Landfill Gas To Energ

Converting old landfills to energy producing sites, while capturing emitted Rajaram
greenhouse gases, has faced numerous technical, financial and social challenges Siddiqui
and developments lately. Also, the re-mining of landfills to recover useful land in Khan
dense urban areas and proper landfill closure has been a subject of discussion and
investigation. Designed as an overview text for landfill management from cradle
to grave, this volume’s content stretches from the fundamentals to the rather in-
depth details. By putting down their joint international experience, the authors have
intended to both guide and inspire the user for his or her landfill project.
From Landfill Gas to Energy

Technologies and Challenges
Introducing the fundamental concepts of landfill gas management and its needs
and importance in the present world energy scenario, this accessible reference
volume presents key landfill gas management techniques at regional, national and
global levels. In detail, it gives an account of the recent technologies available for
landfill gas treatment and its utilization. It summarizes landfill gas prediction models
developed in various parts of the world and details their adequacy in various field
conditions. Covering both landfill remediation aspects and economic considerations
while selecting a landfill gas to energy utilization project, the reader gets familiar
with the practical aspects of converting a landfill site. Also, the challenges faced by
municipalities and landfill operators in recovering landfill gas as an energy source
are described, and solutions are suggested for solving them effectively. These
include practical execution problems, governmental issues, and developing policies
to encourage investment. The volume also includes various case studies of landfill
gas-to-energy utilization projects from around the world, which can be reviewed
and customized for the reader’s own application with the help of extensive reference
section.
Intended as an overview text for advanced students and researchers in the relevant
engineering and technology fields (Environmental, Civil, Geotechnical, Chemical,
Mechanical and Electrical), this book will also be particularly helpful to practitioners
such as municipal managers, landfill operators, designers, solid waste management
engineers, urban planners, professional consultants, scientists, non-governmental
organizations and entrepreneurs.
“Besides being a useful resource book, it allows for easy reading and a quick way
to learn about the field. With the potential to be the premier reference text in the
field of landfill gas to energy for the years to come, it should be on the shelf of
every professional working in this field.” David S. O’Neill, Environmental Attorney, From Landfill Gas to Energy
Principal of LandGas Technology LLC, Chicago, USA
Vasudevan Rajaram
Faisal Zia Siddiqui
an informa business Mohd Emran Khan
From Landfill Gas to Energy – Technologies
and Challenges
This page intentionally left blank
From Landfill Gas to
Energy – Technologies
and Challenges
Authors
Vasudevan Rajaram
Techknow Engineering LLC , Chicago, IL, USA
Faisal Zia Siddiqui and

Mohd Emran Khan
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering
and Technology, Jamia Millia Islamia University, New Delhi, India
CRC Press
Taylor & Francis Group
6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742
© 2011 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business
No claim to original U.S. Government works

Version Date: 20120120
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-203-18142-3 (eBook - PDF)
This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reasonable efforts have been
made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher cannot assume responsibility for the valid-
ity of all materials or the consequences of their use. The authors and publishers have attempted to trace the copyright
holders of all material reproduced in this publication and apologize to copyright holders if permission to publish in this
form has not been obtained. If any copyright material has not been acknowledged please write and let us know so we may
rectify in any future reprint.
Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or uti-
lized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopy-
ing, microfilming, and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the
publishers.
For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access www.copyright.com (http://
www.copyright.com/) or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923,
978-750-8400. CCC is a not-for-profit organization that provides licenses and registration for a variety of users. For
organizations that have been granted a photocopy license by the CCC, a separate system of payment has been arranged.
Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for
identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at
http://www.taylorandfrancis.com
and the CRC Press Web site at
http://www.crcpress.com
Table of contents
List of figures xiii

List of tables xvii
Preface xix
Acknowledgement xxi
1 Landfill gas to energy: International status and prospects 1

1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Importance of landfill methane 3
1.3 International landfill industry 3
1.3.1 Africa 4
1.3.2 East Asia and the Pacific 5
1.3.3 South and West Asia 5
1.3.4 Europe 5
1.3.5 Latin America and the Caribbean 6
1.3.6 North America 6
1.3.7 France 6
1.3.8 Germany 6
1.3.9 The Netherlands 6
1.3.10 Spain 7
1.3.11 U.K 7
1.3.12 Canada 7
1.4 LFG Generation Mechanism 8
1.4.1 Phases of LFG generation 11
1.4.2 Landfill gas properties and hazards 12
1.4.3 Factors affecting LFG generation 13
1.5 Factors affecting LFG transport 16
1.6 LFG characteristics and condensate 18
1.7 Energy potential of LFG 21
1.8 Benefits of LFG recovery 23
References 26
2 Planning and design of LFG recovery system 27

2.1 Criteria for identifying suitability of landfill sites for
LFG recovery 27
2.1.1 Planning and design 29
2.1.2 Construction 29
vi Table of contents
2.1.3 Operation 30
2.1.4 Restoration and aftercare 30
2.2 Steps for conducting a landfill site assessment for LFG recovery 30
2.2.1 Siting and design considerations 32
2.3 LFG recovery from open dumps, controlled landfills,
and sanitary landfills 34
2.3.1 LFG recovery from open dumps 35
2.3.2 Landfill bioreactor 39
2.3.3 Sustainable landfills 41
2.4 Conceptual design of LFG extraction system 42
2.4.1 Extraction wells 42
2.4.2 Wellheads 45
2.4.3 Collector pipes 45
2.4.4 Extraction pumps 45
2.5 Horizontal and active LFG collection systems 46
2.6 LFG recovery from active well collection system 46
2.6.1 Cylinder method 48
2.7 LFG recovery from passive well collection system 52
2.8 Header system layout 53
2.9 Guidelines for conducting a pump test 56
2.10 Standard testing methodology for LFG 56
2.11 Initial testing setup/installation 56
2.11.1 LFG extraction wells 57
2.11.2 Pressure monitoring probes 57
2.11.3 LFG treatment components 60
2.11.4 Extraction well locations 60
2.11.5 Pressure monitoring probes 62
2.12 Flow testing procedures 63
2.12.1 Leak testing 63
2.12.2 Static testing 63
2.13 Short term dynamic test 65
2.13.1 Blower/well configuration 65
2.13.2 Infiltration monitoring 65
2.13.3 Blower stabilization monitoring 65
2.13.4 Pressure probe averaging 66
2.13.5 ROI determination 66
2.13.6 Depth influence calculation 66
2.14 Long term dynamic test 66
2.14.1 Total extracted LFG calculations 66
2.14.2 Stabilized flow calculations 67
2.14.3 Stabilized ROI calculations 67
2.15 Orifice calibration procedure 67
2.16 Active and passive condensate collection 68
2.17 Landfill leachate treatment 71
2.17.1 Physico-chemical treatment 74
2.17.2 Biological treatment 75
References 76
Table of contents vii
3 Landfill gas modeling 77

3.1 Introduction 77
3.2 Conceptualization of LFG model 78
3.3 Benefits of LFG modeling 79
3.3.1 Sizing LFG extraction system 79
3.3.2 Projections of LFG emissions 80
3.3.3 Monitoring and regulatory compliance 81
3.4 Classification of LFG models 81
3.4.1 Zero-order model 82
3.4.2 Constant rate model 83
3.4.3 First-order model 84
3.4.4 Modified first-order model 84
3.4.5 Multiphase model 84
3.4.6 Second-order model 85
3.4.7 Scholl Canyon model 85
3.4.8 Stoichiometric model 86
3.4.9 Triangular model 87
3.4.10 Palos Verdes model 88
3.4.11 Sheldon Arleta model 90
3.4.12 GASFILL model 90
3.4.13 LandGEM model 91
3.4.14 LFGGEN model 92
3.4.15 EMCON MGM model 94
3.4.16 TNO model 94
3.4.17 Multi-phase model (Afvalzorg) 95
3.4.18 GasSim model 96
3.4.19 EPER model France 97
3.4.20 EPER model Germany 99
3.4.21 Colombia model 99
3.4.22 CALMIM model 101
3.4.23 Philippines model 102
3.4.24 Thailand model 103
3.4.25 Ukraine model 103
3.4.26 China model 104
3.4.27 Mexico model 104
3.4.28 Ecuador model 105
3.4.29 Central America model 105
3.4.30 IPCC model 106
3.4.31 RET screen model 108
3.4.32 IGNiG Model 108
3.4.33 Finite element model 109
3.4.34 Tabasaran model 110
3.5 Uncertainties in LFG model predictions 110
3.6 Validation of LFG models 112
3.7 Customization of LFG models 113
3.7.1 Methane generation potential 114
3.7.2 Degradable organic carbon 114
viii Table of contents
3.7.3 Methane fraction 115

3.7.4 Methane correction factor 116
3.7.5 Methane oxidation factor 116
3.7.6 Decay constant 116
3.7.7 Methane recovery rate 116
References 118
4 LFG monitoring and economic feasibility evaluation 121

4.1 LFG monitoring 121
4.1.1 Monitoring locations within the waste body 121
4.1.2 Monitoring locations outside the waste body 121
4.1.3 Pressure monitoring 122
4.1.4 Monitoring frequency 122
4.1.5 LFG trigger levels 123
4.1.6 Monitoring surface emissions 123
4.1.7 Monitoring locations 124
4.1.8 Parameters for analysis 124
4.1.9 LFG within and outside the waste body 125
4.1.20 Flare and utilization plants 126
4.2 Test methods/protocols for LFG monitoring 128
4.3 LFG migration and dynamics in borewell 132
4.4 Standardized approach for LFG probe assessment 134
4.4.1 Pre-assessment activities 135
4.4.2 Initial monitoring probe condition assessment 135
4.4.3 Gas monitoring assessment 136
4.4.4 Vacuum testing 137
4.4.5 Video borescope inspection 137
4.4.6 Lithology evaluation 138
4.5 Economic feasibility of LFG to Energy project 139
4.5.1 Capital and O&M cost 143
4.5.2 Energy sales revenue 146
4.5.3 Economic feasibility 148
4.5.4 Comparison of economically feasible options 149
4.5.5 Project financing options 149
4.5.6 Perspective of lenders/investors 149
4.5.7 Financing approaches 151
4.5.8 Evaluation of costs and benefits 151
4.5.9 Conclusions 152
References 152
5 Landfill gas treatment technologies 153

5.1 Inroduction 153
5.2 Passive venting of LFG 153
5.3 LFG combustion mechanism 155
5.4 LFG flaring system 157
5.4.1 Design of a flaring system 157
5.4.2 Types of flaring system 159
Table of contents ix
5.4.3 Description of LFG Flaring System 163

5.4.4 Comparison of open and enclosed flares 168
5.5 Case studies on LFG flaring systems 168
5.5.1 Aleksandrovsk, Lugansk oblast, Ukraine 168
5.5.2 Gorai landfill, Mumbai 172
5.5.3 San Pedro, Manila 174
5.6 LFG cleaning and upgradation 175
5.7 Types of LFG treatment technologies 179
5.8 Water scrubbing using DMT technology 179
5.9 Water Scrubber using GmBH technology 182
5.10 Water Scrubbing using ISET technology 182
5.11 Physical Absorption using ISET technology 183
5.12 Pressure Swing Adsorption using DMT technology 184
5.13 Pressure Swing Adsorption using ISET technology 186
5.14 Pressure Swing Adsorption using GmBH technology 187
5.15 Chemical absorption of CO2 188
5.16 Chemical absorption using DMT technology 189
5.17 Chemical absorption using ISET technology 190
5.18 Chemical absorption using GmBH technology 191
5.19 Membrane separation Natcogroup technology 192
5.20 Membrane separation ISET technology 194
5.21 Cryogenic separation 196
5.22 Cryogenic condensation technology 197
5.23 Mixed Refrigerant liquefaction technology 198
5.24 SAGTM technology 199
5.25 SWOP™ technology 201
5.26 ISET technology 202
5.27 Comparison of different LFG treatment and
upgrading technologies 203
5.27.1 Impact on the environment 205
5.27.2 Ease of operation 205
5.28 Conclusion 205
References 206
6 Landfill gas utilization technologies 209

6.1 Introduction 209
6.2 LFG to energy technologies 210
6.3 Microturbines 211
6.4 Reciprocating internal-combustion engines 214
6.5 Stirling cycle engines 216
6.6 Steam turbines 218
6.7 Direct use 219
6.8 Alternative fuels 221
6.8.1 High Btu LFG 221
6.8.2 LFG to Compressed Natural Gas 221
6.8.3 LFG to Liquefied Natural Gas 223
6.8.4 Application of LFG as a vehicle fuel 229
6.8.5 LFG/LNG issues 231
x Table of contents
6.9 Power generation using LFG-driven engines 232

6.9.1 Design considerations 233
6.9.2 LFG power potential 234
6.9.3 Electricity generation using internal combustion engines 235
6.9.4 Electricity generation using large turbines 236
6.9.5 Electricity generation using microturbines 237
6.9.6 Organic rankine cycle power plant 237
6.10 Boilers 238
6.10.1 LFG utilization for boilers 238
6.10.2 Design modifications 240
6.11 Fuel cells 242
References 243
7 Remediation of landfill sites 245

7.2 Planning for landfill remediation 245
7.3 Multiple uses of landfills 246
7.4 Recovery of landfills for higher land uses 247
7.5 Procedure for remediation of landfill sites with low LFG potential 247
7.5.1 Site characterization study 250
7.5.2 Potential economic benefits 251
7.5.3 Investigate Regulatory requirements 251
7.5.4 Health and safety plan 252
7.5.5 Project costs 252
7.6 Recovering land through waste mining and processing 253
7.6.1 Landfill mining process 254
7.6.2 Excavation and separation 254
7.6.3 Processing for reclamation of recyclable material 255
7.6.4 Material recovery 255
7.6.5 Composition of waste 256
7.6.6 Waste recovery efficiency 256
7.6.7 Potential for energy recovery 257
7.6.8 Benefits of landfill mining 257
7.6.9 Limitations of landfill mining 257
7.6.10 Economic aspects of landfill mining 258
7.6.11 Cost and benefits of landfill mining 259
7.7 Landfill mining case study 259
7.7.1 Closing the circle project 261
7.7.2 Characterisation of landfilled waste 261
7.7.3 Material Recovery 263
7.7.4 Energy recuperation 264
7.7.5 Recovery of natural land 266
7.7.6 Carbon footprint 268
7.8 Identification and control of landfill fires 270
7.8.1 Characterization of landfill fire 272
7.8.2 Immediate actions 272
7.8.3 Extinguishment methods 274
Table of contents xi
7.8.4 Monitoring and management 275

7.8.5 Fire prevention and control plan 276
7.9 Operation and maintenance of landfill site 278
7.9.1 LFG monitoring system 280
7.9.2 LFG wellfield, conveyance, and condensate systems 281
7.9.3 LFG blower systems 282
7.9.4 LFG flare system 283
7.9.5 LFG energy recovery systems 284
References 284
8 Landfill gas case studies 285

8.2 Suzhou Qizi Mountain LFG to energy project, China 286
8.3 Târgu Mures, LFG to energy project, Romania 286
8.4 Wingmoor, LFG to energy project, UK 287
8.5 McKinney LFG to energy project, Texas, USA 287
8.6 Lubna, Sosnowiec and Legajny LFG to energy project, Poland 288
8.7 Palembang LFG to energy project, Indonesia 288
8.8 Monterey Regional Waste Management District LFG to
energy project, Marina, CA 288
8.9 La Pradera LFG to energy project, Colombia 289
8.10 Bandeirantes LFG to energy project, Brazil 289
8.11 Dunsink LFG to energy project, North Dublin 290
8.12 LFG to energy project, Niagara 290
8.13 McRobies Gully LFG to energy project, Tasmania 290
8.14 City of Bergen LFG to energy project, Norway 291
8.15 NovaGerar LFG to energy project, Brazil 292
8.16 Ethekwini LFG to energy project, Durban 293
8.17 Horotiu, Hamilton LFG to energy project, New Zealand 293
8.18 Arthurstown LFG to energy project, Ireland 294
8.19 Ano Liossia LFG to energy project, Greece 294
8.20 Puente Hills LFG to energy project, California 295
8.21 Greater Sudbury and Halton Region, LFG to energy project,
Canada 295
8.22 Chelyabinsk LFG to energy project, Russia 296
8.23 Torun LFG to energy project, Poland 296
8.24 Kristianstad LFG to energy project, Sweden 297
8.25 Belrose LFG to energy project, Australia 298
8.26 Zámbiza LFG to energy project, Ecuador 298
8.27 Vlierzele LFG to energy project, Belgium 299
8.28 Antioch LFG to energy project, Illinois 300
8.29 Chengdu City LFG to energy project, China 301
8.30 Gaoantun LFG to energy project, China 302
8.31 Mentougou LFG to energy project, China 304
8.32 Gorai LFG to energy project, India 305
8.33 Khmelnitsky LFG to energy project, Ukraine 306
8.34 Belo Horizonte LFG to energy project, Brazil 308
xii Table of contents
8.35 Olavarria LFG to energy project, Argentina 309

8.36 Okhla LFG to energy pilot project, India 309
8.37 Pre-feasibility studies for LFG recovery in Columbia 314
8.38 LFG energy project in Russian Federation 314
8.39 Pre-feasibility studies in the Republic of Korea 314
8.40 Conclusion 314
References 315
9 Challenges in utilization of LFG in developing countries 317

9.2 Barriers in LFG to energy project development 318
9.2.1 Technological intricacies 319
9.2.2 Economic limitations 320
9.2.3 Awareness of regulators and policy makers 320
9.2.4 Power system interconnection 321
9.2.5 National policy framework 321
9.3 Action plan for LFG management 321
9.3.1 Legislation, regulation and standard development 321
9.3.2 Economic incentives 322
9.3.3 Education and awareness 323
9.3.4 Information dissemination and training 323
9.3.5 Institutional strengthening 324
9.3.6 Demonstration activities 324
9.3.7 Financial mechanism 325
9.4 Framework for implementation of action plan 326
9.5 Conclusions 330
References 330
Appendix A Format for monitoring of LFG 333

