactions
reach the equilibrium state.

Reactor hydrodynamic characteristics are not considered.

Gasification zone completely isothermal; it means gasification
temperature is uniform in all of the directions: axial and radial.

Average particle diameter remains constant during gasification.

‘‘Char” is composed only of carbon.

Ashes are inert and do not participate in chemical reactions.

Tar presence is not considered.

All of sulphur and chlorine compounds are not considered.

Nitrogen oxides are not formed.

No information about reaction pathways and the formation of
intermediates is given.
In the model, only final equilibrium products such as H2, CO,
CO2, CH4, H2O, O2 and N2 are considered; thus, any other co-
product formed in secondary reactions is not taken into account.
It was also considered that any high molecular weight hydrocar-
bons, such as, oils, tars, phenolic compounds, aromatics hydrocar-
bons were formed during pyrolysis.
To determine the thermodynamic properties of the components
in the process reactions, the Aspen PlusTM software has several pre-
determined models, and main chemical gasification reactions are
shown in Table 4; in this work, the thermodynamic model Non-
Random Two-Liquid (NRTL) was selected, model was employed
to calculate the activity coefficients in the liquid phase, since it
describes adequately the behaviour of most binaries systems pre-
sent in the process. State equation of Hayden-O’Connell (HOC)
was used for modelling the vapour phase, HOC equation is recom-
mended for highly non-ideal mixtures involved and the possible
presence of organic acids. In this simulation, the enthalpy and den-
sity physical property models selected for both waste and ashes,
which are non-conventional components, are ‘‘HCOALGEN and
194 A.M.L. Násner et al. / Waste Management 69 (2017) 187–201

Table 4 tion and reduction reactions, because it handles three phases

Typical gasification reactions (T = 25 °C) (Basu, 2013). chemical equilibrium and has been widely adopted to represent
Reaction Heat of Number and name gasification reactions (Table 4). This equilibrium reactor provides
reaction of reaction an option either to consider all the components present in the sys-
(MJ/kmol) tem as equilibrium products or to restrict them based on some
Heterogeneous reactions specific reactions.
C þ 1=2O2
CO 111 R-1 Char partial combustion A MATLABÒ computer mathematics model, with empirical rela-
C þ O2
CO2 394 R-2 Char complete combustion
C þ 2H2
CH4 75 R-3 Methanation
tions developed by Centeno et al. (2012) was adapted, and used in
C þ CO2
2CO +172 R-4 Boudouard reaction NEST to calculate equilibrium temperature in the reduction zone in
C þ H2 O
H2 þ CO +131 R-5 Water-gas reaction the of gasifier, when the values of incoming air flow (AIR-IN-G)
C þ 2H2 O
CO2 þ 2H2 +90 R-6 Water-gas reaction were varied and RDF (RDF-IN-G) mass flow was constant. Such
2C þ 2H2 O
CH4 þ CO2 -13 R-7 Water-gas reaction
temperature was employed to calculate the composition of the
Homogeneous reactions RPG in the Aspen PlusTM model through the total Gibbs free energy
CO þ 1=2O2
CO2 283 R-8 CO partial combustion
minimization, and after adjusting the ER relation and temperature
CO þ H2 O
H2 þ CO2 41 R-9 Water gas shift reaction
CO þ 3H2
CH4 þ H2 O 206 R-10 CO methanation reaction values from the MATLABÒ software model, the composition of the
CO2 þ 4H2
CH4 þ 2H2 O 165 R-11 CO2methanation reaction RPG was calculated; assumed temperature and RPG components
H2 þ 1=2O2
H2 O 242 R-12 H2 partial combustion were substituted to predict the energy balances.
CH4 þ 2O2
CO2 þ 2H2 O 803 R-13CH4 complete combustion RPG generated in the gasification (GAS-PROD) is fed to a cooler
CH4 þ 1=2O2
CO þ 2H2 36 R-14CH4 partial combustion
(HE2) to bring the gas to the required gas cleaning temperature,
CH4 þ H2 O
CO þ 3H2 O +206 R-15 Steam methane
reforming energy released in the cooling process could be recovered by sup-
plying heat for air preheating. A heat stream leaving the cooler
(HE2) was included, representing the energy that could be recov-
ered during RPG cooling, and this stream was linked to a heat
DCOALIGT”, which were used to calculate enthalpies of formation, stream mixer (Q). RPG cooler output stream (GAS-ASH) is fed into
specific heat capacities and densities of the different compounds. a particle control device using an Aspen PlusTM component separa-
Gasification is simulated into the hierarchical block called G1 tor (SEP) that removes the solid unreacted char and ashes (ASHES
(Fig. 6) that contains a few sub models. Stream of dry RDF (RDF (OUT)) from the cleaned gas mixture (SYNGAS(OUT)). In order to
(IN)) is fed into a yield reactor (B1), whose yields are set by a cal- determine the operating conditions to obtain the maximum
culator block, which in turn determines the mass flow of each com- energy efficiency the developed gasification model could be opti-
ponent in the block outlet stream (RDF-IN-G). In this reactor the mized and conducted an economic evaluation of the optimized
non-conventional stream RDF is converted (decomposed or indi- process.
vidualized) in its constituting components, including carbon (C), ER is the most important operating parameter when air gasifi-
hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), nitrogen (N), sulphur (S), moisture cation is performed. A typical commercial biomass gasifier is oper-
(H2O) and ash specifying the yield distribution according to the ated at an ER value of 0.25 in order to maintain autothermal
RDF ultimate and proximate analyses. Stoichiometric balances conditions. Hence, a range of 0.1–0.5 was selected for this study
were made in an ExcelÒ module interface developed and linked in order to determine the optimum ER for the RDF gasification pro-
to the yields of the reactor block. Enthalpy of the stream RDF-IN- cess. Effects of ER on temperature and product gas composition
G is not identical to the enthalpy of the stream RDF(IN) because were evaluated in the range of 0.1–0.5, in order to determine the
the enthalpies of the constituents that make up a RDF do not equal optimum ER for the gasification process, changes in ER values were
the enthalpy of its individual components, mainly due to the achieved varying the air flow, while the RDF flow was kept con-
chemical bonds. Therefore a heat stream was inserted to feed back stant. Description of the unit operation blocks used in the Aspen
the enthalpy loss of the system. PlusTM model for gasification process is presented in Table S4 (Sup-
Yield reactor output stream (RDF-IN-G) is composed of volatile plementary Material).
and ‘‘char”. This stream is fed into a gasification unit that is
represented by an equilibrium reactor (B2), which works like a 2.5. Power generation island
fixed bed reactor, where gasification is simulated allowing to esti-
mate a RPG chemical equilibrium RPG composition. Gibbs free The software Aspen PlusTM (software) contains several unit oper-
energy minimization of the reaction system is carried out in the ation models required for a complete simulation of a conventional
equilibrium reactor, which can be used to model the partial oxida- power generation plant, including compressors and gas turbines.

