Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 29 (2018) 19–25

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/seta

Original article

Evaluation of the treatment of municipal solid waste as renewable energy T

resource in Campinas, Brazil
⁎
F.A.M. Lino , K.A.R. Ismail
University of Campinas, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Department of Energy, Mendeleiev Street, 200, Postal Code 13083-860, Cidade Universitária “Zeferino Vaz”,
Barão Geraldo, Campinas, SP, Brazil

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Treatment and final destination of municipal solid waste (MSW) in Brazil has been a problem waiting for so-
Solid waste lution to alleviate environmental and public health negative impacts, since almost all MSW collected is dumped
Recycling in landfills and open and covered dumps. Specifically in Campinas, a metropolis with more of one million
Incineration inhabitants, the local landfill was closed since 2014 and since, the collected MSW is dumped in the landfill
Biodigestion
belonging to a neighbouring city. In an attempt to contribute to the solution of the problem, the authors ela-
Energy
borated two scenarios for waste treatment with energy recovery and social inclusion. The most recent char-
Economic
Emissions acterization data of the municipality was used in assessing the two proposed scenarios of incineration and
biodigestion and recycling of 20 percent of the available recyclables. The comparative results indicate that
biodigestion and incineration can generate electricity enough for 1% and 39% of the residencies of Campinas,
respectively. The commercialization recyclables corresponds to 1120 minimum national salaries, which is suf-
ficient for sustaining the twelve cooperatives of waste pickers. From the comparative assessment, the authors
believe that incineration and recycling can be a possible solution to minimize the problem of MSW in the city.

Introduction During decomposition, organic wastes release ambient offensive gases,

The increase of the world population, the technological innovations,
and deep changes in habits and lifestyle patterns in the last decades
stimulated consumption with a strong reflex on the rate of generation of
solid waste. World Bank [1] estimates show daily generated solid waste
of about 1.3 × 109 tons with perspective increase to about 2.2 × 109
tons until 2025. Solid waste needs to be daily collected, and adequately
treated for sanitary and public health issues and this is one of the
biggest difficulties currently facing public authorities, mainly in de-
velopment countries [2,3].
WHO/UNICEF [4] reports that many cities in the world do not have
yet adequate solution for their solid waste. In Brazil, for example, most
of the 5570 municipalities dispose their MSW in about of 4200 dumps
(covered and uncovered). Disposition of MSW in dumps is a serious
problem because of the risks to public health due to emissions and
contamination of underground water and soil [4,5]. ONU estimated a
loss of annual of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the municipalities of
3% to 7% due to the inadequate public sanitation, which affect prin-
cipally poor population in developing countries [6].
Besides the negative impacts on public health and the ecosystem,
the inadequate treatment of MSW also contributes to global warming.
mainly Methane (CH4) and Carbon dioxide (CO2) denominated as
greenhouse gases (GHG). The warming power of CH4 is 28 times more
than that of CO2 [7]. The world emissions from landfills represent 11%
of the anthropogenic emissions [8]. According to IPCC [9], the gases
released into the atmosphere are increasing since 1950s causing
warming our Planet. The results are climate changes, observed by the
warming of oceans' water, increase of sea water level, melting of the
icebergs and ice blocks. The reports from Intergovernmental Panel
Climate Change (IPCC) alert about the possible drastic consequences
and propose relevant and urgent recommendations to alleviate these
problems [9]. Therefore, the reversion of this situation is the greatest
challenge of the 21 century.
The route towards local and global sustainability require in general
changing the society paradigm to adopt adequate individual and col-
lective practices starting with their own generated waste [3,10,11].
Ever good initiatives such as the 3Rs (Reduce, Reuse and Recycle) and
the thermal or biological treatments of the rest of MSW to produce
energy and neutralize its ambient offensive effects are among the most
recommended actions. The literature is rich with studies related to the
energy, economic and environmental potential of solid waste which
when adequately treated can have a big contribution to the general

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: fatimalino@fem.unicamp.br (F.A.M. Lino).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2018.06.011
Received 5 October 2016; Received in revised form 19 October 2017; Accepted 28 June 2018
2213-1388/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F.A.M. Lino, K.A.R. Ismail
welfare, social inclusion and public health [12–14].
Researchers as Lino and Ismail [2], Lino [3], Reddy [10], Rada [14],
Jones [15], Maize [16], Rada et al [17,18], Ozbay and Durmusoglu
[19], Consonni et al. [20] and many others defend the idea of MSW
treatment for energy production and also as a mechanism for social
inclusion. Experiences related to thermal treatment and biodigestion of
MSW with energy generation and recycling are reported in countries in
Asia, Europe and America [2,14,21–29].
Waste treatment practices have improved considerably in the EU. In
the period 1990–2012, for example, energy from the treatment of MSW
represented about 29% of the total energy from renewable sources,
increasing from 2,084.8 ktoe to 8,738.3 ktoe [11,30]. In 2013, about
43% of the EU’s generated MSW was recycled or composted [11,31,32].
EEA [31] reports that landfilling is the least environmentally friendly
waste disposal method and has been gradually replaced by incineration
and even more so by recycling and composting. Following a hierarchy
of management to treat their solid waste, in 2013, countries such as
Japan, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium and Swit-
zerland disposed less than 3% of MSW in sanitary landfill, incinerated
more than 35% and composted and recycled more than 40%, except
Japan who composted and recycled about 18%. While this, three highly
populated countries that is, EUA, China and Brazil are highly dependent
on landfills where they dispose most of the generated MSW [11,33–36].
Municipal solid waste management cycle
Generation, composition and collection
Solid waste generation started with human civilization and is in-
trinsically related to population, urbanization and living standard. It is
generated throughout the life cycle of the product, i.e. from the pro-
duction and extraction of raw material and in subsequent steps to
production processes until final consumption [3,28]. The treatment
process includes a set of steps. On this issue, there is vast literature
focusing on the different steps of MSW management (MSWM). Rada
et al. [37], Lino [3,28], Longo and Wagner [38] consider that MSWM is
a multidisciplinary activity that includes generation, source separation,
storage, collection, transfer and transport, processing and recovery,
and, last but not least, disposal. As in [39,40] waste management in-
cludes a set of actions devoted to searching for waste management
solutions, which take into consideration the political, economic, en-
vironmental, cultural and social aspects, as bases for the sustainable
development and protection of the health of the population.