Appendix B Format for conducting waste audit at a landfill site 341
Appendix C Format for waste characterization 349
Appendix D Useful websites 351
Appendix E Glossary of terms in landfill gas management 353
Appendix F List of abbreviations 369
Appendix G Template for country-specific LFG action plan 371
Appendix H LFG calculation worksheet 375
Appendix I List of LFG to PNG/CNG Technology Providers 379
Subject index 381
List of figures
1.1 Comparison of methane with other greenhouse gases 2

1.2 Methane emissions contribution and breakdown of
anthropogenic sources 2
1.3 Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2000 and
Anthropogenic Methane Sources 3
1.4 Methane Emissions from Solid Waste Management 4
1.5 Typical LFG Generation Pattern 9
1.6 LFG Generation Curves 10
1.7 LFG composition over a period of time 11
1.8 Methane Flammability Range 13
1.9 Factors affecting LFG Generation 13
1.10 Typical profiles for LFG Generation 15
1.11 Change in LFG concentrations at different stages of
LFG formation 18
1.12 Schematic indication of energy supply from a LFG project 22
2.1 Typical LFG to Energy recovery system 28
2.2 A typical Sustainable Landfill System 41
2.3 Example of a vertical extraction well arrangement 43
2.4 Example of a Horizontal Well arrangement 43
2.5 Example of a hybrid well arrangement 44
2.6 Example of a Gabion Gas Well Arrangement 44
2.7 Typical Horizontal Extraction Well 47
2.8 Schematic of Vertical Extraction Wells 47
2.9 Typical Vertical Extraction Well 48
2.10 Typical well layout using cylinder method 49
2.11 Schematic of Looped Header System 54
2.12 Header Layout Options 55
2.13 Typical LFG Extraction Well 58
2.14 Typical Well-head Assembly 59
2.15 Zones of Influence for Gas Extraction Wells 60
2.16 Equilateral Pattern of Gas Collection Wells 61
2.17 Cluster Well Configuration 62
2.18 Typical Pressure Probes 64
2.19 Typical Condensate Knockout System 71
2.20 Schematic of Leachate generation 72
xiv List of figures
2.21 Schematic of Leachate formation 72

2.22 Typical Leachate monitoring system 73
2.23 Leachate treatment options on-site treatment 74
2.24 Typical scheme for leachate treatment 75
3.1 Continuity of Mass Principle 78
3.2 First Order Model prediction of Gas Generation Rate 79
3.3 Carbon stock model flow chart 80
3.4 Zero Order Model Prediction 82
3.5 Constant Rate Model 83
3.6 Multi-Phase First Order Model Gas Generation Rate 85
3.7 Scholl Canyon Model 87
3.8 Triangular model for LFG generation 88
3.9 Sheldon Arleta Model for LFG generation 90
3.10 Typical development of landfill gas production in time 100
4.1 Typical LFG monitoring borehole (Outside waste body) 128
4.2 Graphical representation of flux chamber sampling train 129
5.1 LFG Vent Modification 154
5.2 Flame Temperature (C) for CH4/CO2 Gas Mixture for a Range
of Excess Added Air Concentrations 156
5.3 Schematic of Elevated Flaring System 160
5.4 Open flare with knock-out pot, flow meter, fan, air operated
shut down valves, air compressor and flame arrestor 160
5.5 Schematic of an Enclosed Flaring System 161
5.6 Side View of the Flaring System 161
5.7 Typical LFG Flaring System 164
5.8 Schematic of Enclosed Flare 164
5.9 Typical Piping and Instrumentation Diagram for a
Enclosed Flare System 167
5.10 LFG Monitoring Plan 173
5.11 Flow diagram of Enclosed flaring system for Gorai
Landfill, India 174
5.12 Flow diagram of LFG conditioning system for
San Pedro, Manila 175
5.13 LFG Utilization Options 177
5.14 Technologies for LFG refinement 178
5.15 Overview of LFG upgrading technologies for CO2
removal 179
5.16 Flow diagram for high pressure water scrubbing
using DMT Technology 180
5.17 Flow diagram for high pressure water scrubbing
(GmbH, 2010) 182
5.18 Flow sheet of a water scrubber (ISET) 2008 183
5.19 Flow chart physical absorption (using organic solvents) 184
5.20 Flow Diagram for pressure swing adsorption 185
5.21 Principle of pressure swing adsorption 186
5.22 Flow sheet of a pressure swing adsorption (ISET) 2008 187
5.23 Steps in LFG Upgradation Process 188
List of figures xv
5.24 Process flow diagram for chemical absorption of CO2 189

5.25 Process flow diagram for chemical absorption of H2S 190
5.26 Flow sheet of an amine scrubber (ISET) 2008 191
5.27 Amine Scrubbing 192
5.28 Schematic representation of membrane separation 193
5.29 Schematic representation of an internally staged
membrane separator 194
5.30 Flow sheet of a membrane separation (ISET) 2008 195
5.31 A simple model of cryogenic separation of biogas.
Streams 1, 2 and 3 respectively are the crude biogas
(inlet gas), the upgraded biogas (product) and the impurities 196
5.32 Cooling and compressing units in cryogenic separation 197
5.33 Shows the complete PFD for the cryogenic separation process 197
5.34 Scheme of the cryogenic condensation 198
5.35 Scheme of the Mixed Refrigerant liquefaction plant 199
5.36 SWOP™ Technology 202
6.1 General schematic of the CHP microturbine process 213
6.2 General schematic of the CHP gas engine process 215
6.3 Flow diagram of LFG driven Stirling Engine 217
6.4 Direct combustion of LFG to produce electricity 218
6.5 Schematic of the fluidized bed calciner 220
6.6 CNG Facility Process Schematic 222
6.7 Overview of CO2 WASHTM Process 223
6.8 Flow diagram of CO2 WASH™ Process 224
6.9 Description of CO2 WASH™ Process 225
6.10 LFG to Methanol Process Schematic 226
6.11 A Typical LFG to LNG flow diagram 230
6.12 Schematic diagram of LFG to electricity plant 232
7.1 Schematic of a landfill mining process 248
7.2 Process scheme for a landfill mining plant 248
7.3 Landfill Mining in India 249
7.4 Thermogenics Landfill Reclamation Process 249
7.5 Integrated approaches to sustainable landfill management 253
7.6 General ELFM process flow diagram for Closing the
Circle project 260
7.7 Overview of the Gasplasma™ process 265
7.8 Typical LFG System Components 278
8.1 Niagara LFG to Energy Technology 291
8.2 Raadalen LFG to Energy flow diagram 292
8.3 Simplified process flowsheet of Torun LFG to Energy Plant 297
8.4 Layout of LFG to Energy System 300
8.5 LFG Conditioning System 300
8.6 LFG Modeling results for Chengdu City Landfill, China 302
8.7 LFG Modeling results for Gaoantun Landfill, China 303
8.8 LFG Modeling results for Mentougou Landfill, China 304
8.9 LFG Modeling results for Gorai Landfill 306
8.10 LFG Modeling results for Khmelnitsky Landfill, Ukraine 307
xvi List of figures
8.11 LFG Scrubbing, Conditioning & Flaring System of Okhla

Landfill, Delhi, India 310
8.12 Graphical representation (3D image) of LFG Scrubbing,
Conditioning & Flaring System of Okhla Landfill, Delhi, India 310
9.1 Overview of Main Components of MSW in Developing
Countries 319
List of tables
1.1 LFG Characteristics 12

1.2 Typical LFG Composition at Methanogenic Phase 19
1.3 Trace components in LFG 20
1.4 Typical Values for Gas Density and Viscosity at 0oC
and Atmospheric Pressure 20
1.5 Organic Contaminants in LFG 21
1.6 LFG Utilization options 24
2.1 Summary of LFG Extraction Plant Design Considerations 33
2.2 Types of Landfills 35
2.3 Collection Piping Design Criteria 46
2.4 Testing Methods for Raw LFG 57
2.5 Common LFG Collection System and LFG Recovery Issues 69
3.1 DOC and DOCf values for waste types in LFG Models 115
3.2 Methane recovery rates in the reviewed literature and models 117
4.1 LFG Trigger Levels for Boreholes outside the waste body 123
4.2 Typical LFG Flare and Utilization Plant Monitoring Regime 125
4.3 Minimum baseline monitoring requirements for a
non-hazardous landfill 128
4.4 Comparison of gas sensors for use in LFG monitoring devices 129
4.5 Types of benefits and costs associated with LFG scenarios 141
4.6 LFG to Energy Project Risks 150
5.1 Gaseous Emissions Generated from the Flaring of LFG 155
5.2 Undesirable Products of LFG Combustion 156
5.3 General comparison between an open and closed
LFG flaring system 169
5.4 Comparison of design criteria for open and closed
LFG flaring system 170
5.5 Comparison of items for open and closed LFG flaring system 171
5.6 Parameters for designing LFG Flaring System 171
5.7 Expected parameters for high temperature flare and
blower station 172
5.8 Parameters for designing the Flaring System 174
5.9 Parameters for designing the System 175
5.10 LFG Upgrading Methods 180
5.11 Comparison of different LFG upgradation Technologies 203
xviii List of tables
5.12 Comparison of yield and purity of different LFG

treatment techniques 205
6.1 LFG Constituents, sources, limits and their impacts 212
6.2 Overview of micro turbine properties 213
6.3 Advantages and disadvantages of micro turbines 214
6.4 Advantages and disadvantages of a IC engine 216
6.5 Stirling Engines properties 217
6.6 Advantages and Disadvantages of Stirling engines 217
6.7 Characteristics of steam turbines 218
6.8 LFG Technology options for Electric Power Generation 234
6.9 Challenges and solutions when retrofitting a boiler to use LFG 241
6.10 Advantages and disadvantages of a boiler converted to use LFG 241
6.11 Advantages and disadvantages of Fuel Cells 243
7.1 Summary of the mass balance of Remo landfill site
as a function of the valorisation possibilities 262
7.2 Results of material recovery tests compared with
characterisation 263
7.3 Mass balance of the current design of the GasplasmaTM process 266
7.4 Difference in area per habitat type in the different phases
of the project based on the nature conservation vision 267
7.5 The relation between landfill conditions and temperature 275
7.6 Relation between CO concentration and Landfill fire 276
7.7 Checklist for monitoring landfill area 277
7.8 Typical LFG System monitoring schedule 281
9.1 Key Barriers and Proposed Remedial measures for LFG Utilization 322
9.2 Agencies with their Roles/Responsibilities for implementation
of LFG Action Plan 326
Preface
Landfill Gas (LFG) recovery is a key element of an integrated solid waste management.
The use of landfills for solid waste disposal will continue to be the predominant method
worldwide. The U.S. EPA tracks approximately 2,400 landfills that collectively contain
more than 7 billion tons of waste. Even if all of these landfills are closed tomorrow, the
waste currently in the ground would still be generating LFG. This LFG can be used as a
source of energy where technically and economically feasible to do so. While significant
efforts have been made to formulate viable LFG to energy projects, there is still more
energy that can be tapped from the existing landfills. EPA’s database shows that there
are currently 515 landfills for new LFG to energy projects. These landfills have a total
LFG generation potential of 1,170 MW.
This book is an attempt to share the information on how LFG to energy tech-
nologies worldwide can be implemented to extract the energy locked up in landfills.
The book contributes to the consolidation of knowledge in the field of LFG, so that
current state-of-the-art can be accessed easily. The book is presented in a concise,
simple and integrated manner. The contents of this book originated mainly from the
background research material and resources collected and developed for my PhD
dissertation. It also follows from a timely suggestion by Dr Raj Rajaram, and my
dissertation supervisor, Prof Mohd Emran Khan, that the information could be use-
ful in a book form.
It is our professional hope that the technologies for the management of LFG will
be understood and embraced by the reader. This book has been organized into the
following chapters:
Chapter 1 provides an overview of the status and prospects of LFG worldwide

including the technical aspects and benefits of LFG recovery.
Chapter 2 focuses on the planning and design approach of LFG to energy recovery
system with focus on pump test methodology.
Chapter 3 summarizes various LFG modeling approaches used worldwide and deals
with the uncertainties in LFG model predictions, validation and customization of
LFG models. Refinement of LFG models can be the subject of future efforts.
Chapter 4 enlightens the reader on approaches to LFG monitoring and evaluation of
economic feasibility of LFG to energy projects.
Chapter 5 describes the various LFG flaring, treatment and upgrading technologies
and provides a comparison of technologies in terms of their impacts on the envi-
ronment and ease of operation.
xx Preface
Chapter 6 outlines the emerging LFG utilization technologies and compares their
advantages and disadvantages in terms of their applicability; however, it does not
recommends a particular technology.
Chapter 7 covers the remediation of landfill sites, including remining the landfill to
recover the land and utilize the waste. Operation and maintenance of key compo-
nents of the LFG recovery system is also described.
Chapter 8 contains selected case studies from around the globe as examples to dem-
onstrate the viability of LFG to energy projects worldwide.
Chapter 9 discusses the barriers to the utilization of LFG as a source of energy and
proposes an action plan for LFG management including a framework for imple-
mentation of the action plan.
The final section includes nine appendices that will be useful to the reader.
Faisal Zia Siddiqui

Acknowledgement
We would like to dedicate this book to our parents who instilled in us the curiosity
to learn and encouraged us to share our knowledge with others. We would like to
acknowledge the complete support of our wives and children who encouraged us
and allowed us to spend many weekends getting the book completed.
We thank all the persons who have encouraged or in some way supported or
assisted in preparation of this book, including David S. O’Neill, Environmental Attorney,
Principal of LandGas Technology LLC, Chicago, USA; Anne Lechartier, International
Energy Agency (IEA); Robert Lems, Dirkse Milieutechniek (DMT); Dr Jetse Reijenga,
Department of Chemical Engineering and Chemistry, Eindhoven University of
Technology; Dr M Salahuddin, Director, Ministry of Environment and Forests
(MoEF); Dr Suneel Pandey, The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI); Mr Brijesh
Agarwal, Combustion Research Associates (CRA); Mr. Sourabh Manuja, MM Aqua
Technologies and Prof Abid Haleem, Head, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
JMI University.
Finally, we would like to acknowledge Ms. Germaine Seijger and Mr Richard
Gundel of Taylor and Francis who supported the idea of this book and rendered
their continuous and active support in the preparation of the manuscript.
Vasudevan Rajaram
Faisal Zia Siddiqui
Mohd Emran Khan
Chapter 1
Landfill gas to energy: International

status and prospects
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Daily, there are millions of tons of Municipal Solid Wastes (MSW) deposited into
thousands of landfills and other dumping sites, worldwide. The decomposition of
these wastes result in the generation of Landfill Gases (LFG).
LFG is typically viewed as a liability because of concerns about explosion,
odour, and increasingly, climate change. However, LFG can be turned into an asset
if solid waste disposal sites are seen as opportunities for energy solutions. Many
countries regularly capture LFG as a strategy to improve landfill safety, reduce odour,
generate electricity, reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, and to earn carbon
credits. Developed countries have addressed growing concerns about climate change
while making a profit from LFG to energy projects, while projects in the develop-
ing countries are taking advantage of the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) to earn car-
bon credits by capturing and combusting methane. These LFG to energy projects
provide a valuable service to the environment and a potentially profitable busi-
ness venture, while contributing a renewable energy resource to local and regional
communities.
Figure 1.1 shows a comparison of methane with other GHGs. Due to its high
potency and short atmospheric lifetime, addressing methane emissions is a particu-
larly effective approach for mitigating the near term impacts of climate change.
Methane is emitted from a variety of both anthropogenic (human-induced) and
natural sources and accounts for 16% of global GHG emissions (Refer Figure 1.2).
In 2005, global GHG emissions amounted to over 44 Gt CO2-equivalent emissions
(CO2-eq), with methane accounting for 7 Gt CO2-eq. Anthropogenic emission sources
include agricultural, coal-mining, landfills, and natural gas and oil activities.
Approximately 60% of methane emissions come from these sources and the rest are
from natural sources. Over the last two centuries, methane concentrations in the
atmosphere have more than doubled. However, in the past decade, while methane
concentrations have continued to increase, the overall rate of methane growth has
slowed. This is due in part to increased global awareness and action to put in place
methane recovery and use practices (IEA, 2009b).
Reducing methane emissions provides a number of important energy, safety,
economic, and environmental benefits. First, because methane is a potent GHG
2 From landfill gas to energy – Technologies and challenges
Figure 1.1 Comparison of methane with other greenhouse gases (IEA, 2008)
*F-gases include Hydroflurocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) from several
sectors, mainly industry.
Note: Industry CO2 includes non-energy uses of fossil fuels, gas flaring, and process emissions. Energy sector
methane includes coal mines, gas leakages, and fugitive emissions.
Figure 1.2 Methane emissions contribution and breakdown of anthropogenic sources

Note: Enteric fermentation takes place in the digestive processes of ruminant animals (e.g., cows, sheep)
Landfill gas to energy: International status and prospects 3
Figure 1.3 Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2000 and Anthropogenic Methane Sources (IEA, 2008)
(25 times more potent than CO2 on a 100-year basis), and methane reductions pro-
duce important near-term progress toward climate change mitigation. In addition,
methane is the primary constituent of natural gas. Thus the collection and use of
methane provides a valuable, clean energy source that promotes local economic devel-
opment and reduces local environmental pollution and odours. Producing energy
from methane recovery avoids the use of conventional energy resources, reducing
end-user and power plant emissions of CO2 and air pollutants.
1.2 IMPORTANCE OF LANDFILL METHANE
Methane is the second-most significant GHG after CO2 (Refer Figure 1.3) having
chemical lifetime in the atmosphere as approximately 12 years.
Municipal solid waste contributes 14% of the total global methane emissions, as
shown in Figure 1.3. Methane is produced through the natural process of the bacte-
rial decomposition of organic waste under anaerobic conditions in sanitary landfills
and open dumps. Methane makes up approximately 50% of LFG, the balance being
mostly CO2 mixed with small quantities of other gases. If LFG is not actively col-
lected, it escapes into the atmosphere.
1.3 INTERNATIONAL LANDFILL INDUSTRY
Global methane emissions from landfills are expected to grow by 9% between