Fig. 6. Aspen PlusTM simulation flowchart for gasification unit.

 A.M.L. Násner et al. / Waste Management 69 (2017) 187–201 195

However, Aspen PlusTM has not unit operation blocks in its own where X H2 is the molar fraction of H2 (% molar) contained in the
database, for the modelling of ICE, which are most commonly used RPG, X CO is the molar fraction of CO (% molar) contained in the
for generating electric power at low and medium scales. Therefore, RPG and X CH4 is the molar fraction of the CH4 (% molar) contained
the unit operation blocks available in the Aspen PlusTM software in the RPG.
database (compressors, chemical reactors, turbines, heat exchang- For the successful quantitative evaluation of the process, the
ers and mixers) were used to simulate the ICE unit. These blocks CGE is a crucial index to account for the performance of RDF gasi-
will represent the set of processes (isentropic compression, com- fication, because it represents the ratio between the energetic
bustion at constant volume, isentropic expansion and cooling at value of the RPG and the energy in the RDF fed in the gasifier
constant volume) of the engine cycle assumed in this work. and it is defined as follows:
Fig. 5 gives the combination of blocks representing the beha-
_
ðm  LHV Þ
viour of an Otto Cycle ICE, the cooled and cleaned product gas gCGE ¼ _ gas gas
ð3Þ
(SG2) is combined with air (AIR1) in a mixer (M1), and it is then ðmRDF  LHV RDF Þ
fed to the compressor (C1) that raises the pressure high enough where gCGE is the cold gas efficiency (%), m
_ gas is the RPG volumetric
to ensure it could be burned in a combustion chamber (COMB), flow rate (Nm3/s), LHV gas is the lower heating value of the RPG (MJ/
with an air mass flow calculated to guaranty the best engine per- Nm3), m_ RDF is the mass flow rate of RDF (kg/s) and LHV RDF is the
formance. Combustion takes place in an equilibrium reactor and lower heating value of the RDF (MJ/kg).
the exhaust gases are expanded in a turbine (T1), description of The net electrical efficiency is defined as the ratio of the net
the unit operation blocks used in the Aspen PlusTM model for power power generated by the facility, being the gross electrical power
generation islands is presented in Table S5 (Supplementary generated minus the auxiliary power consumption (fans, pumps,
Material). blowers, crushers, etc.) to the energy input (thermal power of the
The ICE electrical power production is 50 kWel. Taking into inlet MSW) being calculated by the Eq. (4):
account a net electrical efficiency of 5.2% related to the input of
MSW and 11.0% related to RDF it can be concluded that it is tech- _
W _
W
gel;net ¼ _ el;gross el;aux
ð4Þ
nically and energetically possible to produce net electrical power, mMSW  LHV MSW
from an air blown downdraft gasifier of RDF, coupled with an Otto
_ el;gross gross electri-
where gel;net is the net electrical efficiency (%), W
Cycle ICE. In next section, it will be determined if this system is
economically viable for Brazil when selling electricity to the grid _
cal energy generated (kWel), W el;aux is the auxiliary power consump-
at market prices (without subsidies). The main operational param- _ MSW is the mass flow rate of MSW (kg/s)
tion of the system (kWel), m
eters for the simulation of the Otto cycle ICE are shown in Table 5. and LHV MSW is the lower heating value of MSW (MJ/kg).