The analysis of the World Bank data [1] shows that not all generated
MSW is collected. Economically developed countries usually collect
more solid waste. Countries with population of high income per capita
such as in USA, Canada and Japan collect about 98% of generated
MSW; countries with population of average high income such as
Mexico, Russia and Lebanon collect about 85%; countries with popu-
lation of average low income such as in Brazil, China, India and Turkey
collect about 68%, and finally countries with population of low income
such as Ethiopia and Tanzania collect about 42%.
Implantation and realization of MSW collection in economically less
developed countries frequently faces shortage of funds destined to
public service. In Brazil, the allocated budget for this service is around
3–7% of the total municipality budget where the public collection of
MSW consumes 70–80% [28]. For these reasons optimization of the
collection process including evaluation of the type of transport and
routes, etc. in order to reduce its costs turn to be extremely important
[41,28]. The use of available computational techniques such as Web-
GIS [42] can optimize the circulation route and improve the efficiency.
Mamun et al. [43] presented a method for real time solid waste bin
monitoring with an optimization model to optimize solid waste col-
lection route using real time bin information, and found that the results
can reduce the operation costs.
The next step in MSW management is to obtain information about
20
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 29 (2018) 19–25
the volume, types and mass of collected MSW. This information is
crucial for choosing the method of treatment [17,20,44–46]. Generally,
the quantity and type of collected MSW are different for different
countries, cities and even according to the social class of the community
[5]. Details on the composition and type of material contained in the
collected mass (organic and inorganic matters) is normally obtained
from the gravimetric characterization [47, Unpublished report1] rea-
lized according to internationally accepted methodology available in
USEPA [48] and ABNT [49].
The mass of MSW consists of degradable organic matter such as food
leftovers, paper, cardboard and pruning of plants; none degradable
organic matter such as plastic and inorganic matter such glass and
metals, which take hundreds of years to decompose. According to [1],
rich countries generate more packaging waste while poor countries
generate more organic residue. Due to the massive volume of generated
MSW, developed countries have created mechanisms to engage the
production sector and consumers in the treatment process to reduce the
ever increasing amounts of wastes and effectively reuse or eliminate it
[1,29,30,35].
Recycling
Recycling is one of the treatment processes, which starts with the
selective collection of MSW at homes and ends in the industry where
recyclables are transformed to secondary material. In this way, paper,
cardboard, plastics, glass and metals return to the production chain
saving energy [12,35,44]. Lino and Ismail [2], Bing et al. [50] and
Baeyens et al. [51], consider that waste recycling is a multi-disciplinary
problem that needs to be considered at different decision levels si-
multaneously. The success of materials recycling depends upon its
ability to consistently transform material wastes into high quality and
marketable products, ensuring a stable market for the end products, and
cost-effective manufacturing manner.
For these reasons, separation of recyclables at source is considered
as an important step in the recycling process, and entirely depends on
the operational model and adhesion of the population to selective
collection programs [41,12,52,53].
Solid waste is a renewable energy resource. Energy content of MSW
ranges from 8 to 11 MJ/kg while the Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) com-
posed of dry MSW has a calorific value varying from 12 to 17 MJ/kg
[15,42,54]. Comparatively, a ton of MSW and one barrel of petroleum
both release nearly the same amount of heat, about 7GJ [15]. This
reinforces the inherent potential of MSW as a viable option for energy
generation, promoting public health and reducing environmental im-
pacts.
Thermal processes
The technologies for thermal processing of MSW to produce energy
include gasification, incineration, pyrolysis and treatment by plasma
torch. In the incineration process, energy is released directly as heat
while in the processes of pyrolysis and gasification liquid and gaseous
fuels are produced and can be used to generate energy [29,32].
Incineration is a practice most common in many countries. The
process involves combustion of MSW in the presence of oxygen in
temperature over 850 °C for two seconds to convert MSW to CO2, water
vapor, volatiles and solid ash containing a small amount of residual
carbon [5,10,55]. Among the numerous advantages of incineration is
the reduction of the volume and mass by 90% and 75%, respectively;
elimination of pathogens and generation of heat, which can be trans-
formed to electricity and/or to heat water for district distribution
[5,10,29].
1
Renova Ambiental (2015) - Official unpublished report produced by the company
responsible for collection of the MSW in Campinas.
F.A.M. Lino, K.A.R. Ismail
Japan is one of the countries which develops, manufactures and uses
incinerators for solid waste treatment [56]. The country incinerates
about 80% of MSW in about 1172 incinerators where 24.5% of them
have energy recovery, achieving 1770 MW [56,57]. In average, the rate
of energy conversion of these incinerators is about 200 kWh/t of MSW.
In Tokyo, electricity conversion rate is about 390 kWh/t of MSW, cities
such as Osaka has a production rate of about 320kWh/t of MSW while
Kobe has a production rate of about 300 kWh/t of MSW. In Kobe, for
example, 16.2% of the electricity demand and 25% of hot water de-
mand are supplied by incineration [56,57].
Singapore has four incineration plants to handle a load of 1700 t/
day, where the biggest plant is composed of four incineration units. The
MSW treated is from households and industry with lower calorific value
(LCV) around 6 MJ/kg. Each boiler generates 42 t/h of steam and
generates 30 MW. The water used for generating steam for the turbines
is treated residual water from industrial processes [55].
Ash resulting from the combustion of the mixture of materials in
MSW corresponds to 10% in volume or 20–30% in mass of MSW. Two
types of ash are usually produced: solid ash and light suspended ash.
The light suspended ash is treated and removed from exhaust gases. The
solid ash is usually inert and normally reused in manufacturing cement,
construction material, ceramics etc. [5,10].