2005 and 2020. Currently, the United States, China, Russia, Mexico, Canada and
Southeast Asia are the main contributors of methane emissions from MSW (Refer
Figure 1.4).
Most developed countries have policies that will constraint and potentially
reduce future growth in methane emissions from landfills, such as expanded recycling
and composting program, increased regulatory requirements to capture and com-
bust LFG and improved LFG recovery technologies. However, developing regions
Figure 1.4 Methane Emissions from Solid Waste Management (IEA, 2008)
in Asia and Eastern Europe are projected to experience steady growth in landfill
methane emissions because of expanding populations, combined with a trend away
from unmanaged open dumps to sanitary landfills with increased anaerobic condi-
tions conducive to methane production.
Methane emissions from landfills are expected to decrease in industrialized coun-
tries and increase in developing countries. Industrialized countries’ emissions are
expected to decline as the result of expanded recycling and composting programmes,
increased regulatory requirements to capture and combust LFG, and improved LFG
recovery technologies. Developing countries’ LFG emissions are expected to increase
due to expanding populations, combined with a trend away from open dumps to
sanitary landfills with increased anaerobic conditions.
It is important to note the regional differences in landfill practices and the impor-
tance of slow advancement toward the use of sanitary landfills, with possible leachate
treatment and LFG capture and combustion or use. The developing countries are more
likely to dispose of waste in open or minimally managed dumps. Before these regions
can consider managing leachate and LFG, they will need to begin upgrading waste man-
agement practices. The importance of proper solid waste management as a foundation
for LFG recovery and use cannot be understated; the following summary is provided to
aid in better understanding regional solid waste practices.
1.3.1 Africa
The vast majority of waste disposal sites in Africa are open dumps. While statutory
or regulatory requirements for the construction of sanitary landfills may exist, a lack
of financial and human resources leads to a failure of compliance. Landfill siting

is usually decided based upon factors like access to collection vehicles rather than
environmental and public safety considerations. Site construction seldom includes
liners, fences, or the application of a daily cover; leachate or LFG management is rare
due to their higher costs and the need for technically trained personnel. Some coun-
tries have recently made improvements to landfill practices, including Egypt, Tunisia,
and South Africa. The potential LFG projects range in size from 0.5 MW to 10 MW
projects with the bulk of projects clustered in the 1–4 MW range.
1.3.2 East Asia and the Pacific

In the developed areas of East Asia and the Pacific, sanitary landfills are the most
common method of waste disposal. Costs of landfilling have risen as disposal sites
are exhausted and stricter environmental regulations are imposed. Countries like
Japan and Australia classify their landfills according to the presence of hazardous
waste, and implement leachate and gas control measures.
In the developing countries in this region, open dumping is the main disposal
method. While some sites use clay liners, little consideration is paid to leachate or
gas control. Because of the high percentage of organics and plastics that are condu-
cive to anaerobic digestion, LFG builds up quickly and has led to fires in cities such
as Bangkok and Manila.
While some cities in the developing countries of this region, including Bandung,
Jakarta, and Manila, have had success in designing and operating sanitary landfills;
overall, the open dumps that predominate have led to environmental and health
problems.
1.3.3 South and West Asia

Open dumps are the most prevalent waste disposal method in this region. Most
areas have crude dumping practices with little or no cover. Some metropolitan areas
designate sites as landfills, but these operations lack most of the conditions of a san-
itary landfill such as covers, leachate collection/treatment, compaction and proper
site design. LFG capture has been tried on an experimental basis. Throughout the
region, fires are common.
1.3.4 Europe
Europe has made great advances in landfill practices over the last 20 years, going
from mainly small, minimally controlled municipal landfills to regional systems with
a number of safety and pollution control features such as LFG and leachate man-
agement systems. As more environmental requirements have been implemented,
economies of scale are improved, leading to large, capital-intensive landfill construc-
tion. European landfills commonly flare or utilise LFG to minimize pollution and
GHG emissions. There are also a number of bioreactor landfills, where moisture –
sometimes leachate – is recirculated to stabilise the landfill sooner than under usual
conditions.
1.3.5 Latin America and the Caribbean

Improved solid waste management is becoming an increasingly common practice in
Latin America and the Caribbean. Many of these landfills would be more accurately
described as managed dumps. There is often some type of daily cover, but no liner,
leachate collection, and environmental monitoring system. In some larger cities, lin-
ers and leachate management systems are in place. LFG is produced quickly because
of the high organic content of the waste. However, only a few landfills have insti-
tuted LFG collection systems.
1.3.6 North America

Landfills have 60–70% of North America’s MSW. The fraction of MSW that is land-
filled has declined recently, but the total amount generated has increased. Landfills
in North America typically have liners, leachate collection systems, final covers,
and other features designed to minimise environmental hazards. LFG recovery for
energy production is proven and commercially available. There are approximately
460 operational LFG energy projects in the United States. In addition, about 60
projects are currently under construction or are exploring development options and
opportunities.
1.3.7 France
In France, 21 Mt of waste is landfilled. The generation of LFG is estimated at 3.2
billion m3 LFG at 50% methane per year in 2005. 60% of LFG are collected. Most
of the collected gas is flared. 18% are converted to energy. 45 landfills use 120 kt of
methane in energy recovery plants. Most of them produce electricity only. A few also
use LFG for direct heating.
The total power generation capacity is 100 MW. The electricity production
is close to 750 GWh. Waste landfilling of biodegradable waste should decrease to
8 Mt in 2020. LFG collection potential is still important. The average energy recov-
ery potential for the 2007–2020 period is estimated to 410 MW.
1.3.8 Germany
Only 4 Mt are landfilled today according to the statistics. The LFG generation is 3.2
billion m3 LFG at 50% methane. 57% are collected and used. Only a small quantity
is flared. LFG accounts for 480 kt CH4. Most of the LFG is used in power plants,
generating 2,500 GWh. The increase in LFG collection rate will allow to maintain
the energy production close to the actual level. The capacity will be around 160 MW
in 2020.
The incentives for renewable electricity production are based on a feed-in tariff
system. The renewable energy law, called Erneuerbare Energie Gesetz (EEG), estab-
lishes the pricing system for LFG.
1.3.9 The Netherlands

1.5 Mt of waste is landfilled in The Netherlands. The LFG generation is 0.9 billions
m3 LFG at 50% methane. 14% are collected, and used. Small quantities are flared.
Most of the LFG is used in power plants, generating 121 GWh, but a significant part
is used for direct heat or as natural gas. Natural gas from LFG represents 109 GWh.
Since biodegradable waste are banned from landfills, the generation of LFG will
decline. Although the LFG collection rate is low in the Netherlands, but the LFG
collection potential is high. The energy recovery should increase to 100 kt CH4/year
(average for 2007–2020).
1.3.10 Spain
In Spain, 14.8 Mt of waste were landfilled in 2006. The LFG production is 1.5
billions m3 LFG at 50% methane. 29% are collected, and used. Only a small quan-
tity is flared. LFG is converted into energy on 29 facilities. The total installed power
is 100 MW. The LFG generation is increasing. On the 2007–2020 period, the aver-
age energy recovery would be 230 MW.
1.3.11 U.K
The UK has more LFG power generation projects than any other country. 1.1% of
the UK’s electricity is generated from LFG. About 50% of the municipal, industrial
and commercial waste are landfilled in the UK. Out of 58 Mt, 21 Mt is munici-
pal waste, 19 Mt is commercial waste and 18 Mt is industrial waste. The LFG gen-
eration is 9.2 billion m3 LFG at 50% methane. 72% are collected, of which 50%
is flared and 50% is used. The LFG is used in 357 power plants generating 818
MW. Only 14 ktoe are directly burnt as a fuel (e.g furnace in bricks factories). LFG
accounts for 33.5% of the total Renewable energy production. The average energy
recovery potential for the 2007–2020 period is estimated to 1,410 MW. In the UK,
electricity from Sewage and LFG are recognized as the lowest cost of all renewable
electricity sources.
1.3.12 Canada
LFG generation in Canada accounted for about 20% of the LFG emissions in 2007.
The quantity of LFG captured for flaring or energy recovery in 2007 amounted to
28% of the total generated emissions as compared to 21% in 1990. Approximately
330 kilotonnes (kt) of CH4 were captured by the 65 LFG collection systems operat-
ing in Canada in 2007. Of the total amount of methane collected in 2007, 50% was
utilized for various energy purposes and the remaining LFG was flared. Of the 65
sites, 14 sites utilized the captured LFG, 36 sites flared, and 15 sites employed both
utilization and flaring practices.
Approximately 330 kilotonnes (kt) of CH4 (or 6,930 kt carbon dioxide equiva-
lent [CO2e]) were captured by the 65 LFG collection systems operating in Canada
in 2007. Of the total amount of methane collected in 2007, 50 percent (165 kt) was
utilized for various energy purposes and the remainder of the methane gas was
flared. Of these 65 sites, 14 sites utilized the captured methane, 36 sites flared the
captured gas, and 15 sites employed both utilization and flaring practices.
The immediate steps that a country can take to advance sound environmental
landfill practices (including LFG capture and use) will depend on its current situation.
The first step for a developing country with lesser developed solid waste manage-
ment practices is to analyse the potential for upgrading existing dump sites through
simple, proven practices, such as enclosing the premises, instituting rules and proce-
dures for waste disposal, and applying a daily or semi-regular cover. With the proper
planning, LFG utilisation can contribute toward financing the transition from open
dumps to sanitary landfills.
Countries that have more stringent landfill practices already in place can imple-
ment measures that facilitate LFG projects such as standard interconnection regu-
lations and renewable portfolio standards that include LFG as an eligible energy
source. As is the case with any alternative energy source, a favourable and predictable
tax incentive structure can also encourage investment in LFG energy production.
Additionally, while the technology for LFG capture and utilisation is mature and
available, further improvements can be made through technology development and
demonstration projects.
1.4 LFG GENERATION MECHANISM
LFG is generated as a result of physical, chemical, and microbial processes occur-

ring within the waste. Due to the organic nature of most waste, the microbial
processes govern the gas generation process. These processes are sensitive to their
environment; therefore, a number of natural and artificial conditions will affect
the microbial population and thus the LFG generation rate. Short-term studies
carried out on full-size landfills using data from LFG extraction tests indicate a
range of LFG generation between 0.05 and 0.40 (m3) of LFG per kilogram (kg)
of waste placed into a landfill. The mass of waste accounts for both solid mate-
rials (75 to 80 percent by mass) and moisture (20 to 25 percent by mass). This
range is a function of the organic content of the waste that is placed into the
landfill.
It is important to note that LFG generation occurs in an anaerobic condition,
and thus any natural or artificial conditions that move the process to an aerobic con-
dition will affect generation of LFG. It is also important to note that LFG generation
is not instantaneous; any amount of waste that is brought to a landfill will undergo
a set of processes that are well-characterized, as shown on Figure 1.5.
As indicated on Figure 1.5, the first phase, aerobic decomposition, occurs imme-
diately after the waste has been placed, while oxygen is present within the waste.
Aerobic decomposition produces carbon dioxide, water, and heat until such time
as the oxygen present in the waste is consumed. The next stage is the anoxic,
non-methanogenic phase where acidic compounds and hydrogen gas are formed and
while there is continued carbon dioxide generation; generally, this is a hydrolysis
and acetogenic process. Substances produced during this stage as larger molecules
are broken down to smaller chains include ammonia, carbon dioxide, hydrogen,
water, and heat, all of which work to displace any residual oxygen and nitrogen that
may reside in the waste. The third phase is the unsteady methanogenic phase; during
this phase, the carbon dioxide generation begins to decline because waste decom-
position moves from aerobic decomposition to anaerobic decomposition. Anaerobic
I II III IV V
100
LANDFILL GAS COMPOSITION PERCENT BY VOLUME
80
CE
LL
UL
OS
E
METHANE (CH4)
CELLULOSE, FATTY ACIDS

N2
60 N2
40
CO2
20
O2
H2 O2
FREE FATTY ACIDS
0
TIME (NON-LINEAR SCALE)
Phases Condition Typical Time Frame

I Aerobic Hours to Weeks
II Anoxic 1 to 6 Months
III Anaerobic, Methanogenic, Unsteady 3 Months to 3 Years
IV Anaerobic, Methanogenic, Steady 8 to 40 Years
V Anaerobic, Methanogenic, Declining 1 to 40 Years
Total 10 to 80 Years
Figure 1.5 Typical LFG Generation Patterns (The World Bank, 2004)
decomposition produces heat and water, but unlike aerobic decomposition, it also
produces methane. Methanogenic bacteria are active during this stage, utilizing the
byproducts of the previous stage to produce methane.
During the fourth phase, methane is generated at a concentration between
40 and 70 percent of total volume; in this stage, the processes responsible for the
generation of methane are generally stable. Typically, the waste in most landfill
sites will reach the stable methanogenic phase within less than 2 years after the
waste has been placed. Environments with high moisture and temperature, and
Figure 1.6 LFG Generation Curves
where moisture is able to infiltrate readily into the waste, will show a generally
shorter timeframe for reaching the stable methanogenic phase.
For the purpose of an initial site characterization, LFG production can be simpli-
fied as a function of the size and age of the waste volume, waste type, and moisture
content. The volume of GHG released is directly proportional to the LFG-generation
potential. In general, the more LFG is produced, the higher the likelihood that
health, safety and odor nuisance issues will be raised, and equally importantly, that
for economically feasible LFG utilization to exist. Figure 1.6 provides a method of
characterizing a site based on its LFG production potential.
The first step is to determine the tonnage adjustment factor based on waste com-
position. This correction factor accounts for the proportion of inert wastes in the
landfill, which will not produce LFG, and the proportion of industrial/commercial/
institutional (ICI) wastes in the landfill that will produce less LFG than typical domes-
tic wastes. The adjustment factor is determined based on the proportion of waste
types that are in place or will be accepted at the landfill. The landfill capacity is multi-
plied by the tonnage adjustment factor to determine the adjusted site capacity.
The landfill is classified as dry or wet. A dry landfill will decompose more slowly
than a wet landfill and hence the LFG production rate will be lower, and the pro-
duction time will be longer. Some of the factors that influence the moisture content
of a landfill include precipitation and temperature at the site, type of landfill cover,
condition of cover (i.e., slope, integrity), type of leachate collection system, and
type of landfill base or natural liner. The classification of the site as dry or wet is
mainly a function of the amount of precipitation that infiltrates into the waste mass.
A conservative approach to classifying a site as wet or dry based on the average
annual rainfall. A landfill where a significant portion of the waste is located within a
groundwater/ leachate mound should also be considered a wet site.
LFG production is determined by the intersection of the adjusted site capacity
and the current filling status. LFG production is categorized as “high”, “medium”
or “low”. Each category is delineated by numbers, which indicate an increasing
level of severity within the category. The maximum LFG production typically occurs
within two years of site closure if the site has had a fairly uniform annual filling
schedule.
1.4.1 Phases of LFG generation

There are four LFG production phases that occur throughout the life of a landfill.
Farquhar and Rovers predicted generation of gas in a landfill for typical municipal
solid waste (MSW) in the 1970s. The duration of each of these phases is dependent
on a number of factors including the type of waste, moisture content, nutrient con-
tent, bacterial content, and pH level.
The first phase, aerobic decomposition, occurs immediately after the waste has
been placed, while oxygen is present within the waste. Aerobic decomposition pro-
duces carbon dioxide, water, and heat. The next stage is the anoxic, non-methanogenic
phase where acidic compounds and hydrogen gas are formed and while there is con-
tinued carbon dioxide production. The third phase is the unsteady methanogenic
phase. During this phase, the carbon dioxide production begins to decline because
waste decomposition moves from aerobic decomposition to anaerobic decomposi-
tion. Anaerobic decomposition produces heat and water, but unlike aerobic decom-
position, it also produces methane. During the fourth phase methane is generated
at between 40 and 70 percent of total volume of gas. Typically, the waste in most
landfill sites will reach the stable methanogenic phase within less than 2 years after
the waste has been placed. Depending on the depth of the waste lifts, and the mois-
ture content of the waste, the methanogenic phase might be reached as early as six
months after placement. LFG may be produced at a site for a number of decades
with emissions continuing at declining levels for up to 100 years from the date of
placement.
Figure 1.7 shows LFG composition trends versus time for the aerobic and anaer-
obic decomposition of landfill waste.
Figure 1.7 LFG composition over a period of time

1.4.2 Landfill gas properties and hazards

Methane (CH4) is a colourless, odourless, asphyxiant, flammable, non-toxic gas that
is lighter than air. LFG is typically a combination of methane, carbon dioxide, and
non-methanogenic organic compounds. Table 1.1 shows the characteristics of some
of the typical components of LFG.
Typical LFG, if permitted to accumulate in low lying or enclosed or confined
spaces, may produce an atmosphere that is both explosive and hazardous to life.
The CO2 and components of LFG are highly aggressive to concrete, brick, mortar
and mild steel.
LFG will displace oxygen from enclosed spaces making them extremely hazard-
ous. CH4 is explosive in air between the concentrations of 5–15% by volume. This
concentration range is referred to as the explosive range.
Risk of explosion occurs when the concentration of methane in the air exceeds
its lower explosive limit (LEL). The LEL of methane is approximately 5 percent by
volume in air, hence only a small proportion of LFG, which contains 50 percent by
volume methane, is required to create an explosive condition. The risk of explosion
is also associated with confined spaces that have limited ventilation. In the past, LFG
explosions have occurred in structures on or near landfill sites. These occurrences
are generally attributed to LFG migrating through the soil and accumulating within
nearby structures.
It is very important to note that LFG can be lighter or heavier than air depend-
ing upon the proportions of the gases that may be present. It is also important to
note that an older site may still pose a significant LFG migration hazard. The quan-
tity of gas produced begins to decline shortly after cessation of waste disposal; how-
ever, the general gas composition remains essentially the same except for a reduction
in volatile organic compounds (VOCs). As migration is strongly influenced by the
Table 1.1 LFG Characteristics
Constituent Relative Concentration in Notes