2.6. Process evaluation methods 2.6.2. Economic feasibility evaluation methods

All prices are expressed in American dollars (US$); a spread-
2.6.1. Thermodynamic analysis and performance assessment sheet was developed to analyze the economic performance of the
The ER is defined as the ratio of the amount of actually air sup- most significant parameters affecting the feasibility of the pro-
plied to the gasifier to the required stoichiometric amount of air. posed energy recovery from MSW in a pilot plant. Main goal of
ER is commonly used to quantitatively indicate the extent of com- the spreadsheet is to assist in projects decision making process
bustion in the combustion/gasification process and it is defined as focused, both, in energy recovery from MSW and over indicators
follows: commonly used in economic feasibility studies such as cash flow
_ air =m
ðm _ RDF Þreal analysis, obtaining the Net Present Value (NPV) and Internal Rate
ER ¼ ð1Þ of Return (IRR).
_ air =m
ðm _ RDF Þstoic
NPV and IRR are standardized financial tools, to assess the prof-
where m _ air is the mass flow rate of air (kg/s), m
_ RDF is the mass flow itability of projects, a given scenario is considered economically
rate of RDF (kg/s), numerator refers to the actual condition (real) attractive if it has the highest IRR and the NPV is greater than zero.
verified at the time of measurement and the denominator refers NPV is an indicator of how much value the project adds to the
to the stoichiometric condition (stoic). investment and refers to the present values of all costs and associ-
ER and temperature affect significantly the heating value of the ated revenues being calculated according to Eq. (5):
product gas, product gas content of H2, CO and CH4, which makes it
X
t
CF n
suitable for it utilization as fuel in ICE and gas turbines for power NPV ¼ n  C IC ð5Þ
production. The LHV (MJ/Nm3) of the RPG is calculated by: n¼1
ð1 þ iÞ
ð107:98  X H2 þ 126:36  X CO þ 358:18  X CH4 Þ where NPV is the net present value, CFn is the annual cash flow,
LHV ¼ ð2Þ
1000 being the difference between Revenues (R) and Expenditures (E),
Operation and Maintenance Costs (CO&M), i is the Discount Rate,
CIC is total capital costs of investment, taken as the Installation Costs
Table 5 (IC), and t is the lifetime of the investment (20 years). The IRR is cal-
Main operational parameters of the Otto cycle ICE (Heywood, 1988). culated as the discount rate, which makes the NPV equal to US$
Parameter Unit Value 0.00, using the IRR economical spreadsheet.
Working fluid Air
Inlet air pressure Bar 1.0 3. Results and discussion
Inlet air temperature °C 25
Inlet air mass flow kg/h 300
Outlet compressor pressure Bar 3.0
3.1. RDF production
Compressor efficiency % 70
Combustion chamber temperature °C 1200 Sorting of the recyclables materials can generate RDF with a
Combustion chamber pressure Bar 12 more uniform chemical and physical characteristics, obtained
ICE efficiency % 20
RDF product will have a high heating value as fuel to be used in
Electrical generator efficiency % 95
the gasification process, because the materials’ recovery process
196 A.M.L. Násner et al. / Waste Management 69 (2017) 187–201
(ceramics, glasses, metals, etc.) has significant advantages, such as
reduced ashes contents, less residual rates of carbon (in both flue
gas and ashes) and lower toxic and hazardous emissions.
Thus in this case, although most of the equipment and pro-
cesses for RDF production may be analogous, the sequence in
which these steps are placed is determined by the type of solid
waste that is managed, and also by the materials recovery goals
of each facility and expected efficiencies. In this sense, the compar-
ison of the different configuration lines of RDF production makes
possible to determine the key factors that influence the perfor-
mance of the process, such as efficiency of mass productivity,
RDF moisture and ash content, heating value of RDF product and
processing costs.
Therefore, RDF characteristics vary greatly according to its
source and the manufacturing line scheme that produces it. For this
reason, to evaluate the performance of the thermal treatment these
fuels will undergo is important, nevertheless, the use of RDF must
be carefully assessed, as the overall energy efficiency is lowered
due to the energy consumption associated with its production.
It has been estimated that 312 kg/h of MSW are required to pro-
duce 107 kg/h of RDF, assuming that 50% of total MSW are recy-
clables (ceramics, metals, plastics, glasses, etc.), water flow in the
separated MSW total flow is about 43 kg/h; according to real
(actual) operation of MSW handling, there were considerable
material losses in the milling (3%) and briquetting (2%) operations.
A mass and energy balance diagram of the RDF production process
(sorting, drying, milling, briquetting) and RDF power generation
(gasification and power electricity generation) are provided in
Fig. 7.
Fig. 7. Mass and energy balances diagram of the pilot plant.
3.2. RDF gasification
3.2.1. Model validation
In this section, a validation of the gasification simulation results
will be presented for a case from which experimental results were
available. Due to the lack of experimental data referred to RDF