Biodigestion in landfills
Organic matter in landfill decomposes by biologic and chemical
processes forming biogas which is a mixture of Methane (CH4), Carbon
dioxide (CO2), Nitrogen (N2), Hydrogen (H2), Sulphuric gas (H2S) and
Oxygen (O2). This biogas is used as a fuel in many applications [8,10].
In many cases for safety reasons, the accumulated biogas in landfills
and dumps is collected and burnt (flared) to avoid explosions and other
types of accidents. The flaring process transforms the CH4 into CO2 and
water (H2O).
Although the production of biogas is a well dominated technology
and its utilization is widely established and accepted its contribution is
still marginal in the total energy demand of industrialized countries.
For Taglia [58] this is due to lack of political interest associated with
possible lack of public policies pro renewable energy resources. Tech-
nical and economical studies related to biogas utilization for electricity
production and other applications are available in the literature as in
[17,28,44,59–61] and many others.
The installed capacities of biogas based electric energy plants in
United States, England and Italy are 790 MW, 680 MW and 220 MW
respectively. Thailand has biogas based electric energy capacity of
51 MW and Brazil 311 MW. According to the Global Methane Initiative
[8], São João landfill in São Paulo, Brazil, in operation in the period
between 1992 and 2008 accumulated 24 million tons of MSW and
generated huge amounts of biogas, most of which was released to the
atmosphere. In the landfill site, a plant for electric energy generation
was constructed. In 2009, this plant captured 11,555 m3/h of biogas
and generated 22.4 MW and reduced gas emissions by 876.797 tCO2e.
Ensinas [62] in his experimental research obtained biogas production
rate of about 6.345 × 104 m3/h t of MSW in the Delta landfill of
Campinas, São Paulo. Adopting the USEPA [48] methodology, he
concluded that the landfill achieves its maximum potential of 4 MW one
year after its closure scheduled for June 2006. Lino and Ismail
[3,44,45] estimated the biogas production from MSW deposited in open
dumping sites in two Brazilian state capitals of more than million in-
habitant each namely: São Luis in the northeast region of Brazil while
the other is Belem in the northern region of Brazil. They found that the
annual biogas production is about 12,349,344 m3/year for São Luis and
11,597,107 m3/year for Belem.
In the southern region of Brazil, Audibert and Fernandes [63] rea-
lized a preliminary assessment of gas production from biodigestion in
the landfill of Londrina, Brazil. They obtained results between 1.3 and
30.6 NL/ h. m2. They estimated the rate of methane production as
21
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 29 (2018) 19–25
16,840,830 N m3/year. Generally, the physical characterization of the
solid wastes directly influences the quantification and qualification of
the biogas produced in the landfill or dump, making the studies specific
to each region [5].
Bio-stabilization and bio-drying
Landfills are still considered as a cheap treatment route adopted by
the local authorities and accepted by the population especially in
moderate and poor countries. One method to reduce the offensive im-
pacts of landfilling is to use bio-stabilization of mechanically separated
MSW. In this process part of the separated MSW is transformed to refuse
derived fuel (RDF). The fraction of small size wastes contains about
80% of organic matter and high water content. This fraction is subject
to aerobic treatment to reach certain degree of stability and reduce its
impacts before landfilling [59,64].
Bio-drying is a convective evaporation process, which utilizes the
biological heat developed from the aerobic reactions of organic com-
ponents to evaporate the main part of waste moisture. MSW with high
moisture content is the major problem in the field of waste-to-energy
conversion technologies. Reduction and preferably removal of moisture
is important step to achieve high temperature and efficient combustion
of MSW. According Rada et al. [17,59] and Muller et al. [64] the nu-
merous end use possibilities of the output make the bio-drying process
versatile and able to achieve the required moisture and volume re-
ductions and bulk density increase through the effective utilization of
biological heat.
Composting
Composting is the option that best fits within the limited resources
available in developing countries. Biodegradable material such as food
waste constitutes greater fraction of the residential waste stream,
therefore diversion of organic materials is essential to reach high di-
version targets. The environmental benefits of diverting organic mate-
rials from landfill include reduced methane emissions and decreased
leachate quantities from landfills. The compost option needs cheap
equipment and low operating costs, in harmony with the environment,
and results in a useful product [3,10,32].
Brazil, for example, a tropical country with developing economy has
a big potential for energy generation based on alternative sources. The
country is considered the fifth most populated of the world, each
Brazilian produces in average about 1.05 kg/day [34]. Of the total MSW
daily collected in Brazil less than 4% is reused in recycling and com-
posting. Most of the 5570 municipalities dispose their MSW in about of
4200 dumps (covered and uncovered) [34,39]. To extinguish the
dumping practice of MSW, the country created a protocol for solid
waste treatment based on the European protocol. The Brazilian protocol
is called “Política Nacional de Resíduo Sólido” (PNRS), law number
12.305 approved in 2010. The PNRS established the closure of 2906
open dumps until august 2014, but unfortunately, most of the muni-
cipalities had difficulties in achieving this target of eliminating
dumping practice, and consequently the limiting date was extended to
2018. In addition, the PNRS established the increase of recycling index
from 2% to 20%, but very little progress was achieved in this direction
[39].
In Campinas, a municipality of the state of São Paulo, for example,
about 97.5% of the 1300 t/day of generated MSW (according to official
report)2 is being disposed in landfill of a neighbouring city after the
closure of the only city landfill in April 2014.
Considering the lack of adequate area for the construction of landfill
in Campinas together with the new gravimetric characterization data of
2
Data released by Municipal Secretary of Public Service of Campinas. Unpublished
report of 2016.
F.A.M. Lino, K.A.R. Ismail Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 29 (2018) 19–25

collected MSW in the municipality, the authors wish to contribute to Table 2

the solution of the problem of waste management in Campinas. In this Relevant information and data of Campinas.
paper, two scenarios were elaborated for the treatment of MSW based Description Value Source
on biodigestion and incineration with energy recovery, including re-
cycling of 20% of the generated recyclables. The results are compared Population in 2015 1,164,098 [65]
Number of homes 348,186 [65]
to show the energy, economic and ambient possible gains.