Specific Gravity Landfill Gas
Air 1 NA Forms explosive mixture with methane

Methane 0.554 40–70% Explosive; LEL 5% in air; UEL 15% in air
Carbon Dioxide 1.529 30–60% Forms weak acid; Asphyxiant
Hydrogen Sulfide 1.19 800 ppm Forms strong acid
Toxic: PEL 10; STEL 15
Water Vapor 0.62 100% Saturated Forms acids with hydrogen sulfide and
carbon dioxide
Benzene 2.8 30 ppm Flammable
Toxic: PEL 1.0 ppm; STEL 5 ppm
Toluene 3.1 300 ppm Toxic: PEL 100 ppm; STEL 150 ppm
Organic Acids GT 2 Traces Odorous
Organosulphur GT 1.5 50 ppm Odorous
Compounds
LEL lower explosive limit; UEL upper explosive limit; STEL short-term-exposure limit; PEL permissible
exposure limit.
physical setting of the site, hazards may still be present well into the declining phases
of gas generation.
Figure 1.8 shows the methane flammability range.
1.4.3 Factors affecting LFG generation

The key factors affecting the LFG generation in landfills include Waste composition,
Temperature, Moisture, pH, Atmospheric condition, nutrients, Landfill cover, Waste
density and Waste age (Refer Figure 1.9).
Waste Composition: Waste composition is the most important factor in assessing
the LFG generation potential and total yield at a landfill site. The maximum poten-
tial volume of LFG is dependent on the quantity and type of organic content within
the waste mass, since the decomposing organic wastes are the major source for all
LFG produced.
Waste Density and Particle Size: The particle size and density of the waste
influence LFG generation rates by affecting the transport of nutrients and moisture
throughout the landfill. Also, the smaller particle sizes of shredded waste increase
the rate of LFG generation.
LEL 5%
LEL 5% Gas by Volume 50,000 ppm
UEL 15% Gas by Volume 150,000 ppm
Figure 1.8 Methane Flammability Range
Figure 1.9 Factors affecting LFG Generation

A difference in waste density exists as a result of compaction practices at land-

fills, landfill waste will compact further over time, especially if waste depths are
deep, as a result of the above-lying waste weight. This is of particular significance
for LFG management, where collection may be inhibited in the lower portions of the
landfill if the waste is highly consolidated.
Temperature: The temperature within a landfill tends to be higher than ambi-
ent air temperatures since the anaerobic decomposition that occurs is an exothermic
process. Temperature conditions within a landfill influence the type of bacteria that
are predominant and the rate of gas generation. The rates of decomposition and gas
generation decrease with decreasing temperature. Landfill temperature is influenced
by the depth of the landfill.
The optimum temperature range for aerobic decomposition is 54 to 71ºC, while
the optimum temperature range for anaerobic bacteria is 30 to 41ºC. A dramatic
drop in activity of anaerobic bacteria has been noted at temperatures below 10ºC.
Moisture Content: The amount of moisture within a landfill is considered
to be one of the most important parameters controlling gas generation rates; to
some extent, the amount of moisture may affect the ultimate methane generation
potential of the waste, but the primary effect is related to the rate of generation.
Understanding the relevant moisture conditions and water balance of a landfill is
important in predicting the amount of LFG generation.
The moisture content can vary greatly in different zones of the landfill. Very
low moisture content may prevent decomposition of waste and thus limit gas pro-
duction. The optimum moisture content to maximize gas production is in the 50 to
60% range.
The current trend is towards landfill bioreactor technology systems, which aug-
ment the amount of water contacting the waste to rapidly stabilize the wastes. This
technique can produce large initial LFG generation rates while decreasing their rate
of generation sharply after the cessation of waste acceptance. However, it is impor-
tant to note that rapid stabilization of a landfill can result in effects on other landfill
systems, including leachate collection and existing LFG collection systems because of
the increased rate of waste decomposition and settling, and the addition of liquids
that may be intercepted by horizontal collection pipes or bedding material. These
programs should be undertaken with great care when the technology is retrofitted
into existing landfills, and is likely more appropriate for purpose-built landfills or
landfill cells that have been constructed to take the various factors into account. In
some situations, LFG generation rates have been increased by more than an order of
magnitude as a result of bioreactor technology.
pH and Nutrients: The pH of the waste and leachate significantly influences
the rate of gas generation. The generation of methane in landfills is greatest
when neutral pH conditions exist. Where acidic conditions develop as a result of
rapid buildup of broken down products, some delay in methane generation may
occur, but a landfill generally has sufficient buffering capacity to mitigate this
effect.
The materials placed in a landfill can cause the pH of leachate within the landfill
to vary widely. However, leachate is typically expected to be in the pH range of 5 to 9.
The pH during CH4 formation is generally in the range of 6.5 to 8.0. One concern
Figure 1.10 Typical profiles for LFG Generation (The World Bank, 2004)
during the acidic stages of the biological process (or any other time leachate within
the landfill exhibits a low pH) is that the reduced pH will mobilize metals that may
leach out of the landfill, or become toxic to the bacteria generating the gas.
Atmospheric Conditions: Atmospheric conditions affect the temperature, pres-
sure, and moisture content within a landfill. Landfill covers and liners help to isolate
waste from atmospheric conditions by limiting oxygen intrusion, limiting infiltration
of precipitation, and buffering the effects of temperature changes (Refer Figure 1.10).
• Atmoshpheric Temperature: Cold climates will reduce biological activity in

the surface layers, reducing the volume of gas generated. Deeper in the waste,
the surface temperature affects are usually overcome by the heat generated by
biological activity. The primary factors that affect temperature are waste depth,
compacted density, microbial activity, chemical reactions, water content, and
climate.
• Atmospheric Pressure: Atmospheric pressure can have a minor affect on the rate
at which LFG is released to the atmosphere. It can also influence the operation
of gas extraction systems. A decrease in barometric pressure results in a tempo-
rary increase in LFG flow and an increase in barometric pressure will cause LFG
flow to temporarily decrease. This is because the pressure within the landfill
changes at a slower rate than the atmosphere and a pressure gradient temporar-
ily develops between the inside and outside of the landfill until these pressures
equalize.
• Precipitation: Precipitation dramatically affects the gas generation process by
supplying water to the process and by carrying dissolved O2 into the waste with
the water. High rates of precipitation may also flood sections of the landfill,
which will obstruct gas flow. The amount of precipitation that reaches the waste
is highly dependent on the type of landfill cover system.
• Density of the Waste: The density of waste fills is highly variable. An esti-
mate of waste density is often required for estimating LFG generation rates.
Several reported density values for municipal solid waste range between 387 to
1662 kg/m3.
• Age of Waste: Once anaerobic conditions are established, LFG generation should
be significant for 10 to 20 years or longer. Landfills that are several decades
old are less likely to produce large quantities of LFG as most of the biological
decomposition of the waste will have already taken place.
1.5 FACTORS AFFECTING LFG TRANSPORT
The LFG transport may occur by three principal mechanisms of Molecular diffusion,
Convection and Molecular effusion. Transport conditions both within the landfill
and for the subsurface surrounding the landfill must be considered. These transport
mechanisms are discussed below:
Molecular Diffusion: Molecular diffusion occurs in a gas system when a concentration

difference exists between two different locations within the gas. Diffusive flow of gas
is in the direction in which its concentration decreases. The concentration of a vola-
tile constituent in the LFG will almost always be higher than that of the surrounding
atmosphere, so the constituent will tend to migrate to a lower concentration area (i.e.,
the ambient air or the atmosphere). Wind often serves to keep the surface concen-
tration at or near zero, which renews the concentration gradient between the surface
and the interior of the landfill and thus promotes the migration of vapors to the sur-
face. Geomembranes in landfill covers will significantly reduce diffusion because the
geomembrane prevents gases from diffusing to the atmosphere.
Specific compounds exhibit different diffusion coefficients. Diffusion coefficients
are the rate constants for this mode of transport and quantify how fast a particular
compound will diffuse. Published diffusion coefficients have been calculated using
open paths between one vapor region (concentration) and another. This type of test
is not very representative of the conditions found in a landfill. In landfills, gases must
travel a tortuous path around all the solids and liquids in its path; thus, the pub-
lished diffusion coefficients must be used with care.
Convection: Convective flow occurs where a pressure gradient exists between the land-
fill and the atmosphere. The rate of gas movement is generally orders of magnitude
faster for convection than for diffusion. Where it occurs, convective flow of gas will
overwhelm the other release mechanisms in its ability to transport and ultimately
release materials into the atmosphere. In a landfill, advective forces result from the
production of vapors from biodegradation processes, chemical reactions, compac-
tion, or an active LFG extraction system. Variations in water table elevations can
create small pressure gradients that either push gases out or draw gases in. Changes
in barometric pressure at the surface can also have an impact on the advective flow
of gas.
Although convective and diffusive flow may be in opposing directions and result
in an overall tendency towards cancellation, however for most cases of LFG gas
recovery, diffusive and convective flows occur in the same direction.
Molecular Effusion: When waste material has been compacted but not yet covered,
effusion occurs when diffused gas releases from the top of the landfill.
LFG transport is affected by the following factors:
1 Permeability.
2 Geologic Conditions.
3 Depth of groundwater.
4 Man-made features.
5 Landfill cover and liner systems.
6 Barometric pressure.
Permeability: The permeability of waste has a large influence on gas flow rates and
gas recovery rates. Coarse-grain wastes exhibit large values of gas permeability and
more uniform gas flow patterns. By contrast, fine-grained and heterogeneous wastes
are characterized by small values of gas permeability and gas flow patterns that are
not uniform throughout the waste mass. Permeability of waste is often reported in
Darcys. One Darcy 9.85 109 cm2. Reported values for the apparent permeability
of municipal solid waste are in the range of 13 to 20 Darcys. Water competes with air
to occupy pore space within the solid matrix and ultimately reduces the effective poros-
ity and ability of vapors to migrate through the landfill due to a reduction in available
air pathways. This reduction will also reduce the rate of gas flow and decrease gas
recovery rates.
Geologic Conditions: Geologic conditions must be determined to estimate the
potential for off-site migration of gas. Permeable strata such as sands, gravels, and
weathered bedrock provide a potential pathway for off-site migration, especially
if these layers are overlain by a layer of low permeability soil. Geologic investiga-
tions must be performed to determine the potential for off-site migration. Additional
attention must be given to areas where houses and other structures are present to
ensure off-site migration will not impact these structures.
Depth to Ground Water: The water table surface acts as a no-flow boundary for
gas. As a result, it is generally used to help estimate the thickness of the zone through
which gas can travel. A consistently high ground water table will significantly reduce
the potential for off-site migration of gas. The depth to groundwater (as well as sea-
sonal variations) also needs to be evaluated during the design process to evaluate
well construction requirements and the potential for water table upwelling (i.e., the
upward rise of the water table toward a vacuum well screened in the unsaturated
zone).
Man-Made Features: In some instances, underground utilities such as storm
and sanitary sewers or the backfill that surrounds these features may produce
short-circuiting of airflow associated with an active LFG collection system. As a
result, airflow may be concentrated along these features rather than within the land-
fill. Man-made features also provide a potential pathway for the off-site migration
of LFG.
Landfill Cover and Liner Systems: The components of many hazardous and
solid waste landfill cover systems consist of a vegetated surface component, a drain-
age layer, and a low permeability layer composed of one or more of the following:
geomembrane, geosynthetic clay liner (GCL), or compacted clay. A geomembrane in
the cover system will prevent the intrusion of air into the waste. Therefore, a higher
operating vacuum can be applied to the gas collection system without the danger
of overdrawing. Thus, the effective radius of influence of each well is increased.
Overdrawing occurs when oxygen from the atmosphere is pulled into the landfills
interior during the anaerobic phase.
Landfill liner systems consist of various combinations of low permeability layers
and leachate collection layers. The low permeability layers are created using natural
low permeability geologic formations, compacted clay, geomembranes, and geosyn-
thetic clay liners. Liner systems prevent the migration of LFG to the surrounding
areas. Liner systems also prevent gases in the surrounding geologic formations from
being pulled into the LFG collection system.
Barometric Pressure: The amount of gas escaping from a landfill’s surface changes
as barometric pressure changes. Gas generation within a landfill will result in a posi-
tive pressure gradient from the inside to the outside of the landfill. For a passive LFG
collection system, increases in atmospheric pressure will cause a decrease in gas flow
from a landfill because the pressure differential between the inside and the outside has
decreased. For an active gas collection system, there is a higher probability of atmos-
pheric air intrusion through the landfill cover during periods when the barometric
pressure is rising. The amount of air intrusion will be greatly affected by the type of
cover on the landfill. A landfill with a low permeability (geomembrane) cover will be
more resistant to air intrusion than a landfill with a soil cover.
1.6 LFG CHARACTERISTICS AND CONDENSATE
The composition of LFG depends on the solid waste the landfill, the stage of decom-
position, oxygen availability, moisture, rainfall infiltration, pH, amount of solid
waste, organic quantities and types in the solid waste, and available microbes.
These are important factors that affect the type and rate of biochemical decomposi-
tion (Refer Figure 1.11). The generation and transport of LFG and their subsequent
emissions into the atmosphere are a complicated function of a number of variables.
These variables are comprised of the nature and age of the solid waste, environment
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX

N2
75%
N2
CH4
50%
CO2
25%
O2 H2
O2
[Vol.%]
Figure 1.11 Change in LFG concentrations at different stages of LFG formation (Farquhar & Rovers,
Franzius, Rettenberger, et al.)
Table 1.2 Typical LFG Composition at Methanogenic Phase
Component Volume (% dry weight basis, excluding moisture content)

Methane (CH4) 45% to 58%
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 32% to 45%
Non-methane Organic compounds 0% to 0.25%
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) and other sulfur varies (10–200 ppm)
compounds
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 0% to 0.1%
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 0% to 0.2%
Moisture up to 14% (increasing with gas temperature)
Hydrogen (H2) trace to 1%
Nitrogen (N2) 0% to 3%
Source: Adapted from Tennessee Division of Solid Waste Management: LFG Monitoring and Mitigation, 1999.
for biological activities, geographical conditions, landfill design, and management

practices. The management system can influence LFG emissions by installing proper
LFG recovery, collection and treatment facilities. Furthermore, management choices
of solid waste shredding and particle size reduction, daily cover type, and leachate
recirculation can influence the LFG generation rate.
LFG mainly consists of methane, carbon dioxide, water vapor, and trace amount
of non-methane organic compounds. It is estimated that solid waste containing 75%
organics can generate up to 6.6 cubic feet of gas per pound of waste.
The major components of LFG are shown in Table 1.2.
Non-Methane Organic Compounds (NMOCs): Gaseous emissions of NMOCs
from landfills are dependent on solid waste characteristics, landfill age and con-
struction techniques, climatological factors, the physical and biochemical properties
of the soil cover, and other variables. NMOC gases are produced by the complex
interaction of the physical, chemical, and biological processes occurring within the
solid waste.
If a landfill contains a significant amount of municipal solid waste, the gas pro-
duced will consist of approximately 50 percent methane, 50 percent carbon dioxide,
and trace amounts of non-methane organic compounds (NMOC). The concentration
of NMOCs can range from 200 to 15,000 ppm according to research from the EPA.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
represent a subset of NMOCs that are known to react with sunlight to form ground-
level ozone. Since VOCs in LFG cannot easily be measured separately, NMOCs are
used as a surrogate.
The trace fraction of the LFG comprises a wide range (approximately 550 trace
components) of volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, the most significant
of these are given in Table 1.3.
Water Vapor: Gas created during the decomposition of organic compounds
typically varies between 4 to 7% by volume water vapor. The actual water vapor
content of LFG will depend on the temperature and pressure within the landfill.
Temperatures are typically elevated over ambient during biological decomposition,
increasing the evaporation of water into the LFG.
Table 1.3 Trace components in LFG

1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene Isopropyl Benzene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene Limonene
2-Pentanone m,p-Ethyl Toluene
3-Carene m,p-Xylene
Benzene Mesitylene (1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene)
Butanoic acid, ethyl ester Methyl Isobutyl Ketones
Butanoic acid, methyl ester n-Butyl Acetate
Camphene Nonane
Camphor n-Propyl Acetate
Decane Octane
Diethyl Phthalate o-Ethyl Toluene
Dodecane o-Xylene
Ethyl Benzene Pentadecane
Eucatyptol Pentamethylbenzene
Heptane Propyl Benzene
Heptanoic acid, butyl ester Tetrachloroethylene
Hexamethylbenzene Tetradecane
Hexanoic acid, 3-hydrxy, ethyl ester Tetramethylbenzene
Hexanoic acid, butyl ester Toluene
Hexanoic acid, hexyl esters Total Aliphatic Hydrocarbons
Hexyloxy Trimethyl Silane Tridecane
Indane Undecane
Table 1.4 Typical Values for Gas Density and Viscosity at 0oC and
Atmospheric Pressure
Gas Density (kg/m3) Viscosity (Pa * s)