gasification of the NEST research group, it has been necessary to
use reported experimental data for biomass gasification, obtained
by Galindo et al. (2014) in a downdraft gasifier with two stage
air supply, to validate the model. Biomass used in their experiment
was eucalyptus wood pellets with a moisture content of 8%. The
simulation was done for product gas composition, such as, H2,
CO, CO2 CH4 and N2 using the experimental conditions for eucalyp-
tus wood.
RDF gasification model developed was used to compare the
experimental data with the theoretical results of chemical equilib-
rium model based on Gibbs free energy minimization carried out in
this work. In general, the results of the equilibrium model overes-
timate the amount of CO and H2, underestimate the yield of CO2
and predict an outlet stream free from CH4, tars and char, devia-
tions lead to disagreements upon the LHV of the RPG, and from
the results showed in Fig. 8, it can be concluded that predicted val-
ues are in good agreement with the reported experimental data,
and the performance of a biomass downdraft gasifier can be
approximated reasonably well by the equilibrium model.
The standard deviations for all the tests were calculated, based
on data from Fig. 8, having an average value of 2.8%. Also, a number
of simulations were made for various ER at the inlet of gasifier in
order to identify the theoretically ideal operating conditions.
 A.M.L. Násner et al. / Waste Management 69 (2017) 187–201
Fig. 8. Comparison of experimental and theoretical data the of syngas composition.
Fig. 9 shows a proportional increase of the gasification temper-
ature with the increase of ER, an increase in temperature favours or
drives endothermic reactions forward to products, and drives
exothermic reactions backwards to reactants, and an ER increase
leads to an increase in fuel consumption, causing the system to
be nearer to the combustion regime. Also, the tar formed during
the gasification was not accounted for.
The temperature is directly related with the product gas com-
position, moisture and amount of tars, and also is related with
the quality of the RPG. The principal focus of the temperature influ-
ence is related to the gas LHV and the release of secondary contam-
inants, such as, tars and particulates, which may foul the prime
movers coupled to the gasifier for energy conversion.
H2, CO and N2, lower concentrations of CO2, CH4, H2O, higher
hydrocarbons and N2 are the main components of the RPG. Reac-
tions took place at elevated temperatures, indicating, as expected,
an increase in carbon conversion, with the increase of the tem-
perature and higher residence time and the product gas quality
also improved. An increase of ER will cause a decrease of H2 con-
tent due to its oxidation, as the presence of O2 in the system
increases. Other studies show similar results regarding the beha-
viour of H2 (Niu et al., 2013). When operating with higher ER val-
ues, a greater O2 flow enters the reactor, favouring oxidation
reactions, causing a decrease in CO concentration and an increase
in CO2 concentration, as observed a behaviour explained by reac-
tions R2 (char complete combustion) and R8 (CO partial combus-
tion) from Table 4.
Therefore, with a temperature increase, the reduction of the
concentration of CH4 could be attributed to reactions R13 (CH4
Fig. 9. Gasification temperature and syngas composition variation with ER.
197
complete combustion) and R14 (CH4 partial combustion) from
Table 4. Further results show a higher ER value as achieved by sup-
plying a greater amount of O2 in the gasifier, which causes higher
share of the RDF combustion. Recent studies have shown similar
trends as the observed in this simulation (Galindo et al., 2014;
Mitta et al., 2006).
Caballero et al. (1997) evaluated the effect of bed height and air
ER over the air gasification of dried sewage sludge, in bubbling flu-
idized bed. The authors found that with an ER increase, concentra-
tions of H2, CO and CH4 decreased while that of CO2 increased.
Furthermore, Arena et al. (2010) studied the fluidized bed gasifica-
tion of five alternatives of waste-derived fuels obtained from MSW
and also found similar changes in gas composition when increasing
ER.
Thus, a preliminary analysis indicates that the RPG is relatively
rich in CO (15–25%) and H2 (12–20%) being, the major contributors
to the LHV of the RPG alongside CH4 (Galindo et al., 2014; Arena
et al., 2010). ER effects over the gas LHV and the gasifier CGE were
analysed and the results are showed in Fig. 10. Thus, an ER increase
results in a LHV decrease and this can be explained by the char
complete combustion (R2) and the increase in the volume of
non-combustible gas (N2), however the CGE has a maximum value
when the ER is equal to 0.25.
Higher efficiencies, in the range of 57–60%, can be achieved
within a temperature range of 650–700 °C, a similar performance
was observed by Ramzan et al. (2011). Authors studied three types
of biomass: MSW, food waste and poultry litter and carried out a
wide range of variations in the ER and moisture content. Effects
over syngas composition and LHV were studied as well as, gasifier
198 A.M.L. Násner et al. / Waste Management 69 (2017) 187–201