Total amount of generated waste (t/day) 4795 Oficial data1
MSW = household and public waste (%) 27.2 Oficial data1
Material and methods Mass of MSW (t/day) 1304.24 Oficial data1
Mass of recyclables in MSW (%) 49.8 Oficial data2
Study case: municipality of Campinas Mass of recyclables in MSW (t/day) 641.907 Calculated by authors
Recyclable collected selectively (%) 2.51 Oficial data3
Recyclable collected selectively (t/day) 32.736 Calculated by authors
Campinas is one of the seventeen biggest cities in Brazil with Price of recyclable mix (US$/ton) 77.60 [Calculated by authors]
1,164,098 inhabitants, in 2015, of which about 98.6% live in urban 20% of recyclables for recycling (t/day) 129.902 Calculated by authors
areas. The territorial area of the municipality is 887 km2 and is located Minimum National Salary (US$)4 269.94
Organic mass in MSW (%) 30.7 Oficial data2
99 km away from the capital of the State of São Paulo [65]. The state of
Mass fraction for incineration (%) 95.31 Calculated by authors
São Paulo is composed of 645 municipalities. After 1960, industrial Mass fraction for energy generation (%) 72 Calculated by authors
development in the municipality accelerated urbanization and in- Electric energy consumption (MWh/year)5 2.6 [67]
creased the internal migration to Campinas [66], resulting in aug- Price of electric energy in City (R$/ kWh) 0.66 [68]
menting its MSW generation capacity. Rate of CH4 in biogas (%) 45 [69]
Density of CH4 (kg/m3) 0.656 [69]
The collection of MSW is realized daily or in alternate days by a
GWP of CH4 28 [7]
private company. According to the report of the Department of Urban Density of CO2 (kg/m3) 1.83 [69]
Cleaning (DLU), in 2015, the quantity of MSW collected totalized LPG rate of consumption (kg/t of waste) 8.0 [70]
327,538 tons of which 97.5% was transported from transshipment LCV of LPG (MJ/kg) 40.05 [69]
station to a landfill about 40 km from Campinas. The municipality has Rate of emissions due to incineration 10–40 [71]
(tCO2/TJ)
selective collection program since early 1980, but unfortunately the Rate of emissions (kg CO2/kg of LPG) 3.019 [70]
recycling index is still below 3% [41]. Since 2000, recyclables selec- Avoided energy (GJ/t MSW recycled) 31.629 [72]
tively collected are donated for the twelve cooperatives of the Muni- Avoided emissions (tCO2/t MSW recycled) 1.971 [72]
cipal Program of Creation of Work and Income to strengthen and con- LCV of CH4 (MJ/m3) 33.95 [69]
LCV of the MSW mix (MJ/kg) 12.349 Calculated based on
solidate their contribution.
[15]
The last gravimetric characterization of MSW was realized by the Rate of biogas production (L/kg) 30–40 [5]
public administration in 2015 and the data were repassed to the authors
1,2
as part of collaboration in research developed by the University of Internal unpublished report.
3
Campinas (Unicamp). Table 1 shows the gravimetric characterizations Internal communication.
4
data of the years 1996 and 2015. R$ 1 = US$ 3.26.
5
As can be observed, in the period of 19 years significant changes Residential.
occurred in the composition pattern of MSW in Campinas; the organic
mass decreased by 8.6% while the metal elements increased by 6.9%. Table 3
The recyclable mass (paper, cardboard, plastics, glass and metal) was Combustible matters in MSW and their respective LCV.
41% of the total mass in 1996 and increased to 49.8% in 2015. Relevant Type of material MSW (%) LCV (kcal/kg)
data together with prices and emissions rates are presented in Table 2.
Organic matter 30.7 1300
To quantify the energy potential of MSW and the released heat due
Wood, pruning of trees 5.8 2520
to incineration, the lower calorific value (LCV) of the MSW mix was Cloth and rags 1.0 4170
calculated following the method due to Jones [15] together with the Paper, cardboard, tetra pack 21.4 3814
individual calorific values of MSW components as in Table 3. Eq. (1) is Plastics 13.57 7830
used to calculate the LCV of the MSW mix Styrofoam 2.96 8967
Leather, rubber 2.58 5205
m
Frauds 1.6 5384
LCV = ∑ Ei (LCV )i
i=1 (1) Source: Calculated based on [73] and [74].
Where
(LCV)i = the corresponding lower calorific value of the element (i)
LCV = is the lower calorific value of the solid waste mix i = index of the element
Ei = proportion of the combustible element (i) in the mix of MSW m = total number of combustible elements in the solid waste mix

The LCV of the MSW mix of Campinas is found to be 2951.5 kcal/

Table 1
kg = 12.349 MJ/kg. This value agrees well with other values available
Gravimetric Composition of MSW in Campinas.
in the literature.
Material 1996a 2015b

(%)
Results and discussion
Organic 46.0 37.4
Paper/cardboard 20.0 21.4 First scenario: landfilling MSW with biogas recovery and recycling
Plastic 15.0 16.5
Glass 2.0 1.0
Using data of Table 2, the mass of MSW is 1304.24 t/day and the
Metal 4.0 10.9
Others 13.0 12.7 fraction of biodegradable matter for landfilling excluding 20% of the
biodegradable recyclable corresponds the 54.62%.
Source: a[66], bUnpublished official data. The biodegradable mass of MSW is about 712.376 t/day.

22
F.A.M. Lino, K.A.R. Ismail
Considering a rate of biogas production of 40 L/kg (Table 2), the biogas
production from landfill is 28.495 × 103 m3/day. Assuming a biogas
collection efficiency of 75%, the total collected biogas is about
21.371 × 103 m3/day. According to the composition of biogas, Table 2
(CH4 = 45%), the amount of CH4 is 9.617 × 103 m3/day. The heat
released by combustion is about 326.5x103 MJ/day calculated based on
LCV of CH4 as in Table 2. Finally, the generated electric power is about
1.135 MW assuming a conversion efficiency of 30%.
Emissions to the atmosphere are mainly due to biogas leakage from
landfill and combustion to produce energy.