Air 1.29 1.71 105
Methane 0.72 1.03 105
Carbon dioxide 1.9 1.39 105
50% CH4 50% CO2 1.35 1.21 105
60% CH4 40% CO2 1.19 1.17 105
Others: Hydrogen is produced during waste decomposition, particularly dur-

ing the initial anaerobic conversion of mixed organic acids to acetic acid. Significant
amounts of hydrogen are later consumed in the formation of CH4. Hydrogen is
flammable between 4 and 74 percent, by volume, in air. The presence of CO2 affects
these ranges although little significant change occurs near the lower limit of the
range.
Density and Viscosity: The density of LFG depends on the proportion of gas
components present. For example, a mixture of 10 percent hydrogen and 90 percent
carbon dioxide, such as might be produced in the first stage of anaerobic decomposi-
tion, will be heavier than air, while a mixture of 60 percent methane and 40 percent
carbon dioxide, such as might be produced during the methanogenic phase of
decomposition, will be slightly lighter than air. Some typical values for density and
viscosity at 0oC and atmospheric pressure are given in Table 1.4.
Table 1.5 Organic Contaminants in LFG

Benzene 2-Butanone (MEK) 1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Toluene Carbon Tetrachloride 2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Phenol Vinyl Chloride Hexachlorobenzene
Ethyl Benzene 4-Methylphenol Hexachlorobutadiene
Benzyl Alcohol Chlorobenzene Hexachloroethane
Bis (2-Chloroisopropyl) ether Chloroform Nitrobenzene
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 1,2-Dichloroethane Pentachlorophenol
Napthalene 1,1-Dichloroethene Pyridine
N-nitrosodimethylamine Tetrachloethylene 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol Trichloethylene 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Source of Landfill Gas Condensate: Gas condensate forms in the collection

and processing systems as the gas undergoes changes in temperature and pressure.
As LFG moves through the collection system, the gas cools and the various con-
stituents condense out of the gas. The condensed liquid is composed principally
of water, organic compounds, and traces of in-organics such as particulate matter.
The organic compounds are often not soluble in water and may separate from the
aqueous phase. Most active LFG collection systems include a series of condensate
collection pots that remove a portion of the entrained water from the gas prior to
entering the vacuum pump or blower.
The quality of gas condensate is a function of: Nature of the waste, Age of the
waste, Moisture content, Temperature, Landfill size and configuration, Liner and/or
cover materials, Climatic conditions and Organic contaminants frequently found in
LFG condensate.
LFG flux is defined as volume of landfill gas per unit surface area of landfill per
unit time. The NMOCs emission, defined as NMOCs mass emitted per unit time,
is obtained by multiplying the LFG flux times the concentration of NMOCs in the
LFG times the surface area of the landfill.
The organic contaminants frequently found in LFG condensate are given in
Table 1.5.
1.7 ENERGY POTENTIAL OF LFG
The energy potential of LFG is the projected energy value of methane produced
by the decomposition of organic waste in a landfill, if this methane were to be used for
the generation of energy i.e., electricity. Larger landfills generally produce significant
quantities of methane. The attraction of methane from landfills as a source of energy is
partly in order to prevent atmospheric pollution, and partly due to it having the poten-
tial of a source of renewable energy. The following equation shows the combustion
reaction of methane (CH4) which combines with oxygen (O2) to form carbon dioxide
(CO2) and water (H2O) releasing 891 kilojoules (kJ) of energy in the process:
CH4 2O2 → CO2 2H2O 891 kJ (1.1)

Figure 1.12 Schematic indication of energy supply from a LFG project (US AID, 2004)
To provide a sense of the scale of a typical LFG to energy project a hypothetical

example is shown schematically below (Refer Figure 1.12).
As a carrier of energy, predominantly due to the methane component, LFG is
of interest in a range of applications. Since LFG is approximately 50% methane, it
is considered a low/medium grade fuel. This resource can be harnessed in a number
of applications including direct fuel use for heating, electrical generation, and com-
mercial chemical by-products. In addition to mitigating LFG migration and odour
concerns, LFG utilization can also generate revenues from the sale of LFG products
that can defray the costs of landfill operation and maintenance.
LFG, which is actively extracted under steady state conditions, may typically con-
tain 40–45% CH4 and have a lower calorific value (LCV) of some 16–18 MJ/Nm3.
By comparison, the LCV of coal and fuel oils is 22 and 40–42 MJ/kg respectively.
The conversion of thermal energy to electricity via a reciprocating spark ignition
engine, has an efficiency off 33–65% depending on the degree of use of exhaust
heat. Generation of 1.3 MW of electrical power requires some 750 Nm3/hr of LFG at
a concentration of 40–45% CH4. Alternatively, in order to generate 1 MW of power,
some 700 Nm3/hr of LFG at a concentration of 50% CH4, is required. Direct ther-
mal use of LFG requires 3–4% additional energy to compensate for the energy lost
in heating the non-combustible CO2 component.
One ton of municipal waste produces about 150 to 250 m3 of LFG with a meth-
ane content of about 40 to 50% in a time period of 15 to 25 years. An average
municipal waste landfill with an utilized storage capacity of 1,000,000 tons can be
expected to generate about 10 million m3 of LFG per year, corresponding roughly to
an usable content of 22.5 GW-hours. From this volume of gas, about 8 GW-hours of
electricity can be generated per year. In addition, this gas amount allows operating
a 1 MW gas engine for power generation. With a calorific value of about 5 kWh/
m3, LFG constitutes a high-value fuel for gas engines that can be effectively used for
power generation.
It has been reported that heat content or gross calorific value of LFG is about
5.8–7.0* kWh/m3 (*Depends on methane content in LFG). In few cases it is about
10.7 kWh/m3. The actual heating value of the gas from a landfill is a function of the
type age of the waste, the type of landfill cover, and many other factors.
One cubic meter of LFG has an energy value of 4 to 5 kWh, which corresponds
to approximately 0.5 litres of heating oil. If it is assumed that a ton of household
waste has a gas production potential of 180–250 m3 over a period of 15–20 years,
then the energy potential hidden in a sanitary landfill becomes clear.
Unprocessed LFG typically has a lower heating value (LHV) per unit volume
approximately one-half that of natural gas. The LHV of typical unprocessed LFG
(50%CH4/50%CO2) is roughly 16.8 MJ/m3. LFG densities range about 1.2–1.4 kg/
m3, a LFG potential of less than 650 m3/tonne would be expected for the case when
the volatile substances (VS) of the (MSW) is about 50%, and less than 400 m3/tonne
would be expected for the case when the VS of the MSW is about 30%.
According to Rytec (2005), 1 ton of waste can produce 200–300 m3 of LFG.
1 m of LFG is equivalent to 0.5 m3 of natural gas or 0.5 litre of fuel. Also 1 m3 of
3
LFG with 50% CH4 can produce ~5 kWh energy.

According to Banks (2009), 1 m3 methane has energy value of about 36 MJ
(1 kWh 3.6 MJ). Also 1 m3 CH4 can produce about 10 kWh of energy.
Utilizable LFG varies in amount and sustainability for example Ukrainian towns
generate 10–12 million tones of MSW per year. More than 95% of MSW is disposed
at the landfills. There are 700 landfills located around the towns. Only 100 of them
can be considered as potential candidates for recovery and utilization of LFG. Based
on this facts, potential of LFG available for energy production comes to about 400
million m3/year.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Landfill Methane Outreach
Program (LMOP) estimates an additional 540 existing landfills that could eco-
nomically support a LFGTE project, which could generate as much as 1280 MW
of electricity or supply as much as 6.8 billion m3/yr of gas. The most common use
of the utilized LFG is to run internal combustion (IC) engines or steam turbines to
generate electricity. Typical plants produce between 350 and 1200 kW of electric-
ity per engine. In some European countries, it is common to recover the heat from
the engine cooling water, exhaust, and the oil system as well to increase the system
efficiency.
1.8 BENEFITS OF LFG RECOVERY
The methane in LFG can be used in a beneficial manner to displace the use of fossil
fuels. The key benefits of LFG to energy recovery projects include:
• Destruction of methane and other organic compounds in LFG.

• Offsets use of non-renewables reducing emissions of SO2, NOx, PM, and
CO2.
• LFG is a recognized renewable energy resource.
• LFG projects have on-line availability over 90%.
• Serves as a base-load renewable for many utilities.
• LFG is a competitive renewable resource.
Table 1.6 lists various LFG utilization technologies, the number of projects in
the United States that are currently operational (as early March 2008).
Developing LFG energy projects is an effective way to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, improve local air quality, and control odors. These projects also provide
numerous other environmental and economic benefits to the community, the landfill,
and the energy end user.
Environmental Benefits: Since most of the landfills generate methane, there
is great opportunity to use the gas from as many landfills as possible for energy
Table 1.6 LFG Utilization options
Technology Number of Facilities Range of Installed Capacity Median Capacity

Electricity Generation
Reciprocating Engine 313 0.2 to 14.9 MW 2.4 MW
Gas Turbine 27 0.7 to 12 MW 5.5 MW
Steam Turbine 21 0.5 to 50.0 MW 6.0 MW
Cogeneration 20 0.1 to 7.0 MW 2.5 MW
Microturbine 17 0.1 to 2.5 MW 0.3 MW
Combined Cycle 8 6.6 to 17.4 MW 9.4 MW
Organic Rankine Cycle 2 0.2 MW N/A
Sterling Cycle 2 0.1 to 0.2 MW N/A
Direct Use
Boiler 54 11 to 4,150 scfm of LFG 700 scfm of LFG
Direct Thermal 39 3 to 3,200 scfm of LFG 545 scfm of LFG
Greenhouse 4 15 to 210 scfm of LFG 140 scfm of LFG
Alternative Fuel 1 250 scfm of LFG N/A
Others
Liquefied Natural Gas 1 830 scfm of LFG 830 scfm of LFG
Medium BTU 4 2,850 scfm of LFG N/A
High BTU 19 625 to 9,200 scfm of LFG 3,400 scfm of LFG
Leachate Evaporation 20 4 to 1,500 scfm of LFG 560 scfm of LFG
Note: “MW” stands for Mega-watts. “scfm” is standard cubic feet per minute.
generation rather than letting it go into the atmosphere or flaring it without energy
recovery. Methane is a very potent heat-trapping gas (more than 20 times stronger than
carbon dioxide) so is a key contributor to global climate change. Methane also has
a short atmospheric life (i.e., 10 to 14 years). Because methane is both potent and
short-lived, reducing methane emissions from MSW landfills is one of the best ways
to achieve a near-term beneficial impact in lessening the human impact on global
climate change.
Direct Greenhouse Gas Reductions: During its operational lifetime, an LFG
energy project will capture an estimated 60 to 90 percent of the methane created by
a landfill, depending on system design and effectiveness. The captured methane is
converted to water and carbon dioxide when the gas is burned to produce electricity
or heat.
Indirect Greenhouse Gas Reductions: Producing energy from LFG displaces
the use of nonrenewable resources (such as coal, oil, or natural gas) that would be
needed to produce the same amount of energy. This avoids greenhouse gas emissions
from fossil fuel combustion by an end user facility or power plant.
Direct and Indirect Reduction of Other Air Pollutants: The capture and use of
LFG at a landfill can benefit local air quality. Non-methane organic compounds that
are present at low concentrations in LFG are destroyed during combustion, reducing
possible health risks from these compounds. For electricity projects, the avoidance of
fossil fuel combustion at utility power plants means that fewer pollutants such as sulfur
dioxide (which is a major contributor to acid rain), particulate matter (a respiratory
health concern), nitrogen oxides (which can contribute to local ozone and smog for-
mation), and trace hazardous air pollutants are released into the air by utilities.
Equipment that burns LFG to generate electricity does generate some emissions,
including nitrogen oxides. These emission levels depend on the type of equipment
used. However, the overall environmental improvement achieved from LFG energy
projects is significant because of the direct methane reductions, indirect carbon
dioxide reductions, and direct and indirect reduction in other air pollutant emis-
sions. There is also an energy benefit in avoiding the use of limited non-renewable
resources such as coal and oil.
Other Environmental Benefits: Collecting and combusting LFG improves the
quality of the surrounding community by reducing landfill odors, which are usu-
ally caused by sulfates in the gas. Gas collection can also improve safety by reducing
migration of the gas to structures where the gas could accrue and cause explosion
hazards.
Economic Benefits for the Landfill Owner: Landfill owners can receive rev-
enue from the sale of LFG to a direct end user or pipeline, or from the sale of
electricity generated from LFG to the local power grid. Depending on who owns
the rights to the LFG and other factors, a landfill owner may also be eligible for
revenue from renewable energy certificates (RECs), tax credits and incentives,
renewable energy bonds, and greenhouse gas emissions trading. All these poten-
tial revenue sources can help offset gas collection system and energy project costs
for the landfill owner. For example, if the landfill owner is required to install a
gas collection and control system, going the extra step of using the LFG as an
energy resource – rather than installing a flare to combust the LFG without energy
recovery – can help pay down the capital cost required for the control system
installation.
Economic Benefits for the End User: Businesses and other organizations, such
as universities and government facilities, can save significantly on energy costs by
choosing LFG as a direct fuel source in place of potentially more expensive fossil
fuels whose price is subject to market volatility. Some end users can save millions
of dollars over the duration of their LFG energy projects. Some companies report
achieving indirect economic benefits through media exposure that portrays them as
leaders in the use of renewable energy.
Economic Benefits for the Community: LFG energy project development can
greatly benefit the local economy. Temporary jobs are created for the construc-
tion phase, while design and operation of the collection and energy recovery sys-
tems create long-term jobs. LFG energy projects involve engineers, construction
firms, equipment vendors, and utilities or end users of the power produced. Some
materials for the overall project may be purchased locally, and often local firms
are used for construction, well drilling, pipeline installation, and other services.
In addition, hotel rooms and meals for the workers provide a boost to the local
economy. Some of the money paid to workers and local businesses by the LFG
energy project gets spent within the local economy on goods and services, result-
ing in indirect economic benefits. In some cases, LFG energy projects have led
new businesses (e.g., brick and ceramics plants), greenhouses, or craft studios, to
locate near the landfill to use LFG. Such new businesses add depth to the local
economy.
REFERENCES
Banks, C. (2009) Optimising anaerobic digestion: Evaluating the Potential for Anaerobic
Digestion to provide Energy and Soil amendment, University of Southampton.
British Columbia Ministry of Environment. (2010) Landfill gas management facilities design
guidelines.
Caribbean Renewable Energy Development Programme (CREDP), Landfill Gas Technology
Brief, CARICOM Secretariat.
GE Energy. (2010) Don’t waste your waste. Turn it into energy. Power generation from land-
fill gas with Jenbacher gas engines.
Hamideh, S.A. (2000) A Review of the Literature Regarding Non-Methane and Volatile
Organic Compounds In Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Gas, SWANA.
International Energy Agency. (2008) IEA: Turning a Liability into an Asset: Landfill Methane
Utilization Potential in India.
International Energy Agency. (2009a) IEA: Turning a Liability into an Asset: The importance
of policy in fostering landfill gas use worldwide.
International Energy Agency. (2009b) IEA: Energy Sector Methane Recovery and Use: The
Importance of Policy.
Reinhart, D. (2010) Landfill Gas to Energy: Incentives and Benefits Report No. 08-32026.
Rytec. (2005) Engineering for waste technology and energy concepts.
Sustainable Landfill Foundation. (2008) SLF Waste Landfilling in Europe: Energy Recovery
and Greenhouse Gas Mitigation.
The World Bank ESMAP. (2004) Handbook for the Preparation of Landfill Gas to Energy
Projects in Latin America and the Caribbean.
US Agency for International Development. (2004) USAID Methane Emission Reduction
Opportunities in Twelve South African Cities: Turning a Liability into a Resource, Final
Report.
US Army Corps of Engineers. (2008) Engineering and Design Landfill Off-Gas Collection and
Treatment Systems: Engineer Manual EM 1110-1-4016.
US Environmental Protection Agency. (1996) LMOP Landfill Gas to Energy Project
Development Handbook.
Williams, J. (2008) Landfill Gas to Fuel, Southern Legislative Conference, January,
2008.
Chapter 2
Planning and design of LFG

recovery system
2.1 CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING SUITABILITY

OF LANDFILL SITES FOR LFG RECOVERY
The countries that have advanced in LFG to energy technologies have instituted poli-
cies to recognize LFG as a renewable energy source and have framed regulatory mech-
anisms to derive economic benefits competitive with non-renewable energy sources.
LFG once extracted can be flared, used for electricity generation or upgraded to
pipeline-quality natural gas or alternative vehicle fuel. Historically, flaring has been
the most common manner of mitigating LFG emissions; however, while flaring has
proven effective in reducing methane emissions, it misses an opportunity to use LFG
as a clean energy resource. A typical flow diagram for LFG to energy recovery system
is depicted in Figure 2.1.
The development of LFG to energy project at a landfill results in significant envi-
ronmental benefits such as:
• Conversion of significant amounts of methane gas into carbon dioxide, reduc-

ing the sites contribution to global warming. This and the destruction of other
gases with ozone depleting potential will improve the sustainable waste disposal
practices at a landfill.
• Destruction of hazardous air pollutants contained in the raw LFG will reduce
the potential health risks to both on-site and nearby receptors.
• Reduction in gaseous emissions (bulk and trace gases) from the site will ensure
that potential odour and health risk impacts are restricted to within the desig-
nated management and buffer zones.
• Generation of energy from LFG has environmental benefit of offsetting non-
renewable fossil fuels that would otherwise be used to generate the same amount
of energy. This avoids CO2 emissions and can also lead to reduction in regulated
air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides (a major contributor to urban ozone),
sulphur dioxide (a major contributor to acid rain) and particulate matter
(a contributor to respiratory health problems and often carcinogenic).
The overall environmental impact of the installation and operation of active