Fig. 10. Syngas LHV and gasifier efficiency variation with ER.

efficiency, obtaining a value of 71% for CGE from food waste when
the ER value was equal to 0.3. Maximum CGE of MSW conversion
was 54% for an ER of 0.28. Poultry wastes had the lowest CGE with
a value of 45% when the ER was equal to 0.2.
3.3. Power generation island
When air is used as the gasification agent the RPG has high
concentrations of N2, resulting in a reduced LHV, usually not
higher of 6 MJ/Nm3, in this case the RPG is classified as a poor
quality fuel gas. Otto cycle ICE’s are traditionally used with
downdraft gasifiers and significant research has been done
studying and improving the operation of ICE fuelled by RPG,
hence, engines require undergoing certain design modifications
in order to be able to run on RPG. Efficiency of ICE is 20% when
using a poor quality RPG as fuel (Luz et al., 2015; Leme et al.,
2014; Basu, 2013; Martínez et al., 2012).
The gasifier presented an average CGE of 58%, and RPG contains
a thermal power of 254 kWth after cooling to a temperature of
30 °C (the temperature required for the operation of the ICE), a
Sankey diagram of energy flow balances of the pilot plant modelled
is shown in Fig. 11.
Efficiency of the plant, measured as the percentage of the total
energy content of a power plant’s fuel that is converted into elec-
tricity, was calculated. Assuming the MSW as the input fuel, the
calculated efficiency was 5.2%. Nonetheless, if RDF is assumed as
input fuel the efficiency is higher (11%). Sankey diagram in
Fig. 11 shows the following key interactions in the entire MSW
to power process:

49% of the energy of the incoming MSW feedstock is converted
to the RDF fuel product.

51% of the energy of the incoming MSW is sent to recycling and
landfills final disposition.

Around 58% of the incoming RDF energy could be converted as
RPG.

20% of product gas energy could be converted to electrical
power.

Fig. 11. Integrated RDF production, RDF gasification and power generation Sankey diagram flow.
 A.M.L. Násner et al. / Waste Management 69 (2017) 187–201 199

These figures are typical and may vary slightly, depending on associated with the implementation of mechanical pretreatment
the selection of mechanical pretreatment process, gasification, process, gasification section and power generation plant. Other
gas clean-up, conversion and power generation technologies. parameters related with the operation considered in this section
are presented in Table 7.
Minimum Rate of Attractiveness (MRA) is equivalent to the Set-
3.4. Evaluation of the economic feasibility of the pilot plant
tlement and Custody Rate (SELIC) special system average, at the
time of the projection fulfillments. The Interest rate (MRA) is usu-
Preliminary economic analysis using the Brazilian manufac-
ally 12% annually and it was considered for purposes of calculating
turer’s reference costs are presented in the Table 6. The fixed cap-
the NPV. Likewise, possible costs related to environmental issues
ital costs of investment for a pilot plant implementation include
were not considered in this analysis, and the possible sale of by-
equipment, installation, labour, contingency and all other cost
products of the process was neither considered. For comparison,
Table 6
it was assumed that the thermal efficiency of the engine remains
Data used for the economic evaluation of the RDF power plant (elaborated by the
authors with data from the consulted manufactures/suppliers). constant for all the generation capacity, in this case 20%. On the
other hand, the efficiency of the engine rises with the increase of
Parameters Value (US$)
its generation capacity.
Investment 295,644 Pilot plant is planned to work 6500 h/year, and it will generate a
Operation and Maintenance costs (O&M) 14,782
total of 279,500 kWh/year, therefore, annual savings could reach
Equipment depreciation costs 10,128
Contingency and fees (PIS/COFINS and Brazilian fee) 9319
US$ 13,845/year and the NPV calculated for this power was US$
Total costs 329,873 –230,728, which means project is not viable for such power capac-
ity. Fig. 12 shows value of NPV starts to become positive from an
installed capacity of 120 kWel. Similarly, at this point the IRR
Table 7 reaches a value above the assumed 12% discount rate (MRA). With
Parameters of economic evaluation of the RDF power plant. an installed capacity above 120 kWel, the construction of the plant
proves to be economically viable, installed capacity scenarios are
Parameters Unit Value
presented in Figs. 13and 14 for NPV and IRR, respectively.
Operating plant hours h/year 6500
Tariff paid for MSW disposal in the landfill defines the economic
Installed power MW 0.05
Disposition waste cost in Itajubá (fuel cost) US$/ton 16.29 feasibility of the system. Table S6 (Supplementary Material) pre-
Lifetime of the investment years 20 sent it as an avoided cost and it varies for different regional collec-
Minimum Rate of Attractiveness % 12.0 tion system. Itajubá is one of the cities with lowest MSW disposal
Electricity tariff cost (CEMIG, 2014) US$/MWh 42.60 tariff among several cities of Brazil, letting to confirm that this
analysis in another location could be more feasible.

Fig. 12. NPV economic assessment results for different installed power.

Fig. 13. IRR economic assessment results to different installed power.