As mentioned before, about 25% of the biogas escapes freely from
landfill porous structure [3,5]. The volume rate of CO2 is
3.918 × 103 m3/day or a mass rate of 7.170 × 103 kg/day. In a similar
way, the mass rate of CH4 is 2.103 × 103 kg/day. Considering the
global warming power of CH4 (=28), hence the total emissions of CO2
equivalent (CO2e) is 66.054 tCO2e/day or 24.11 k tCO2e/year.
The complete combustion of biogas produces water and the same
quantity of biogas in the form of CO2. Hence, the amount of produced
CO2 is 39.110 × 103 kg/day or 14.275 kt CO2/year. The total emissions
due to biogas leakage and combustion of biogas are 38.385 kt CO2/
year.
The remaining mass in landfill after biodigestion is composed of two
parts: the first part is due to remains of digestible matters of about 80%
of the biodegradable load, and other part is the non-digestible matters
of about 35.32% of the MSW. The sum of these two parts is about
1030.559 t/day.
Second scenario: incineration of MSW with recuperation of energy and
recycling
The combustible matter in MSW totalizes 939.053 t/day, and the
total energy released by incineration is 11.596 × 106 MJ/day. This
amount of available heat can be used for generation of electricity,
drying of MSW before incineration and preheating the feed water for
the boilers. Assuming the efficiency of thermal energy conversion to
electricity as 30%, the net electric power is 40.265 MW.
Since the LCV of MSW in Campinas is more than 2000 kcal/kg, it is
viable to sustain the incineration process without auxiliary fuel [74].
Irrespective of this, we calculate the amount of auxiliary fuel and its
impacts in case it is to be used.
It was decided to use LPG because of the availability of practical
data on its consumption during incineration. Based on Table 2, the
amount of LPG necessary to incinerate MSW in Campinas is
7512.424 kg/day, which corresponds to 0.301 × 106 MJ/day. This
amount of heat is about 2.6% of the heat released by incineration.
Emissions from incineration are due to two main sources: in-
cineration of MSW and combustion of auxiliary fuel LPG. To calculate
the emissions due to the combustion of MSW, the value of rate of
emissions of 20 tCO2/TJ, from [71] is used and the result is 231.92
tCO2/day. The rate of emissions from the combustion of LPG is obtained
from [69] as 3.019 kg CO2/kg of LPG totalizing 22.680 tCO2 / day. The
total emission due to the process of incineration of MSW is the sum of
the two contributions or 92.929 ktCO2/year.
The average price of recyclables mix is U$51.69/ton. The financial
gain from selling the amount of 129.902 ton/day is US$ 6714.63/day or
US$ 201,439/month. This amount of recyclable saves energy equiva-
lent of 47.554 MW and avoids emissions of 93.453 kt CO2/year.
Whereas each ton of mix recycled saves 31.629 GJ and avoid emitting
1.971 tCO2 to the atmosphere.
The mass to be landfilled totalizes 305.253 t/day. This amount re-
fers to the sum of solid ash from incineration estimated as 245.127 t/
day of the mass incinerated. The other part is 60.126 t/day which
corresponds to stone, sand and ceramics mixed with the collected MSW.
The authors believe that the solid ash can be reused in paving roads,
aggregate for construction materials, paving roads etc.
23
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 29 (2018) 19–25
Table 4
Comparative results of the proposed treatments methods.
Description Present Landfilling Incineration
situation
Available power (MW) – 1.135 40.265
Total emissions (ktCO2/year) 122.243 38.385 92.929
Avoid emissions due to recycling 23.551 93.453 93.453
(ktCO2/year)
Electric power avoided in the 11.984 47.554 47.554
recycling (MW)
Gain from the sale of recyclable (U 50,764 201,439 201,439
$/month)
Remaining mass in landfill (t/day) 1271.504 1030.559 305.253
Power generated by MSW (GJ/t) – 0.458 12.349
Comparison of the present situation with the scenarios
In this section, the results from the two scenarios are compared with
the results from the present treatment situation as presented in Table 4.
Considering the present recycling index in Campinas of 2.51% or
32.736 t/day, the rest of MSW of about 1271.504 t/day is transported to
landfill. The biodegradable matter is 768.197 t/day estimated to pro-
duce about 30727.874 m3 of biogas/day. The amount of CH4 corre-
sponds to 13827.553 m3/day and CO2 is 16900.342 m3/day. The
wasted energy in the biogas is 5.433 MW.
Considering the GWP of CH4 (Table 2), the mass of CO2 equivalent
(CO2e) of CH4 corresponds 253.985 t/day totalizing emissions of
122.243 ktCO2/year. If the biogas is flared, it will produce the same
amount of CO2 as the amount of generated biogas, or 30727.894 m3 of
CO2/day or 20.525 kt CO2/year.
In Recycling, saved energy is equivalent to 11.984 MW while
avoided emissions are about 23.551 ktCO2/year and the financial gain
due to the commercialization of recyclables is about US$ 1692.12/day
or US$ 50,764/month.
Table 4 shows a comparison between the present situation and the
two proposed scenarios. As can be observed the findings from the sce-
nario of incineration and recycling is most adequate for Campinas.
Comparison with available results from scenarios for MSW treatment in
Brazil include the studies of Lino and Ismail [13,75,76] where they
evaluated scenarios of biodigestion and recycling with energy recovery
and later a comparison between landfilling and recycling with energy
recovery and recycling and incineration with energy recovery. They
expressed the importance of recycling as mechanism of waste man-
agement and demonstrated the benefits of incineration. Later, Lino and
Ismail [44,45] presented the results of two more investigations for two
state capitals in the north (Belém, PA) and northeast of Brazil (São Luís,
MA) of populations over one million inhabitant each. The scenarios
include landfilling, incineration with energy recovery and recycling.