LFG management systems is generally considered to be positive. The following
summarizes the anticipated environmental effects:
GHG Emissions: The system will reduce GHG emissions to the atmosphere, which
is a positive environmental effect.
Figure 2.1 Typical LFG to Energy recovery system
Power Consumption: The system will utilize electricity to power blowers and other
facilities associated with the system. This electricity generation can be consid-
ered to be sourced from fossil-fuel power plants. This is a small environmental
effect due to the relatively small power consumption of the equipment compared
with the amount of GHG emissions reduced.
Construction: There will be dust, noise, and activity associated with construction of
the system. The system will utilize materials that are derived from fossil fuels,
although the quantities used will be insignificant. There will be GHG emissions
and other discharges to the atmosphere from the construction equipment. This
will be a temporary effect until the system is constructed.
Noise: The system will generate noise. Actual noise level depends on the equipment
selection and other design parameters. This noise can be mitigated, by enclosing
the plant in a building.
Water: Active LFG management systems generate condensate which is a liquid with
a low pH and contains traces of constituents such as certain hydrocarbons.
This condensate is usually a relatively small quantity that is managed or dis-
posed with landfill leachate, and thus, is anticipated to have a low environmen-
tal effect.
The direct impacts of the LFG to energy project are those that arise solely as a
result of LFG to energy project. The total or cumulative impact of LFG to energy
project at a landfill is the sum of the direct impacts from the project and the existing
impacts from the landfill. The cumulative impacts may be more severe than the base-
line (when the LFG to energy project has a negative impact), or an improvement on
the current baseline (when the LFG to energy project has a positive effect).
Planning and design of LFG recovery system 29
Upset events may allow for the direct releases of LFG into the atmosphere.
There are two specific forms of potential ‘upsets’ associated with the LFG to energy
project. The first is the emissions resulting from disturbance to the waste body dur-
ing the installation of LFG extraction system. The second relates to the emission of
concentrated, uncombusted gases in the event of a leakage. Such upsets would nega-
tively affect the benefits derived from combustion of LFG.
During well installation only a single well may be excavated and must be com-
pleted and sealed as rapidly as possible. All wells and pipes must be equipped with
valves and kept closed. Leaks in the LFG system should be detected through drops
in pressure or increase in oxygen concentrations.
The Environmental Management Plan (EMP) details the actions and manage-
ment measures that must be implemented during each phase of the LFG to energy
project. The measures should be aimed to minimise the potential negative envi-
ronmental impacts (to an acceptable level of significance) and enhance the positive
impacts of the LFG to energy Project. The EMP should consider actions that may be
necessary during the following project phases:
• Planning and Design;

• Construction;
• Operation, and
• Restoration and aftercare.
2.1.1 Planning and design

Site specific measures that should be undertaken to ensure that future impacts are
minimised or effectively mitigated include:
• Design of LFG extraction system after consideration of the landfill layout plan
and operations.
• Location and depth of wells based on waste and liner depth.
• Use of a suitably sized LFG flare and engines with necessary combustion times
and temperature to ensure complete combustion of LFG.
• Installation of online LFG flow analysers to monitor the volume and content of
LFG.
2.1.2 Construction
The construction EMP relates to all aspects during the installation or construction
of the LFG to energy project. For operational landfill site, it is essential that activi-
ties do not interfere with site operations or violate permit conditions. All activities
should be planned in terms of the landfill permit and operations manual and must
be communicated to the landfill operator.
The construction and installation specifications, methods and procedures for
wellfield, pipeline, flare and generator units should be done in terms of the instruc-
tions or manuals provided by the respective suppliers. These manuals should be
referenced in the EMP.
The installation of the various well-field and combustion unit components
should be undertaken by experienced contractors.
It is essential for the safe operation of the landfill site, that any additions or
alterations to the LFG to energy system infrastructure from proposed plans, are
communicated to and approved by the landfill operator.
2.1.3 Operation
The operation and monitoring schedule for LFG to energy project should be:
• Continuous analysis of the bulk components of inlet LFG supply to the flare or
LFG engine during operation;
• Detailed analysis of inlet gas composition (bulk and trace gases) six months after
commissioning to determine ideal operating parameters; and
• Analysis of combustion gases six months after commissioning to determine
emissions and refine operating parameters.
All equipment installed at the landfill should have an operational life equivalent
to that of the project life. All equipment should be regularly serviced and maintained
as per the supplier’s specifications. An annual operations budget should be set for
the replacement of equipment that has aged, failed or been damaged.
2.1.4 Restoration and aftercare

Restoration and aftercare of the landfill should be undertaken by landfill operator.
The operator should be responsible for the removal of all LFG to energy compo-
nents once LFG production is insufficient to maintain commercially. Equipment that
is underground may remain in situ, provided that it is buried at least 0.5 m below
surface. All pipes and wells should be sealed to prohibit venting of LFG. Any dam-
ages to the cap or vegetation thereon done during the removal of LFG to energy
components should be repaired.
2.2 STEPS FOR CONDUCTING A LANDFILL SITE ASSESSMENT

FOR LFG RECOVERY
Landfill technology for waste disposal has greatly evolved over the years; however,
the issue of landfill contamination of soil and groundwater is still an issue. This
problem is overcomed by scientific and technological innovation in landfill site selec-
tion and management.
Determining if an LFG to energy recovery project may be right for a particular
landfill is the first phase involved in assessing project options. This phase involves
two steps:
1 Application of basic screening criteria to determine if a landfill has the character-

istics that apply generally to successful run a LFG to energy recovery project; and
2 Estimation of the quantity and quality of LFG that can be collected, which is
a critical factor in determining whether LFG energy recovery will be a viable
option or not.
For landfills that appear to be a candidate sites for energy recovery, estimating
LFG flows is essential. The amount of LFG that can be collected is dependent upon
a number of factors such as the amount of waste in place, the depth of the landfill,
the age and status of the landfill, and the amount of rainfall the landfill receives.
The main purpose of siting process is to make the best use of the land resources
available with the aim to minimize health risk, minimize adverse environmental
impact, minimize costs of the development, construction, operation and closure
including the public acceptability of the project. The siting of waste disposal facility
generally includes:
• Technical screening process based upon economic, engineering and environmen-

tal sustainability.
• Public Approval process
The LFG risk assessment should be used to develop risk-based management and
monitoring objectives and schedules. In addition, it must demonstrate that LFG con-
trol system is appropriate for the site conditions during site development, operation,
closure and post-closure stages.
The control measures should include details relating to containment, collection
and treatment of LFG. In particular the following should be considered.
• Landfill development.
• Emissions standards.
• Collection system (including the year it is proposed to start collecting LFG).
• Condensate management.
• Utilization, flaring and treatment.
• Inspection, maintenance and servicing.
The monitoring and sampling plan should include details related to the following:
• Schedule for specific data collection and frequency of monitoring at all stages of
the site.
• Layout showing construction and location of monitoring points in relation to
the site.
• Descriptions of the measurement techniques and sampling strategy.
• Analytical and testing schedule.
• Methodology for data storage, retrieval and presentation.
• Background and compliance and assessment values against which collected data
will be evaluated.
• Methodology for data interpretation, review and reporting.
• Means of communicating the results of the monitoring.
The action plan should include details of relating to the following:
• The criteria used to determine the severity of an event.

• Actions taken by the operator as a result of:
– abnormal changes observed in collected monitoring data;
– Identified operational problems or failures of the gas control system;
– A reported event e.g. an odour complaint.
• Emergency procedures and protocols.
• Remedial actions (e.g., changes to gas management techniques, routine monitor-

ing etc.).
The compliance of specific conditions of landfill regulation and LFG specific require-
ments. These must relate to the following.
• The appropriate measures that must be taken in order to control the accumula-
tion and migration of LFG.
• Confirmation that, if the landfill is to receive biodegradable wastes, LFG will be
collected, treated and, to the extent possible, used. This is to include whether
energy will be produced or whether flares are to be used.
• Confirmation that the collection, treatment and use of LFG will be carried out
in a manner that minimizes damage to or deterioration of the environment and
risk to human health.
2.2.1 Siting and design considerations

• Gas monitoring boreholes
– location along field boundaries and in non-agricultural areas where
possible
– protection against damage by machinery, livestock and vandalism
– provision of adequate access for monitoring
• Gas Venting
– location of vent stacks and/or gravel filled trenches is site specific but should
be designed to prevent water ingress
– protection against damage by machinery, livestock and vandalism
– provision of adequate access for maintenance
• Gas Wells and Wellheads
– well location and spacing is site specific. As a general rule wells should be
located between 20 and 60 m apart depending on whether they are intended
for utilisation or control
– location along field boundaries and in non-agricultural areas where
possible
– protect against damage by machinery, livestock and vandalism. Wellheads
should be encased in lockable headworks
– provide adequate access for maintenance, repairs and monitoring gas qual-
ity and suction pressure
• Gas collection pipework system and extractor pumps
– the location and the layout of the pipe collection system is site specific
– pipes should be laid in the subsoil on sand or gravel bedding and have a
minimum of 600 mm of cover above. Use pipe colouring system or warning
tape to indicate pipes contain LFG
– pipework should be laid so that plant and machinery can run over it with-
out causing damage
• Gas Condensate
– pipes should be laid to a minimum fall of 1 in 30 to assist drainage of
condensate
– location of siphon tubes or condensate knock out tubes at low points but
careful consideration to the proposed afteruse is required
– provision of access for maintenance and repairs
• Gas Flares
– the siting of flaring equipment should take into account sensitive receptors,
prevailing wind etc. and should be located as to minimize odour nuisance
and visual intrusion
– risk of fire from flare stacks and heat emitted will influence choice of species
and planting regime around the stack
• Gas Compound
– size and location determined at design stage and integrate the compound
into landscape design
– mounding and planting should be used for visual screening and noise
abatement
– slope of mounds should enable easy maintenance of vegetation and ensure
safe conditions for operators
Table 2.1 presents a summary of pertinent considerations for design of LFG

extraction plants.
Table 2.1 Summary of LFG Extraction Plant Design Considerations
S.No. Parameter
Plant Site
1. Centrally located with respect to landfill
2. Provide sufficient space for future expansion
3. Consider zoning and proximity to adequate power supply, sewers, and water supply
4. Consider proximity to fuel users, power grid interconnections, and natural gas pipelines
5. Minimize visual and noise impacts
6. Consider location to not impede future landfill expansion
Facility
7. Modular plant may offer savings
8. Enclosing equipment in buildings reduces maintenance costs, enhances security, and reduces
visual and noise impacts
9. Buildings containing gas piping or equipment are classified as hazardous areas by electrical
code
10. Provide buildings with interior air monitoring and alarms, and pressure release panels
11. Enclose electrical switch-gear and controls in a separate building from gas piping and
equipment
12. Provide space to add equipment in the future
Components
13. Valves and controls as required for safe operation in accordance with applicable codes
14. Provide condensate pumping or storage
15. Provide LFG flow metering and recording
16. Provide sufficient blowers or compressors to meet capacity requirements, plus one standby
unit
2.3 LFG RECOVERY FROM OPEN DUMPS, CONTROLLED

LANDFILLS, AND SANITARY LANDFILLS
Open dumping is a state where loads of rubbish are dumped and left uncontrolled in
an open space with such conditions as:
• no soil cover,
• no leachate collection/control,
• no drainage,
• poor access to the tipping area, especially in a wet season,
• open to scavenging,
• uncontrolled open burning.
Open dumps are characterized by widely spread uncovered waste, periodic fires, no
recording or inspection of incoming waste, no control of waste placement or com-
paction of waste, no or minimal cover, and unmanaged leachate and LFG. Open
dumping creates a lot of problems, not only to the surrounding environment but
more critically to public health and safety as illustrated below:
No soil cover: It allows for flies, mosquitoes and other vectors to breed, generates
unpleasant smells and is a potential fire hazard. There may be a high disease risk
for the nearby residents. It also attracts human and animal scavengers to the
dumpsite to look for food and useful materials.
No leachate collection/control: Where there is no proper control of leachate, it some-
times overflows downstream and will damage crops and vegetation. Leachate
also seeps into the ground and may pollute the groundwater.
No drainage: Surface water quickly accumulates at lower locations and deteriorates
the site conditions. Runoff water damages the road surface as well as slopes if
there is no drainage facility. Any surface/runoff water entering the area where
waste is deposited will end up as leachate.
Poor access: When the access road is in poor condition, collection vehicles cannot
reach the tipping area and may therefore offload the waste in a disorganised way
alongside the access road. This sometimes blocks the road and makes it even
more difficult for following vehicles to find the proper place to unload the waste.
Landfill operation and maintenance will also be hampered by the poor access.
Open to scavenging: Scavenging activities by people and animals to look for food
and valuable materials not only disrupt the landfill operation but are considered
very dangerous to the scavengers themselves. In some countries, for example,
health-care waste from hospitals and medical institutions is mixed with solid
waste and is disposed of at the same dumpsite. Such waste contains needles,
syringes and infectious materials and is harmful to the people on site.
Uncontrolled open burning: Exposed rubbish easily catches fire whether this is a
deliberate act or not. Uncontrolled open burning is potentially hazardous and
dangerous to the surrounding community and the environment as well as land-
fill workers. Once a fire breaks out, it sometimes requires weeks to extinguish.
Visual impacts: The visual offence caused by open dumping contributes to the
NIMBY (Not-In-My-Back-Yard) syndrome.
Table 2.2 Types of Landfills
Type Engineering Leachate LFG Operation

measures management Management measures
Open None Unrestricted Limited Few, scavenging

Dumps contaminant
release
Controlled None Unrestricted Limited Registration and
Dump contaminant placement/compaction
release of waste
Engineered Infrastructure and Containment and Passive Registration and
Landfill liner in place some level of ventilation placement/compaction
leachate or flaring of waste; uses daily soil
management cover
Sanitary Proper siting, Containment and Flaring Registration and
Landfill infrastructure; leachate treatment placement/compaction
liner and leachate (often biological and of waste; uses daily of
treatment in place physico-chemical soil cover, Measures
treatment) for final top cover
Controlled Proper siting, Controlled release Flaring or Registration and
Contaminant infrastructure, with of leachate into the passive placement/compaction
Release low-permeability environment, based ventilation of waste, uses daily
Landfill liner in place. on assessment and through top soil cover.
Potentially proper siting cover Measures for final
low-permeability top cover
final top cover
Landfill Proper siting, Controlled LFG Registration and
Bioreactor infrastructure, liner recirculation of recovery placement/
and leachate leachates for compaction/daily
recirculation/ enhanced degradation cover/closure/mining
generation system and stabilization of and material recovery
wastes and leachates
The amount of LFG generated has a great deal to do with the type of land-
fill or waste disposal site. There are different classifications for waste disposal sites,
depending on operation and management practices such as open dump, controlled
or managed dump, or sanitary landfill.
Managed dumps are somewhat better maintained than open dumps; typically
with features like rainwater management, simple cover materials and improved
inspection of incoming waste. Open and controlled dumps are less conducive to
LFG production because of aerobic conditions, shallow layers, and unconsolidated
disposal. The general characteristics which distinguish the different types of landfills
and dumps are given in Table 2.2. These characteristics vary from region to region,
from nation to nation, and even from site to site.
2.3.1 LFG recovery from open dumps

Generally in developing countries the solid waste is either dumped or buried in the
ground. Open dumps involve indiscriminate disposal of waste and limited measures
to control operations. The high percentage of organics, combined with much plastic,
which forms layers when compacted, contributes to the build-up of LFG at dumps.
LFG has a low calorific value due to low flow and/or concentrations of methane,
it may not be possible to sustain LFG to energy projects. Low calorific value LFG
can occur during the start-up phase of a landfill, where the biodegradable content of
waste is low and/or when LFG production declines after waste disposal has ceased.
Calorific value (CV) may be defined as the quantity of energy (heat) released
upon the combustion of a unit quantity of a fuel. In the case of a gaseous fuel, the
energy content is commonly defined in units of megajoules per cubic metre of fuel
(MJ/m3). The useful energy derived from combustion of LFG is almost entirely due
to its methane content. LFG is typically approximately 50% methane by volume at
the point of combustion. The terms ‘low calorific value’ (low-CV) or ‘lean’ gas, in the
landfill context, broadly refers to a collected LFG in which the energy (i.e., methane)
content is below that typically required for the effective operation of traditional LFG
infrastructure. In practice, low-CV LFG would normally be considered to have a
methane concentration below approximately 30% by volume. Low-CV gas is char-
acterized by a lower temperature of combustion and less rapid combustion in air.
There are two aspects which affect management and control of low-CV LFG:
• Quantity: Low flow/volume of LFG collected; and

• Quality: Low methane content of the extracted LFG.
The question of appropriate gas management from such sites arises whenever
volume and quality of the LFG is insufficient for flaring in a conventional high-
temperature flare. Low volumes and/or quality of LFG may occur under four sce-
narios outlined below.
In The early stages of filling a Cell: The quantity of LFG generated from a body
of waste is a function of the quantity, composition and rate of degradation. In
the early stages of waste placement in a cell, the mass of waste in place may be
relatively low. There is also a time delay (typically 3–6 months) following waste
placement, in which LFG generation from the waste is low. Therefore in the
early stages of filling of a cell it is likely that the combination of the quantity and
age of the waste means that insufficient LFG volumes and relatively low meth-
ane contents may be generated. In addition, there are operational factors which
limit the effective collection of any LFG generated from cells which are filling.
For example, gas collection systems are readily damaged by landfill operations;
operational cells are unlikely to have low permeability caps, reducing the collec-
tion efficiency of a gas extraction system by limiting containment and the degree
of suction which may be applied before air ingress becomes unacceptable; and
the depth of the waste may be insufficient to facilitate effective gas control.
Post-Closure: After filling has ceased, LFG production rates tail off and air slowly
replaces the LFG in the waste body. The composition of the interstitial gases
within the fill gradually assumes that of atmospheric air. As a result, the extract-
able volumes of LFG become smaller and the methane content of the extracted
gas decreases as LFG is mixed with air entering the landfill.
Filling with Low Proportions Of biodegradable waste: A site may fill low propor-
tion of biodegradable waste, either because it is filling low amounts of waste in
general (for example at small sites) or because the biodegradable content of the
filled waste is low. Each tonne of degradable waste will produce approximately
6 m3 LFG per year for the first 10 years after deposition. Under optimum condi-
tions, a bulk gas production of 400–500 m3 may theoretically be achieved per
tonne of degradable waste. The achievable yield of extracted LFG will however
be much lower, in the range of 100–200 m3 over the site lifetime.
Rather than a sharp drop in LFG volumes as expected after site closure, the fill-
ing of low amounts of biodegradable waste will result in continuously low or slowly
degrading LFG volume and methane levels that require management over extended
periods of a landfill’s life.
Inadequate Management Of The Gas field and LFG Infrastructure: A lack of
appropriate gas quantity and quality may also result from inadequate management
of the gas field and gas collection infrastructure including:
• Inadequate maintenance and balancing of the LFG field;