200 A.M.L. Násner et al. / Waste Management 69 (2017) 187–201
Fig. 14. Sensitivity analysis of the NPV results for different values of the electricity tariff.
Analysing residue disposal tariff for the 50 kWel power plant,
such system became feasible with values higher than US$ 34/ton.
Electricity tariff cost was also analysed and it was found that the
system becomes feasible with electricity commercialization tariffs
higher than US$ 142.00/MWh, as seen in Fig. 14.
Economic indicators demonstrate that ensuring the financial
viability of RDF power plant may be possible taking into account
the negative fuel cost (because it was considered as avoided dispo-
sition cost and a disposal tariff is paid). Investment costs for these
kinds of plants are higher than those for fossil fuel plants, being
clear that utilization of MSW for power generation cannot be prof-
itable without financial support.
Furthermore, being a new process that requires an initial
research effort on the effective selection of handling technologies,
it may lead the investor to perceive an additional risk and, conse-
quently, a higher return on the investment will be required. Taking
this into account, a sensitivity analysis of the IRR of the project is
recommended. Private investor and the energy policy decision
makers must take into consideration that the promotion of RDF
energy for electricity generation represents an innovative project,
with strategic, social and environmental gains that may hardly
be addressed by a financial analysis. In particular, and according
to the present Brazilian policies, a more favourable and guaranteed
energy tariff is required to tackle the still perceived risk of these
types of projects.
4. Conclusions
Present study was proposed to investigate the feasibility of pro-
ducing RDF from MSW in Itajubá region, and to evaluate its utiliza-
tion as an alternative fuel for power generation through
gasification. According to the hypothesis posed in this study, it is
possible to conclude that the RDF production and its subsequent
use as fuel for gasification instead of MSW offer benefits in terms
of heating value and homogeneity obtained by pre-treatment pro-
cess. Results of the analysis show despite a recovery fraction of
approximately 34%, according to the mass balance, the use of
RDF fuel (moisture: 12.0%, ash: 6%, LHV: 15.20 MJ/kg) has clear
energy technical advantages when compared to MSW, considering
the physical and thermal properties of these fuels. Furthermore,
49% of MSW energy inlet would be used as RDF fuel.
This paper presented the development of a downdraft gasifier
model with a thermal power input of 916 kWth. The modelling of
RDF gasification process shows that RDF is a good quality fuel
(LHV of 15.20 MJ/kg), which can be used to produce fairly high
quality gas (LHV of 5.8 MJ/Nm3).
RDF gasification pilot plant modelling was performed under
chemical equilibrium conditions using Aspen PlusTM software, and
results show that for values of ER between 0.25 and 0.30; and tem-
peratures between 650 and 700 °C, the gasifier CGE reaches
between 57 and 60%, meaning that it was possible to obtain a
RPG with a LHV in the range of 5.6–5.8 MJ/Nm3, which are the
expected average values when air is used as gasification agent.
RPG impurities are removed by a cleaning system, despite its
LHV clean gas can be used successfully in ICE for power generation,
maintaining a reasonable efficiency.
Net energy efficiency of the pilot plant is 5.2% based on the
MSW overall energy, and 11% based on the RDF energy at the gasi-
fier inlet, it was found also RDF production and use can also result
in a positive financial net benefit, starting from a 130 kWel power
capacity, economic viability possible from a power output of 120
kWel, as it achieves a rate of return of 18% on the discount rate with
an investment around US$ 300,000. Findings of this research work
provide key information about technical and economic aspects of
MSW treatment that can be used as a basis for RDF gasification
plant designs and exploitation. Current study based on RDF compo-
sitions calculated according to the MSW gravimetric composition,
a future study devoted to MSW disposal in Itajubá will provide
more precise and reliable data.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the financial support provided by
the Electrical Company of Minas Gerais (CEMIG) through the
Research and Development project (R&D) ANEEL/CEMIG GT n°
418, ‘‘Gasification of Municipal Solid Wastes (MSW) for Electric-
ity Generation in Brazil”. The authors also recognise the collabo-
ration of the Brazilian National Research and Development
Council (CNPq), The Minas Gerais State Research Support Foun-
dation (FAPEMIG) and the Coordinating Body for the Improve-
ment of Postgraduate Studies in Higher Education (CAPES) for
the funding of R&D projects. And finally, the support of graduate
students and the productivity grants that allowed the accom-
plishment of the research projects whose results are included