The results indicated incineration and recycling as the adequate option.
Comparison with available results from other studies for other
countries includes the work of Rada et al. [59] where they analyzed
four possible scenarios for the Romanian MSW treatment. Because of
the low calorific value of the collected MSW and the prepared RDF, the
thermal treatment option was not considered adequate. Rajaeifar et al.
[77] studied five possible scenarios for Iran involving combinations of
anaerobic digestion, landfilling, composting and incineration and con-
cluded that landfilling and composting was the worst scenario while
anaerobic digestion and incineration was the best of all. Ouda et al.
[78] realized a similar study where they evaluated two scenarios for the
treatment of MSW in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia based on incineration
and biodigestion and RDF. They concluded that waste-to-energy can
alleviate the environmental problems.
F.A.M. Lino, K.A.R. Ismail
Conclusions
The analysis of results as summarized in Table 4 shows that in the
first scenario, where the MSW is landfilled for biogas production and
reused energy, the environmental benefit is more than the energetic.
The emissions of CO2 corresponds to half the value of the second sce-
nario while the electric energy generated by the combustion of biogas
(about 817.2 MWh) is enough for 3783 residences (about 1% of the
residencies in the municipality) with consumption of 216 kWh/month.
The market cost of this amount of electric energy is about R$ 539,352
or US$ 163,440/month. The results show that this solution is incon-
venient for Campinas for three reasons: First, because electric energy
generated is relatively modest; second, adequate sites for the con-
struction of new landfill are not available, and third, because of the
necessity of monitoring the landfill for long years after its closure due to
the explosions’ risk.
The second scenario, which contemplates the incineration of MSW,
the produced energy is about 35 times that from biodigestion.
Generated electricity (28.991 MWh) is enough for 134,217 homes, or
39% of the homes of the municipality. This amount of energy is
equivalent to US$ 5798.2 month or 21,743 Minimum National Salary.
The corresponding emissions are higher for incineration but can be
reduced to acceptable limits by using suitable pollution control equip-
ment. The solid ash can be used in road paving, cement industry and
aggregate for construction materials. Based on the results, the authors
consider that this option is more suitable for Campinas since it is a
permanent solution representing the new worldwide tendencies in
MSW management.
As for recycling, the monthly financial gain of commercializing re-
cyclables corresponds to US$ 201,439, equivalent to 1120 Minimum
National Salary. In addition, with a recycling index of 20% of the po-
tentially available recyclables, electric energy savings equivalent to the
consumption of 160,220 homes or 46% of the homes in city. This index
of recycling can be achieved with adequate public policies, awareness
campaigns for schools and public in general, offering legal and ad-
ministrative support for cooperatives and associations related to the
recycling activities.
Comparing the results of the two scenarios with the results of the
present situation one can identify the wasted financial, energetic and
environmental potential of MSW. Recycling 2.51% of the available re-
cyclables results in a gain of 188 minimum national salary. The
Municipal Program of generation Job and Income formed by 12 co-
operatives, which according to the principles of the cooperatives each
cooperative must be composed of least 20 members totalizing 240
members. The actual gain from selling recyclables is insufficient to
support the members of the cooperatives.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the CNPq for the post-doctorate research
grant to the first author and the PQ research grant to the second author.
We also wish to thank the Department of Urban Cleaning of Campinas.
References
[1] World Bank. What a waste: a global review of solid waste management. USA: Urban
Development Series; 2012.
[2] Lino FAM, Ismail KAR. Recycling and thermal of MSW in a developing country. J
Eng IOSRJEN 2017;7(7):30–8.
[3] Lino FAM. Proposal to profit the energy potential of urban solid waste and domestic
sewage and minimize their ambient impacts Doctorate thesis FEM/Unicamp,
Campinas, Brazil: Faculty of Mechanical Engineering; 2014
[4] WHO/UNICEF. Progress on sanitation and drinking-water. France: Update World
Health Organization and UNICEF; 2013.
[5] Karagiannidis A. Waste-to-energy: opportunities and challenges for developing and
transition economies. London: Springer-Verlag; 2012.
[6] UN – United Nation. World Economic and Social Survey 2013. Sustainable devel-
opment challenges. New York: Department of Economic and Social Affairs; 2013.
[7] Myhre G, et al. Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing, climate change 2013:
24
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 29 (2018) 19–25
The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the fifth assessment
report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. New York: Cambridge
University Press; 2013 http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/
WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf [accessed 16.05.13].
[8] Global Methane Initiative. The US Government’s Global Methane Initiative
Accomplishments. Annual report, 2014. https://www.globalmethane.org [accessed
16.05.12].
[9] IPCC-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Synthesis report. Contribution of
working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, Switzerland: Geneva; 2015.
[10] Reddy PJ. Municipal solid waste management: processing, energy recovery, global
examples. India: BS Publications; 2011.
[11] Eurostat. Sustainable development in the European Union: monitoring report of the
EU Sustainable Development Strategy. Eurostat Statistical books. Luxemburg, 2015
http://www.ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3217494/6975281/KS-GT-15-001-
EN-N. [accessed 16.05.15].
[12] Lino FAM, Ismail KAR. MSW solid waste recycling as a mechanism for the social
inclusion in Brazil. Int J Environ Waste Manage 2013;12:264–79.
[13] Lino FAM, Ismail KAR. Municipal solid waste as sustainable energy source for
Brazil. Int J Energy Power Eng 2015;4(4):197–204.
[14] Rada EC. Energy from municipal solid waste. WIT Trans Ecol Environ
2014;190:945–58.
[15] Jones JC. Thermal processing of waste. 1st ed 2010.
[16] Maize K. Energy from waste: greenhouse gas winner or pollution loser? Power
2016;7:160.
[17] Rada EC, Ragazzi M, Ionescu G, Merler G, Moedinger F, Raboni M, et al. Municipal
Solid Waste treatment by integrated solutions: energy and environmental balances.
Energy Proc 2014;50:1037–44.