• Inadequate or malfunctioning gas collection and management infrastructure;
and
• High leachate levels.
Thus, before considering management options for low levels of LFG, it is advisable
to assess the performance of the gas collection system and the overall management
of LFG at the facility. The key features of such an assessment include:
• Assessment of compliance of regulations with respect to lateral migration control,

leachate control, odour and nuisance;
• Assessment of the condition and performance of gas collection and management
infrastructure; and
• Assessment of gas generation potential using modelling, historic performance or
pumping trials.
Lateral Migration Control: Raw LFG contains methane and carbon dioxide in con-
centrations of approximately 60% by volume and 40% by volume respectively.
Methane has a flammable range of approximately 5% by volume to 15% by volume
in air and carbon dioxide becomes toxic at concentrations exceeding 7.5% by vol-
ume. The lateral migration of LFG and its subsequent accumulation is a potential
acute hazard to receptors located in proximity to landfill sites. Experience has shown
that lateral migration of LFG in concentrations likely to pose a hazard may occur at
distances of up to 100 m in unconstrained geology. Golder has observed migration
to occur over significantly greater distances where preferential and/or constrained
pathways exist.
In order to reduce LFG emissions from landfills and for leachate management
purposes, there has been a tendency to install low permeability capping on land-
fills. The hazard from lateral migration is therefore likely to be most significant from
unlined sites (or sites with engineered liner failures) in close proximity to residential
receptors when low permeability capping has been installed on the waste and no
effective gas collection system is present.
One of the main (and most effective) techniques for the management of lateral
migration of LFG is effective gas extraction, whether within the waste mass itself, or
specifically targeted along the perimeter, or outside the waste boundary. Low-CV gas
management techniques are therefore potentially vitally useful tools in the control of
LFG migration and risk management.
If the current landfill gas collection system does not produce gas with a 35 to
40 percent methane concentration, upgrades and modifications may be considered:
• Balance the gas collection well field: Low methane content in landfill gas can
be due to excess vacuum at individual wells that draws air into the waste mass
and ultimately into the gas collection system. Landfill gas quality can sometimes
be improved by proper balancing of the well field to produce landfill gas with
higher methane content. Balancing the well field involves adjusting the vacuum,
and resulting flow, at each well so that the flow more closely matches the gas
generation rate.
• Take gas collection wells off-line: Pull gas for the project only from wells that
are producing adequate quantities of high quality gas. This may include replac-
ing well head valves that are not seating properly in the closed position, or by
isolating wells for the project from the other wells associated with the remedia-
tion activities.
• Reduce water levels in gas collection wells: Water from condensate or leachate
accumulation at the bottom of wells can block the well-pipe perforations and
reduce gas flow. Determine if dropping the water levels increases gas production
in the well by comparing methane levels and gas flow before and after removing
water from the well.
• Reduce oxygen and nitrogen: Oxygen or nitrogen in the landfill gas indicates
the intrusion of air into the landfill, which inhibits methane production. An
oxygen level greater than 2 percent or a nitrogen level above 10 percent gener-
ally indicates air is being pulled into the system. This can occur if air is being
pulled through the landfill cap at breaks or cracks. If oxygen levels approach
5 percent or more, it is likely that there is a direct opening in a well hose, con-
densate knockout, manhole, or other point along the collection system. Perform
a system check and seal any leaks in either the landfill cap or the collection
piping.
• Reduce header vacuum and flow: A smaller blower may be needed if the cur-
rent blower cannot be damped back enough to support well field balancing.
Replacing the blower is typically an involved process; often the associated flare
has to be modified or replaced with a smaller one to accommodate the flow and
maintain good combustion. Construction and operating permit modifications
are often required.
• Well maintenance: Flushing or other methods to unclog well perforations can
improve gas flow and methane concentration.
These measures are not expected to yield dramatic results, perhaps 5 to 10 percent
increase in methane concentration; however, they are relatively inexpensive to
implement.
Sanitary landfills use waste management practices such as mechanical waste

compacting and the use of liners, daily cover, and a final cap; and produce more
LFG than open dumps because of the anaerobic conditions they facilitate. Sanitary
landfills are more likely to be located in developed countries, where LFG regulation
and utilisation decreases the overall emissions. Developing countries are far more
likely to have open and managed dumps – some may have a mix of all three types,
with sanitary landfills in large cities, managed dumps in larger townships, and open
dumps in rural and some urban sites. The costs of closing an open dump are often
seen as prohibitive in developing countries where investments in other basic infra-
structure improvements (such as wastewater treatment) are generally made a higher
priority. In the long term, however, the costs related to impact of an unmanaged
waste site on the health of the public and the environment may be much greater
than the cost of closure. For this reason, the goal should be to make waste disposal
as controlled and as sanitary as possible.
2.3.2 Landfill bioreactor

In recent years, the concept of “landfill bioreactor” is gaining grounds not only in
developed countries but also in developing countries. If a landfill is operated as a
bioreactor, it has the potential to
1 increase LFG generation from the landfill

2 effectively treat the leachate from the landfill
3 enhance the waste density in the landfill and
4 reduced long term LFG monitoring requirements.
The key advantage of “bioreactor landfill” includes enhanced rate of bio-

degradation of organic components of the waste involving changes in the reactor
kinetics and generating more LFG. The increase in LFG generation results in the
decrease in the waste mass in a landfill. Thus, posing reduced risk of groundwater
contamination.
The organic composition of the waste is brought into contact with water and
nutrients, in the presence of biological active microorganisms. The reaction mecha-
nism releases carbon dioxide and large amount of methane, which is subsequently
extracted, thus converting a large waste mass into LFG.
The formation, release and extraction of LFG, is related to the reduction in
waste mass and increase in the waste density. As the landfill undergoes a physical
change, a part of its mass (i.e., LFG) exits the reactor. This process facilitates a struc-
tural consolidation of the waste, an increase in waste density and creation of more
air space.
A material balance can be prepared for the incoming waste and water to the
outgoing products i.e LFG and leachate. The material flow analysis is used to predict
the potential reduction in waste mass, increase in waste density and reduction in
waste volume.
Landfills have been studied over many years and generally have a waste compo-
sition of organics in the range of 45–50%, inerts in the range of 25–30% and water/
moisture in the range of 25–30%. The organic fraction generally consists of food
waste, waste paper, garden wastes, textiles, wood, dirt, rubber and plastics. These
materials contain a combination of carbon (C), hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), and some
nitrogen (N). The products of waste decomposition are primarily methane and car-
bon dioxide, formed in accordance with equation 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3:
1 Waste Water Carbon dioxide Methane (2.1)

2 C6H10O5 H2O 3CO2 3CH4 (LFG) (2.2)
3 Or, C H2O ½CO2 ½CH4 (LFG) (2.3)
As shown in the above equation, a portion of hydrogen and oxygen necessary

for waste decomposition are present within the waste materials themselves and a
portion is externally supplied (or recirculated) as water and nutrients. Thus, suffi-
cient excess external or recirculated water is always necessary to fully complete the
reaction. Recirculation of leachate not only provides the necessary moisture but,
provides treatment of this wastewater and returns nutrients and carbon to the sys-
tem, promoting the production of additional LFG and long-term waste stabilization.
The stoichiometry of the above reaction is estimated to yield a methane concen-
tration of approximately 400 liters of methane/kg of dry waste, assuming complete
decomposition. Assuming a 45 percent organic fraction, this would be a methane
yield of 180 L methane/kg wet waste. Other studies have concluded that a theoretical
yield for raw waste is in the range of 200 to 270 L methane/kg of wet waste, with an
average of about 232 L CH4/kg raw waste. Accordingly, an average of these numbers
is approximately 206 L CH4/kg raw waste.
Various leachate recirculation studies have demonstrated that increasing the quan-
tity of moisture in the waste results in a significantly higher waste decomposition and
LFG generation. From Equation 2 above and based on the molecular weight of the
waste materials, the necessary moisture for full methane yield must be at least 10 per-
cent by weight of the raw waste in all areas of the waste mass, in addition to the
H and O components of the waste itself. Additional moisture above this theoretical
amount is required (at least double this amount or 20 percent excess water) to opti-
mize a variety of methanogenic bacteria growth conditions. Thus, if a typical waste
contains moisture in the range of 25 to 30 percent, then moisture should be added to
maintain the waste in at least the 45 to 50 percent moisture range to achieve optimum
conditions for decomposition. The key parameter is the moisture distribution and con-
tact with dry waste, which is generally difficult to achieve under field conditions.
Moreover, since the formation of LFG will continually utilize the moisture in the
waste, it may be necessary to continually add moisture throughout the landfill life
and initial closure period to achieve maximum decomposition.
In order to impact the entire waste mass, moisture conditions throughout the
landfill should approximate a condition where all waste has excess moisture at all
times. This may not be possible in all areas of the landfill. The removal of LFG from
the waste requires LFG to move within the waste through voids. LFG collection in a
landfill depends on voids in the waste and the differential pressure created as more
LFG is formed. Thus, saturated moisture content is not desirable.
The addition of moisture via leachate recirculation or other means in bioreactors
is the single most important factor in optimizing waste decomposition, LFG extrac-
tion, and increasing waste density and air space recovery. The practical upper limit
of such decomposition and air space recovery depends on many factors related to
the waste composition, operations techniques, stability evaluations, waste wetting
methods, pH, nutrients and depth of fill. Optimum removal of LFG from MSW can
approach 35% of the waste mass by weight at a maximum, over the life of the site
(20 years). However, the recirculation of leachate and nutrient addition may pose
certain problems that need to be addressed as a result of the bioreactor. These prob-
lems may include odor control, waste stability issues, side slope leachate breakouts,
and differential waste settlement.
The bioreactor is a better waste treatment and long-term waste stabilization
technology when compared to ordinary landfills. To achieve optimum waste stabi-
lization, moisture should be added to the landfill during waste placement, during
operations and after closure to optimize decomposition, waste treatment and air
space recovery. If substantial waste decomposition is achieved, there would be little
need for costly membrane or clay caps on lined landfills.
2.3.3 Sustainable landfills

In sustainable landfills, airspace, processes, control and/or use of products and res-
idues are at an optimum and where minimal negative effects on the environment
takes place (Refer Figure 2.2). The goal should be one of treating waste within a life-
time. This can be achieved when the waste within a landfill becomes stabilized and
the stabilized waste is recovered for reuse of the recovered material as well as the
space. An appropriate combination of the Landfill Bioreactor and landfill Mining
will provide this solution.
Figure 2.2 A typical Sustainable Landfill System

2.4 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF LFG EXTRACTION SYSTEM
LFG extraction system mainly consists of the following components:
1 Extraction wells
2 Wellheads
3 Collector Pipes
4 Extraction Pumps
5 Condensate knockout system.
2.4.1 Extraction wells

Extraction wells may be installed as site filling progresses thereby providing gas con-
trol at an early stage of the landfill’s development. Alternatively, wells may be drilled
after waste emplacement. The most common extraction wells are:
• Vertical perforated pipe: vertical gas well. Consists of a borehole containing a

pipe which has perforations through the wall over the lower part of the pipe
length. The pipe is surrounded by coarse aggregate fill;
• Horizontal perforated pipe: horizontal gas wells. Consists of perforated pipes
laid horizontally in trenches set in the waste or within the gas layer in the final
capping system. The pipe is surrounded by coarse aggregate fill;
• Hybrid types: Consist of an array of perforated vertical wells connected to a
single offtake point by lengths of buried horizontal pipe which may also be per-
forated; and
• Gabion well: Consist of aggregate filled excavations set in the waste from which
gas is drawn off through a perforated pipe located within the aggregate.
Examples of each well type are given in Figures 2.3 to 2.6.

The design of any gas well should include allowance for settlement of the waste
within the landfill and sufficient space should be left between the bottom of the well
and the landfill liner to reduce the risk of damaging the liner. Typically gas wells are
drilled to 75% of the waste depth. Connections to the collection network should
also provide flexibility to allow for settlement of the waste. The material surround-
ing the perforated section of the pipe should be a non carbonaceous aggregate.
The factors which effect LFG collection include:
• Quantity of intermediate and top cover used in operation and restoration will
influence the extent of lateral migration. Inadequate landfill capping may lead to
air being drawn in from the surface of the site and both poisoning the methane
producing bacteria as well as diluting LFG being extracted;
• Applied suction, this should cause a minimum depression in pressure to limit the
effect of gas dilution caused by air ingress;
• Leachate level affects the efficiency of the extraction well. A high leachate level
will reduce efficiency; and
• Gas well type.
Figure 2.3 Example of a vertical extraction well arrangement
Finished Ground Level

A Well Head A
Top Soil & Subsoil

Drainage Layer
Barrier Layer
Gas Layer
Waste
Coarse Aggregate
Unslotted Connecting Pipe
Backfill
A A
Well
Head
Coarse Aggregate
Backfill
Figure 2.4 Example of a Horizontal Well arrangement

Control valve
Monitoring points
Finished ground
level
Final Cap
Soil/bentonite mix
Waste
Coarse, non-calcareous aggregate backfill
Figure 2.5 Example of a hybrid well arrangement
Figure 2.6 Example of a Gabion Gas Well Arrangement

2.4.2 Wellheads
Wellheads are fitted to the top of gas wells to control the extraction of gas. The
material typically used to make wellheads is polyethylene (PE). Wellheads should
be joined to connecting pipework using flexible piping to allow for settlement.
Wellheads have been developed to cover a number of aspects and components vary
depending on the required functions. These include:
• flow rate measurement fittings, to allow for the flow from individual wells to be
monitored;
• flow regulators;
• dewatering wellheads;
• combined leachate and gas extraction; and
• telescopic fittings to account for movement of the landfill surface with site
settlement.
Wellheads should include provisions for monitoring gas quality and suction pressure.
2.4.3 Collector pipes

A collection pipe network is needed to convey LFG from the point of generation
or collection to the point of energy production. The pipeline material should be
chemically resistant to LFG, condensate and leachate as well as having appropriate
mechanical strength to withstand loading and ground/waste settlement. The materi-
als which are deemed must suitable are polyethylene (medium density polyethylene
(MDPE) and HDPE), and polypropylene. The pipework should be sized to allow for
maximum possible gas flow rate from the site.
It may be necessary to lay pipes over flat terrain to achieve the required mini-
mum fall. Dewatering points should be provided at all drop legs in such a system.
The pipeline should have sufficient valves to allow isolation of sections. Pressure
testing of the collection pipe network should be carried out to ensure integrity of the
pipe material and of joints.
Table 2.3 presents minimum and preferred slope for LFG collection field
piping.
2.4.4 Extraction pumps

Centrifugal compressors are normally used for gas extraction. They are available
in a range of sizes typically between 150 m3/hr and 3000 m3/hr. Extraction plant is
typically designed on a modular basis to provide cost effective and flexible solutions.
Parameters that should be specified for a LFG extraction system include; inlet suc-
tion and outlet pressure; flow capacity; and power consumption. Flame arrestors
should be fitted so that if pumping a gas/air mixture within the explosive range the
risk of propagation of an explosion is minimised. Instrumentation to allow regular
rebalancing of LFG flows from each well is also required.
The pressure required at the outlet of the extraction plant is a function of the
use to which the fuel is to be put and the pipework sizes that will be involved.
Table 2.3 Collection Piping Design Criteria
S.No. Criteria Value

1. Minimum header slope in direction of LFG flow 0.5 percent
2. Minimum slope of header against LFG flow 2 percent
3. Minimum slope of subheaders in direction of LFG flow1 3 percent
4. Preferred slope of subheaders in direction of LFG flow 5 percent
5. Subheader slope against direction of LFG flow1 not recommended
6. Minimum slope of laterals in direction of LFG flow 3 percent
7. Preferred slope of laterals against LFG flow 5 percent
Note: 1Slope recommended within older waste.
Sites which require higher LFG delivery pressure for utilisation purposes will use
other types of gas compressor. Other extraction equipment that may be considered
include:
• liquid ring compressors;

• regenerative gas boosters;
• roots-type blowers;
• reciprocating compressors;
• sliding vane compressors; and
• multi-stage centrifugal gas boosters.
2.5 HORIZONTAL AND ACTIVE LFG COLLECTION SYSTEMS
A horizontal collection system is installed across the landfill surface in trenches

within the waste and connected to the piping system at the outside slope of the land-
fill. A horizontal collector is usually comprises of perforated pipe laid horizontally in
a trench and surrounded by gravel or other permeable substrate. The pipe is sloped
to promote drainage of condensate and leachate to designated collection points, and
designed to accommodate settlement (as much as practicable) of the waste. The well-
heads for the horizontal collectors are installed at the outside of the fill area to allow
for monitoring. By burying these collectors, they are sufficiently protected to allow
gas collection while the cell or landfill is in active filling mode. Figure 2.7 provides a
schematic diagram of a horizontal collection system.
Vertical LFG wells are the primary method of LFG collection from landfills (Refer
Figures 2.8 and 2.9). Vertical extraction wells are commonly installed into the interior
landfill waste mass for LFG energy recovery, once the filling operations have been com-
pleted. They are also installed along the landfill perimeter for LFG migration control.
2.6 LFG RECOVERY FROM ACTIVE WELL COLLECTION SYSTEM
Spacing of LFG collection wells for active systems is highly dependent on site-
specific variables such as waste density, waste moisture content, waste thickness, well
Figure 2.7 Typical Horizontal Extraction Well
Figure 2.8 Schematic of Vertical Extraction Wells