in this paper.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.08.
006.
References
Ahmed, T.Y., Ahmad, M.M., Yusup, S., Inayat, A., Khan, Z., 2012. Mathematical and
computational approaches for design of biomass gasification for hydrogen
production: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16 (4), 2304–2315.
Al Amoodi, N., Kannan, P., Al Shoaibi, A., Srinivasakannan, C., 2013. Aspen Plus
simulation of polyethylene gasification under equilibrium conditions. Chem.
Eng. Comm. 200 (7), 977–992.
 A.M.L. Násner et al. / Waste Management 69 (2017) 187–201
Antonopoulos, I.-S., Karagiannidis, A., Gkouletsos, A., Perkoulidis, G., 2012.
Modelling of a downdraft gasifier fed by agricultural residues. Waste Manage.
32 (4), 710–718.
Arafat, H.A., Jijakli, K., 2013. Modeling and comparative assessment of municipal
solid waste gasification for energy production. Waste Manage. 33 (8), 1704–
1713.
Arena, U., Zaccariello, L., Mastellone, M.L., 2010. Fluidized bed gasification of waste-
derived fuels. Waste Manage. 30 (7), 1212–1219.
Barba, D., Prisciandaro, M., Salladini, A., di Celso, G.M., 2011. The Gibbs free energy
gradient method for RDF gasification modelling. Fuel 90 (4), 1402–1407.
Basu, P., 2013. Biomass Gasification, Pyrolysis and Torrefaction: Practical Design
and Theory. Elsevier Inc, San Diego, United States of America, p. 551.
Begum, S., Rasul, M.G., Akbar, D., Cork, D., 2014. An experimental and
numerical investigation of fluidized bed gasification of solid waste. Energies 7
(1), 43–61.
Begum, S., Rasul, M.G., Akbar, D., Ramzan, N., 2013. Performance analysis of an
integrated fixed bed gasifier model for different biomass feedstocks. Energies 6
(12), 6508–6524.
Belgiorno, V., De Feo, G., Della Rocca, C., Napoli, R.M.A., 2003. Energy from
gasification of solid wastes. Waste Manage. 23 (1), 1–15.
Bosmans, A., Vanderreydt, I., Geysen, D., Helsen, L., 2013. The crucial role of Waste-
to-Energy technologies in enhanced landfill mining: a technology review. J.
Clean. Prod. 55, 10–23.
Caballero, M.A., Aznar, M.P., Gil, J., Martín, J.A., Francés, A., Corella, J., 1997.
Commercial steam reforming catalysts to improve biomass gasification with
steam-oxygen mixtures. 1. Hot gas upgrading by the catalytic reactor. Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res. 36 (12), 5227–5239.
Caputo, A.C., Pelagagge, P.M., 2002. RDF production plants: I Design and costs. Appl.
Therm. Eng. 22 (4), 423–437.
CEMIG. Electric Company of Minas GeraisState.Selling price of the electricity in
Minas Gerais for the year 2014.<http://www.cemig.com.br/pt-br/Paginas/
default.aspx> [accessed 15.10.2015 (in Portuguese)].
Centeno, F., Mahkamov, K., Lora, E.E.S., Andrade, R.V., 2012. Theoretical and
experimental investigations of a downdraft biomass gasifier-spark ignition
engine power system. Renew. Energy 37 (1), 97–108.
Chen, C., Jin, Y.-Q., Yan, J.-H., Chi, Y., 2013. Simulation of municipal solid waste
gasification in two different types of fixed bed reactors. Fuel 103, 58–63.
Chen, C., Jin, Y.-Q., Yan, J.-H., Chi, Y., 2010. Simulation of municipal solid waste
gasification for syngas production in fixed bed reactors. J. Zhejiang Univ-Sci. A.
(Appl. Phys. Eng.) 11 (8), 619–628.
Cheng, H., Hu, Y., 2010. Municipal solid waste (MSW) as renewable source of
energy: current and future practices in China. Bioresour Technol. 101 (11),
3816–3824.
Consonni, S., Viganò, F., 2012. Waste gasification vs. conventional waste-to-energy:
a comparative evaluation of two commercial technologies. Waste Manage. 32
(4), 653–666.
Consonni, S., Giugliano, M., Grosso, M., 2005. Alternative strategies for energy
recovery from municipal solid waste Part A: mass and energy balances. Waste
Manage. 25 (2), 123–135.
Couto, N.D., Silva, V.B., Rouboa, A., 2016. Thermodynamic evaluation of Portuguese
municipal solid waste gasification. J. Clean. Prod. 139, 622–635.
Couto, N.D., Silva, V.B., Monteiro, E., Rouboa, A., 2015. Assessment of municipal solid
wastes gasification in a semi-industrial gasifier using syngas quality indices.
Energy 93 (Part 1), 864–873.
Dong, T.T.T., Lee, B.-K., 2009. Analysis of potential RDF resources from solid waste
and their energy values in the largest industrial city of Korea. Waste Manage. 29
(5), 1725–1731.
Dunnu, G., Maier, J., Scheffknecht, G., 2010a. Ash fusibility and compositional data
of solid recovered fuels. Fuel 89 (7), 1534–1540.
Dunnu, G., Maier, J., Schnell, U., Scheffknecht, G., 2010b. Drag coefficient of solid
recovered fuels (SRF). Fuel 89 (12), 4053–4057.
Galindo, A.L., Lora, E.E.S., Andrade, R.V., Giraldo, S.Y., Jaén, R.L., Cobas, V.M., 2014.
Biomass gasification in a downdraft gasifier with a two-stage air supply: effect
of operating conditions on gas quality. Biomass Bioenergy 61, 236–244.
Gonçalves, A.T.T., 2007. Potencialidade energética dos resíduos sólidos domiciliares
e comerciais do município de Itajubá/MG (Energy potential of the comercial