[18] Rada EC, Ragazzi M, Stefani P, Schiavon M, Torretta V. Modelling the potential
biogas productivity range from a MSW landfill for its sustainable exploitation.
Sustainability 2015;7(1):482–95.
[19] Ozbay I, Durmusoglu E. Energy content of municipal solid waste bales. Waste
Manage Res 2013;31(7):674–83.
[20] Consonni S, Giugliano M, Massarutto A, Ragazzi M, Saccani C. Material and energy
recovery in integrated waste management systems: Project overview and main re-
sults. Waste Manage (Oxford) 2011;31(9–10):2057–65.
[21] Ismail N, Ani FN. A review on plasma treatment for the processing of solid waste.
Jurnal Teknologi 2015;72(5):41–9.
[22] Lombardi L, Carnevale E, Corti A. A review of technologies and performances of
thermal treatment systems for energy recovery from waste. Waste Manage (Oxford)
2015;37:26–44.
[23] Lino FAM, Ismail KAR. Incineration and recycling for MSW treatment: case study of
Campinas, Brazil. J Sust Cities Soc 2017;35:752–7. doi.org/10.1016/
j.scs.2017.09.028.
[24] Jain S, Wolf IT, Lee J, Tong YW. A comprehensive review on operating parameters
and different pre-treatment methodologies for anaerobic digestion of municipal
solid waste. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;52:142–54.
[25] Torretta V, Ionescu G, Raboni M, Merler G. The mass and energy balance of an
integrated solution for municipal solid waste treatment. WIT Trans Ecol Environ
2014;180:151–61.
[26] Gasification Arena U. An alternative solution for waste treatment with energy re-
covery. Waste Manage (Oxford) 2011;31(3):405–6.
[27] Ryu C, Sharifi VN, Swithenbank J. Thermal waste treatment for sustainable energy.
Proc Inst Civ Eng 2007;160(3):133–40.
[28] Lino FAM. Consumo de energia no transporte da coleta seletiva de resíduo sólido
domiciliar no município de Campinas (SP) Master Thesis Unicamp Brasil: University
of Campinas; 2009. [in Portuguese].
[29] European Commission – EC. Integrated pollution prevention and control. Reference
document on the best available techniques for waste incineration; 2006.
[30] International Energy Agency – OECD/IEA. Key world energy statistic 2015. https://
www.iea.org/publications/KeyWorld_Statistics_2015.pdf [accessed 16.05.18].
[31] European Environment Agency-EEA. Managing municipal solid waste. A review of
achievements in 32 European countries. report n. 2; 2013.
[32] Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs-Defra. Incineration of
Municipal Solid Waste, 2013. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/
uploads/ attachment _data/file/221036/pb13889-incineration-municipal-waste.
pdf.
[33] United State Environmental Protection Agency-US EPA. Advancing sustainable
materials management: 2013 fact sheet. Assessing trends in material generation,
recycling and disposal in the United States, USA: Washington; 2015.
[34] Sistema Nacional de Informações sobre Saneamento-Brasil/Snis. Diagnóstico do
Manejo de Resíduos Sólidos Urbanos 2014. Ministério das Cidades, Brazil: Brasília;
2016. http://www.mma.gov.br/snis. [accessed 16.05.13].
[35] Confederation of European Waste-to-Energy Plants – CEWEP/EEA. Graph on the
treatment of municipal waste in Europe; 2014. http://www.cewep.eu/information/
recycling/m_1486.
[36] Yolin C. Waste Management and Recycling in Japan Opportunities for European
Companies (Smes focus), EU-Japan Centre for Industrial Cooperation. Japan:
Tokyo; 2015.
[37] Rada EC, Ragazzi M, Fedrizzi P. Web-GIS oriented systems viability for municipal
solid waste selective colletion optmization in developed and transient economies.
Waste Manage (Oxford) 2013;33(4):785–92.
[38] Longo C, Wagner J. Bridging legal and economic perspectives on interstate muni-
cipal solid waste disposal in the US. Waste Manage (Oxford) 2011;31(1):147–53.
[39] Ministério do Meio Ambiente-Brasil/MMA. Política Nacional de Resíduo Sólido
2010. Brazil: Brasília, 2012. http://www.mma.gov.br/.
F.A.M. Lino, K.A.R. Ismail
[40] Karak T, Blagat RM, Bhattacharyya P. Municipal solid waste generation, composi-
tion, and management: the world scenario. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol
2012;42(15):1509–630.
[41] Lino FAM, Bizzo WA, Da Silva EP, Ismail KAR. Energy impact of waste recyclable in
a Brazilian metropolitan. Resour Conserv Recycl 2010;54:916–22.
[42] Rada EC, Andreottola G. RDF/SRF: Which perspective for its future in the EU. Waste
Manage (Oxford) 2012;32(6):1059–60.
[43] Mamun MAA, Hannan MA, Hussain A, Basri H. Real time bin status monitoring for
solid waste collection route optimization. IET Conf Publ 2014. (CP649).
[44] Lino FAM, Ismail KAR. Assessment of the energy potential from urban wastes of
Belem city, Brazil. Eur Int J Sci Technol 2015;4(1):95–109.
[45] Lino FAM, Ismail KAR. Energy potential from treatment of wastes in São Luis,
Brazil. J Eng (IOSRJEN) 2015;5(1):31–41.
[46] Ionescu G, Rada EC, Cioca LI. Municipal solid waste sorting and treatment schemes
for the maximization of material and energy recovery in a latest EU member.
Environ Eng Manage J 2015;14(11):2537–44.
[47] Ciuta S, Apostol T, Rusu V. Urban and rural MSW stream characterization for se-
parate collection improvement. Sustainability 2015;7(1):916–31.
[48] U S EPA. Characterization of Municipal solid waste in the United States: 1994
Update. EPA 530-S-94-052. Washington, DC; 1994.
[49] Associação Brasileira de. Normas Técnicas (ABNT). NBR 10004: resíduos sólidos:
coletânea de normas. Rio de Janeiro 2004.
[50] Bing X, Bloemhof JM, Ramos TRP, Barbosa-Povoa AP, Wong CY, van der Vorst
JGAJ. Research challenges in municipal solid waste logistics management. Waste
Manage (Oxford) 2016;48:584–92.
[51] Baeyens J, Brems A, Dewil R. Recovery and recycling of post-consumer waste
materials. Part 1. Generalites and target wastes (paper, cardboard and aluminium
cans). Int J Sustainable Eng 2010;3(3):148–58.
[52] Challcharoenwattana A, Pharino C. Multiple-criteria decision analysis to promote
recycling activities at diferent stages of urbanization. J Cleaner Prod
2016;137:1118–28.
[53] Castagna A, Casagranda M, Zeni A, Girelli E, Rada EC, Ragazzi M, et al. 3R’s from
citizens point of view and their proposal from a case study. UPB Sci Bull Ser D
2013;75(4):253–64.
[54] Rada EC. Present and future of SRF. Waste Manage (Oxford) 2016;47:155–6.
[55] National Environmental Agency-NEA. Tuas Incineration Plant: Information bro-
chure; 2016. http://www.nea.gov.sg/docs/default-source/energy-waste/waste-
management/.
[56] Ministry of the Environment-MOE. History and current state of waste management
in Japan. Japan; 2014. https://www.env.go.jp/en/recycle/smcs/attach/hcswm.
pdf.
[57] Tabata T. Waste-to-energy incineration plants as greenhouse gas reducers: a case
study of seven Japanese metropolises. Waste Manage Res 2013;31:1110–7.
[58] Taglia P. Biogas: Rethinking the Midwest‘s Potential. Clean Wisconsin; 2010.
Available at: http://issuu.com/cleanwi/docs/biogas.
[59] Rada EC, Istrate IA, Panaitescu V, Ragazzi M, Cirlioru TM, Apostol T. A comparison
between different scenarios of Romanian municipal solid waste treatment before
landfilling. Environ Eng Manage J 2010;9(4):589–96.
[60] Nojedehi P, Heidari M, Ataei A, Nedaei M, Kurdestani E. Environmental assessment
25
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 29 (2018) 19–25
of energy production from Landfill gas plants by using long-range energy alter-
native planning (LEAP) and IPCC methane estimation methods: a case study of
Tehran. Sustainable Energy Technol Assess 2016;16:33–42.
[61] Nixon JD, Dey PK, Ghosh SK. Energy recovery from waste in India: an evidence-
based analysis. Sust Energy Technol Assess 2017;21:23–32.
[62] Ensinas AV. Estudo da geração de biogás no aterro sanitário Delta em Campinas/SP
Master Thesis Campinas, Brasil: University of Campinas; 2003.
[63] Audibert JL, Fernandes F. Preliminary qualitative and quantitative assessment of
gases from biodigestion of solid wastes in the landfill of Londrina, Paraná state,
Brazil. Acta Scientiarum 2013;35(1):45–52.
[64] Muller W, Fricke K, Vogtmann H. Biodegradation of organic matter during me-
chanical biological treatment of MSW. Compost Sci Util 1998;6(3):42–52.
[65] Fundação Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística-IBGE. Cidade-população de
Campinas em 2015. Brazil: Rio de Janeiro; 2016. http://www.ibge.gov.br/cidade/
populacao. Accessed 16.04.20.
[66] Campinas/PMC. Gestão dos Resíduos Sólidos Urbanos. Prefeitura Municipal de
Campinas – Secretaria de Serviços Públicos. Campinas: Brazil; 1996.
[67] Fundação Sistema Estadual de Análise de Dados-Seade. Pesquisa mostra melhora
nos índices de Campinas. Portal de estatísticas do Estado de São Paulo; Brasil; 2015.
http://www.seade.gov.br/pesquisa-mostra-melhora-nos-indices-de-campinas/ [ac-
cessed 16.07.21].
[68] Companhia Paulista de Força e Luz – CPFL. Fatura de consumo de energia elétrica.
Campinas: Jun 2016, Brasil.
[69] Rose JW, Cooper JR. Technical data on fuels. 7th ed. London: The British National
Committee; 1977.
[70] Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação-Brasil/MCT. Projeto Usina Verde:
Incineração de resíduos sólidos urbanos, com carga de composição similar ao RDF,
evitando emissão de metano e promovendo geração de eletricidade para auto-
consumo, Brazil: Brasília; 2005. http://www.mct.gov.br/upd_blob/0018/18123.
pdf.
[71] Monni S, Pipatti R, Lehtilä A, Savolainen I and Syri S. Global climate change mi-
tigation scenarios for solid waste management. VTT publications 603 Espoo; 2006.
[72] Lino FAM, Ismail KAR. Energy and environmental potential of solid waste in Brazil.
Energy Policy 2011;39:3496–502.
[73] Soares ELS. Estudo de caracterização gravimétrica e poder calorífico dos resíduos
sólidos urbanos Master Thesis Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: UFRJ/Coppe; 2011
[74] Ministério de Minas e Energia-BRASIL/MME. Aproveitamento energético dos
resíduos sólidos urbanos de Campo Grande, MS. Série Recursos energéticos, Rio de
Janeiro; Brazil: 2008. http://www.epe.gov.br/mercado/documents/serie%20es-
tudos% [accessed 16.04.21].
[75] Lino FAM, Ismail KAR. Analysis of the potential of municipal solid waste in Brazil.
Environ Dev 2012;4:105–13.
[76] Lino FAM, Ismail KAR. Municipal solid waste as sustainable energy source for
Brazil. Int J Energy Power Eng 2015;4:197–204.
[77] Rajaeifar MA, Tabatabaei M, Ghanavati H, Khoshnevisan B, Rafiee S. Comparative
life cycle assessment of diferente municipal solid waste management scenarios in
Iran. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;51:886–98.
[78] Ouda OKM, Raza SA, Nizami AS, Rehan M, Al-Waked R, Korres NE. Waste-to-energy
potential: a case study of Saudi Arabia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;61:328–40.