wastes and Municipal Solid Wastes of the Itajubá/MG municipality). Federal
University of Itajubá, Itajubá (Brazil), p. 177. Master Thesis [in portuguese].
201
Hadidi, L.A., Omer, M.M., 2017. A financial feasibility model of gasification and
anaerobic digestion waste-to-energy (WTE) plants in Saudi Arabia. Waste
Manage. 59, 90–101.
Heywood, J.B., 1988. Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals. New York, United
States of America, McGraw-Hill Education, p. 930.
Hwang, I.-H., Kobayashi, J., Kawamoto, K., 2014. Characterization of products
obtained from pyrolysis and steam gasification of wood waste, RDF, and RPF.
Waste Manage. 34 (2), 402–410.
IPCC. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2006. CH4 emissions from solid
waste disposal. In: Eggleston, H.S., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T., Tanabe, K.
(Eds.), IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. IPCC, Japan.
<http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/5_Volume5/V5_0_Cover.
pdf> [accessed 13.06.2016 (in English)].
Kabalina, N., Costa, M., Yang, W., Martin, A., Santarelli, M., 2017. Exergy analysis of a
polygeneration-enabled district heating and cooling system based on
gasification of refuse derived fuel. J. Clean. Prod. 14, 760–773.
Leme, M.M.V., Rocha, M.H., Lora, E.E.S., Venturini, O.J., Lopes, B.M., Ferreira, C.H.,
2014. Techno-economic analysis and environmental impact assessment of
energy recovery from Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) in Brazil. Resour Conserv
Recycl. 87, 8–20.
Luz, F.C., Rocha, M.H., Lora, E.E.S., Venturini, O.J., Andrade, R.V., Leme, M.M.V.,
Almazán, O.O., 2015. Techno-economic analysis of municipal solid waste
gasification for electricity generation in Brazil. Energy Convers Manage. 103,
321–337.
Martínez, J.D., Mahkamov, K., Andrade, R.V., Lora, E.E.S., 2012. Syngas production in
downdraft biomass gasifiers and its application using internal combustion
engines. Renew. Energy 38 (1), 1–9.
Materazzi, M., Lettieri, P., Taylor, R., Chapman, C., 2016. Performance analysis of RDF
gasification in a two stage fluidized bed–plasma process. Waste Manage. 47,
256–266.
Materazzi, M., Lettieri, P., Mazzei, L., Taylor, R., Chapman, C., 2013. Thermodynamic
modeling and evaluation of a two-stage thermal process for waste gasification.
Fuel 108, 356–369.
Mitta, N.R., Ferrer-Nadal, S., Lazovic, A.M., Perales, J.F., Velo, E., Puigjaner, L., 2006.
Modelling and simulation of a tyre gasification plant for synthesis gas
production. In: Proceedings of 16th European Symposium on Computer Aided
Process Engineering and 9th International Symposium on Process Systems
Engineering. Computer Aided Chemical Engineering, 21, pp. 1771–1776.
Montané, D., Abelló, S., Farriol, X., Berrueco, C., 2013. Volatilization characteristics of
solid recovered fuels (SRFs). Fuel Process Technol. 113, 90–96.
Niu, M., Huang, Y., Jin, B., Wang, X., 2013. Simulation of syngas production from
municipal solid waste gasification in a bubbling fluidized bed using aspen plus.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 52 (42), 14768–14775.
Pandey, A., Bhaskar, T., Stöcker, M., Sukumaran, R., 2015. Recent Advances in
Thermochemical Conversion of Biomass. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
p. 504.
Puig-Arnavat, M., Bruno, J.C., Coronas, A., 2010. Review and analysis of biomass
gasification models. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14 (9), 2841–2851.
Ramzan, N., Ashraf, A., Naveed, S., Malik, A., 2011. Simulation of hybrid biomass
gasification using Aspen Plus: a comparative performance analysis for food,
municipal solid and poultry waste. Biomass Bioenergy 35 (9), 3962–3969.
Rotter, V.S., Kost, T., Winkler, J., Bilitewski, B., 2004. Material flow analysis of RDF-
production processes. Waste Manage. 24 (10), 1005–1021.
Shehzad, A., Bashir, M.J.K., Sethupathi, S., 2016. System analysis for synthesis gas
(syngas) production in Pakistan from municipal solid waste gasification using a
circulating fluidized bed gasifier. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 60, 1302–1311.
Velis, C., Wagland, S., Longhurst, P., Robson, B., Sinfield, K., Wise, S., Pollard, S., 2011.
Solid recovered fuel: influence of waste stream composition and processing on
chlorine content and fuel quality. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46 (3), 1923–1931.
Vounatsos, P., Atsonios, K., Itskos, G., Agraniotis, M., Grammelis, P., Kakaras, E., 2016.
Classification of refuse derived fuel (RDF) and model development of a novel
thermal utilization concept through air-gasification. Waste Biomass Valor 7,
1297–1308.
Vounatsos, P., Atsonios, K., Agraniotis, M., Panopoulos, K., Grammelis, P., 2012.
Report on RDF/SRF gasification properties. Life Project Number LIFE09ENV/GR/
000307. Life+Project Name – Energy Waste, Deliverable 4.1, Greece. <http://
www.energywaste.gr/pdf/D4.1%20-%20Report%20on%20RDF-SRF%20gasification%
20properties%20.pdf> [accessed 13.06.2016 (in English)].