Figure 2.9 Typical Vertical Extraction Well
design, and cap configuration. The following methods have been used to determine
the well spacing of LFG collection systems:
• Cylinder method: This is a popular approach used by numerous consulting firms

and involves estimating the amount of LFG being produced within the radius of
influence (ROI) of an extraction well.
• Field pump tests: The designer uses pump test results to obtain data to identify
the site-specific zone of influence of extraction wells.
• Prescriptive/regulatory criteria: Some states have regulatory requirements related
to gas vent spacing. For example, some agencies require all designs to use a
maximum of 150-foot radius of influence unless a pump test is conducted.
• Rule of thumb criteria: This method relies on past experience to aid in the lay-
out of the gas collection wells. Some designers correlate gas vent well spacing to
the depth of the waste. Typically, wells are spaced no farther apart than 3 times
the depth of the waste with a maximum acceptable spacing of 300 feet.
Whichever design method is used, the designer must ensure LFG is collected from
the entire area of the landfill and off-site migration is prevented.
2.6.1 Cylinder method

This approach assumes all gas generated from within a cylinder of a specified
radius is removed by the well and that no leakage from the atmosphere enters
Figure 2.10 Typical well layout using cylinder method
the landfill. This method is most appropriate for landfills with low-permeability
covers. Figure 2.10 shows a typical layout for wells designed using the cylinder
method.
The following equations can be used to apply the cylinder method:
Flow Rate for Entire Landfill. Equation 2.4 can be used to estimate the total amount
of LFG being generated from within a landfill:
Qtot (V)(D)(G)/(percent methane in gas) (2.4)
where:
V volume of waste
D density of waste
G methane production rate.
Typically, methane represents approximately 30 to 55 percent of the total volume of
LFG generated from a landfill. Since the G term is only an estimate of the amount
of methane generated, to determine the total LFG flow rate, we divide (V)(D)(G) by
the percent methane.
Determine Flow Rates from Each Well (Cylinder Method). The flow rate from
individual wells can be determined using equation 2.5 by assuming a radius of
influence and estimating the amount of gas generated from within this radius using
the methane production rate discussed above:
Q π(R2 – r2)(t)(D)(G)/(% methane) (2.5)
where:
Q methane flow rate
R radius of influence
r borehole radius
t waste thickness
D density of waste
G methane production rate.
As a rough approximation, the total flow from all wells as determined by the cylin-
der method, must be greater than or equal to Qtot (Calculated above).
ΣQ from each well Qtot
Determine pressure drop required at each well to maintain assumed radius of influ-
ence. Equation 2.6 is used to estimate the vacuum required to prevent the build-up
of pressure within the landfill due to the generation of LFG:
ΔP μGtotD[R2ln(R/r) (r2/2) (R2/2)]/2Ks (2.6)
where:
ΔP pressure difference from the radius of influence to the gas vent
r radius of borehole
μ absolute viscosity of LFG
Ks apparent permeability of the refuse
D density of the refuse
Gtot Total LFG production rate G/(% methane).
In order to ensure that LFG generated within the landfill do not escape through the sub-
surface or through the cover, the vacuum used during full-scale operations will often be
somewhat greater than the value calculated above. The required vacuum is often based
on data collected from LFG monitoring probes located at the perimeter of the landfill.
These perimeter wells are typically monitored for vacuum and methane content.
Other Design Considerations. The maximum LFG extraction rate from any well
is limited by the available vacuum and air intrusion into the waste (i.e., overpull).
Overpull can result in oxygen being pulled into the landfill and killing the methane
producing bacteria or causing landfill fires. Additional items to keep in mind when
establishing spacing of LFG wells:
• Shallower LFG wells have a smaller zone of influence.

• Extraction systems, whose primary purpose is migration control, should have
a closer well spacing near the perimeter to minimize the potential for off-site
migration.
• Access to proposed well locations by drill rigs must be considered when laying
out the gas collection system.
• Disposal of drill rig waste.
The well spacing is determined by the radius of influence for a corresponding design
vacuum at the well. Well spacing should generally not exceed twice the calculated
radius of influence. The radius of influence is calculated according to equation 2.7:
Qwell M
R (2.7)
π LρwasteQmax
where:
R The required radius of influence
Qwell gas flow per well
M landfill design capacity
L well depth, FT
ρwaste density of waste
Qmax maximum gas generation rate
The minimum required radius of influence should be compared with the design
radius of influence based on permeability and vacuum at each well.
The intrinsic permeability (Kwaste) of the waste is calculated by using
equation 2.8:
Kwaste kμ/γ (2.8)
where:
Kwaste Intrinsic permeability of waste
k horizontal hydraulic conductivity of waste
μ dynamic viscosity of water, N-sec/m2
γ unit weight of water, N/m3.
The radius of influence of a well based on pressure is determined by using
equation 2.9:
2
Plandfill Pvac
2
R2 μLFG ρwasteQmax ⎛⎜ R ⎞⎟
ln ⎜ ⎟⎟ (2.9)
Pvac MKwaste ( L/D ) ⎜⎝ r ⎠
where:
Plandfill allowable internal pressure in landfill
Pvacuum pressure in gas well
μLFG dynamic viscosity of landfill gas
ρwaste density of waste
Qmax maximum gas generation rate
M landfill design capacity

Kwaste intrinsic permeability of waste
L well depth
D depth of waste
r radius of well.
2.7 LFG RECOVERY FROM PASSIVE WELL COLLECTION SYSTEM
The purpose of a passive gas collection system is to prevent the build-up of gas pres-
sure within the landfill to maintain the stability of the landfill cover and to prevent
the off-site migration of LFG. Passive collection systems can be designed as blankets,
wells, or trenches. Strict design procedures are often not employed to design pas-
sive systems because they are typically placed on old and/or small landfills where the
potential for LFG generation is small. Instead of using strict design procedures, rules
of thumb are commonly applied in the design of passive gas collection systems.
Passive Blanket Collection Systems: Because blanket gas collection systems do
not penetrate down into the waste layer, they are less effective than well systems in
preventing the off-site migration of LFG. However, blanket gas collection systems
are effective at preventing the buildup of pressure beneath a cover system. Granular
soil layers used as gas collection blankets are typically 305 mm (12 inches) in thick-
ness. If a geonet drainage layer is used it will typically be a geocomposite with a geo-
textile attached to one or both sides of the geonet. The geotextiles attached to the
geonet prevent soil and waste from entering the geonet. The geotextiles also increase
the frictional resistance at the drainage layer interfaces. Geotextiles can also be used
as the gas collection layer if the anticipated production of LFG is very small and the
normal stresses acting on the geotextile are small.
Design Procedures for Passive Blanket Collection Systems: If there is a potential
for the build-up of gas pressure beneath a geomembrane barrier layer, slope stability
becomes a concern and a more rigorous design procedure should be implemented.
The general steps required when considering gas pressure in the design of a passive
LFG collection blanket are as follows:
• Estimate the maximum gas flux that needs to be removed from below the land-
fill cover.
• Perform slope stability analyses to estimate the gas pressure at which slope insta-
bility will result.
• Design a vent system below the cover that will evacuate the assumed gas flux
and prevent the build-up of gas pressure beneath the geomembrane.
The LFG flow rates in passive blanket collection layers generally follow laminar and
darcy laws.
Passive gas collection wells are typically spaced approximately 60 meters (200
feet) apart, i.e.: 1 per 0.4 hectare (1 per acre). Additional wells will be required if
perimeter monitoring probes indicate the methane concentration exceeds the regula-
tory limit for the site. Vertical risers should also be located at high points in the col-
lection system within the landfill.
2.8 HEADER SYSTEM LAYOUT
The objective of LFG extraction wells is to extract the maximum possible volume
of LFG leaving the condensate behind. The gas flow arrangement should be able to
provide finer adjustments generally for low LFG flows. Choosing the correct diam-
eter of pipe for the various sections of the system is of prime importance, since the
velocity of LFG flow against the gradient of the pipe run is a critical factor in suc-
cessful dewatering.
The LFG piping should be designed to carry the necessary volume of LFG. LFG
piping comprises of lateral piping that connect the wells to the main headers, and
main header piping, which conveys large quantities of gas to the control system.
To ensure proper designing of LFG piping, the following elements should be
considered:
Maximize piping sizes: Specific pipe sizes (i.e., diameters) have limitations on the
amount of gas that can be moved through the pipe. With LFG, the amount of gas
that will be generated and recovered is always uncertain, and the variability in
applied vacuum levels can also affect gas flow. As such, it is critical to design pip-
ing systems for the high end of the range of expected gas flows for the area of the
landfill that the pipe will serve. The design can take into consideration the expected
working life of the piping so that the pipe sizing is not based on future flows that
the pipe would never see, as long as provisions are made to upgrade the piping
when needed. Larger pipe sizes also help against condensate formation and pipe
blockage by allowing gas flow to continue despite moderate condensate buildup.
Install piping on native soil: Wherever possible, LFG piping, particularly main
header lines, should be installed on native soil to prevent undue affects of landfill
settlement. For piping installed on refuse, settlement can cause unintended low
points where condensate can collect and block gas flow. Piping on native soil
outside the refuse boundary avoids this problem and also allows the piping to
be installed with less slope, making design and installation easier.
Increased pipe slopes: In all cases, it is considered a BMP to maximize the pipe slopes
for all LFG system piping. When installed on native soil, the piping should have
a minimum slope of 1% with a provision to increase to 2% whenever feasi-
ble. For piping on refuse, the minimum slope should be 3% for areas expected
to have low to moderate differential settlement and 5% in areas expected to
exhibit heavy settlement.
Where these slopes cannot be achieved, the piping should be designed with mul-
tiple access points and cleanouts for inspection and dewatering. They should also
undergo a more rigorous and frequent pipe inspection program. Pipes can be run
down or across landfill slopes to increase slope.
Above or below grade piping: Above grade piping systems are preferred over
below grade systems in most cases. Above grade piping can be more easily inspected,
repaired, and upgraded, promoting maximum effectiveness. However, to protect
against weather effects, above grade piping systems must be staked to control move-
ment from thermal expansion/contraction or landfill erosion, provide UV protection
to protect plastic pipe against the sun’s influence, etc. The only exceptions would be
cold weather locations where frequent freezing temperatures necessitate burying the
pipe, or in active areas where above grade piping could be damaged.
Looped piping systems: LFG piping may fail due to damage, breakage, or set-
tlement. Therefore, LFG piping systems that include looped headers can be con-
sidered. These looped systems allow vacuum to reach all areas of the landfill from
more than one direction. A LFG system would have a primary piping loop around
the entire refuse area. For large landfills, however, multiple interior loops, including
temporary, movable ones, may be warranted. Looped piping systems equalize vac-
uum throughout the gas system and reduce downtime for those portions affected by
non-functioning piping. With these looped systems, including isolation valves allows
non-functioning pipe sections to be isolated for repair and flow directions changed
to restore vacuum to the problem area. A rough schematic of a lopped header
system and well network is provided in Figure 2.11.
Pipe specifications: Beyond the size and slope of the pipe, the type of pipe grade
specified is important as well. Plastic piping systems are commonplace in the LFG
industry. However, specifying high grade pipe is important for the effectiveness and
longevity of the piping system. This includes using Schedule 80 PVC over Schedule
40 and using higher quality HDPE pipe. Above grade PVC pipe must be protected
Figure 2.11 Schematic of Looped Header System

Figure 2.12 Header Layout Options
against UV radiation, and above grade HDPE should be staked to prevent movement
due to temperature extremes. Special allowance should be made for HDPE thermal
expansion and contraction because of its substantially greater coefficient of thermal
expansion than PVC.
A header system can be constructed in three general configurations: branches,
loops, or as a matrix. These layout options are shown in Figure 2.12. Branched sys-
tems consist of individual wells attached to a blower through the use of a header
pipes and larger trunk lines. Branched systems are fairly common on small landfills
where there are a limited number of wells. Looped systems ring the landfill and have
the advantage of allowing gas to be pulled from an individual well from more than
one direction, bypassing clogs in the header line. Looped systems will often incor-
porate branches off of the main loop to allow collection of gas from regions of the
landfill that are not adjacent to the loop. The design objectives of the header system
are as follows:
• Create sufficient vacuum and flow from each extraction well to collect all LFG
and prevent the off-site migration of gas.
• Move the gas through the header system to the blower and flare.
• Accomplish the first two objectives with the lowest possible capital and operating
expenditures.
Pressure losses in the piping system are the result of friction losses and dynamic
losses. Friction losses occur as gas flows through the header pipes. Dynamic losses result
from things such as changes in flow direction (elbows and tees), pipe constrictions,
valves, filters, knock-out pots, and other restrictions within the piping network. The
total pressure loss is the sum of the friction and dynamic losses.
Design Considerations. It is important to consider overall system pneumat-
ics prior to designing and selecting individual system components. A suggested
approach is briefly summarized below:
1 Step 1. Determine the size and depth of the landfill.

2 Step 2. Determine the type of waste within the landfill and its associated gas
generation rate.
3 Step 3. Estimate the Radius of Influence (ROI) and based on this ROI, layout
the gas extraction wells and the header pipes.
4 Step 4. Develop a relationship for vacuum level versus airflow in the subsurface.
5 Step 5. Calculate the friction loss for the system components and piping for a
range of flow rates.
6 Step 6. Develop a “system” curve by adding the frictional losses calculated in
steps 4 and 5.
7 Step 7. Select a blower with an appropriate blower curve.
8 Step 8. Predict the flow rate and vacuum level from the simultaneous (graphical)
solution of the blower curve and the system curve.
9 Step 9. Perform a network pressure analysis using the assumed well layout and
equipment. Determine if the proposed system provides adequate vacuum and
flow to all portions of the landfill.
2.9 GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING A PUMP TEST
LFG may be produced at a site for a number of decades dependent on landfill condi-
tions and type and age of waste, with emissions continuing at declining levels from
the date of placement. The objectives of conducting the pump test are:
1 To measure vacuum (pressure) and flow relationships while actively extracting

LFG from the landfill.
2 To measure sustainable methane levels of the extracted LFG during the pump test.
3 To measure vacuum (pressure) in probes to estimate the lateral vacuum influence
of the active pump test.
4 To measure oxygen levels of the extracted LFG during the pump test to check
for air infiltration through the landfill surface during the pump test.
5 Utilize the results of the pump test to refine the projections of LFG recovery.
The LFG collection system should be designed to extract maximum amount of LFG
under a suction pressure without any air infiltration. Various parameters that should
be considered for the designing of LFG extraction system are:
• Velocity and flow rate of the LFG through gas extraction well
• Temperature of the gas
• Manometric pressure, i.e., suction head under which gas is being extracted
• Atmospheric pressure
• Volumetric composition (%CH4, %O2 and %CO2) of the LFG at extraction
head.
2.10 STANDARD TESTING METHODOLOGY FOR LFG
Table 2.4 provides a list of testing methods generally used for LFG.
2.11 INITIAL TESTING SETUP/INSTALLATION
LFG extraction wells are installed at selected locations in a landfill. A blower is used
to extract LFG from the wells. The LFG composition, landfill pressures, and orifice
Table 2.4 Testing Methods for Raw LFG
Procedure Description
EPA Method 1 Selection of traverse points
EPA Method 2 Determination of gas velocity and volumetric flow rate
EPA Method 3A Determination of O2 and CO2 for flare stack gas molecular weight
calculations
EPA Method 3C Determination of CO2, CH4, nitrogen (N2), and O2 in raw LFG
EPA Method 11 Determination of H2S
EPA Method 25C Determination of raw LFG NMOCs
EPA Method 40/TO-15 Determination of VOCs
pressure differentials from the wells are measured and used to calculate the LFG produc-
tion flow rate. The gas flow rate determination is performed for the following reasons:
• To determine the LFG generation rate to be used in designing an LFG recovery

system.
• To determine the optimum sustainable LFG recovery rate.
• To provide design criteria for LFG collection well field geometry and spacing.
2.11.1 LFG extraction wells

Gas wells are designed as per the guideline specified in USEPA CFR Test Method 2E
“Determination of LFG Production Flow Rate”. LFG collection wells are 500 mm
diameter wells to be drilled, up to a 75% depth of the landfill with respect to the
installation level of the landfill. To extract the LFG, 6″ diameter HDPE pipe is
inserted into the extraction well with perforations at a 2/3rd length of the pipe from
bottom. To facilitate the lateral movement of the LFG and also to provide lateral
pressure, the annular core is filled with 1–1.5″ size gravels. The top of the well is
sealed with bentonite and capped.
Extraction Well Borings: The extraction well borings is done by utilizing a well
drilling rig capable of boring a 36 inch (0.6 m) diameter hole into the landfill to a
minimum of 75 percent of the landfill depth.
Extraction Well Construction: The extraction well consists of an 8 inch diameter
slotted polyvinyl chloride (PVC) well casing. A coarse filter pack and impermeable
seals and backfill are placed (Refer Figure 2.13).
Well Head Assembly: The well head assembly consists of a butterfly valve, sam-
pling ports at the well head and outlet, and a flow measuring device, such as an
in-line orifice plate flow metering station. The orifice plate flow metering station may
be located at a manifold station. A schematic of the well head assembly is shown in
Figure 2.14.
2.11.2 Pressure monitoring probes

Gas monitoring probes are used in conjunction with both active and passive systems
to detect LFG that are migrating off-site. The maximum acceptable concentration
Figure 2.13 Typical LFG Extraction Well
of methane in the probes is typically 0.5 to 5 percent. Increased monitoring and/or

modifications to the operating procedures of the LFG collection system are usually
required if methane concentrations exceed acceptable levels.
Probes are typically placed around the perimeter of the landfill at a maximum
spacing of 150–300 m (500–1000 ft), although they may be closer, depending on site
VALVE
WELL CAP
MONITORING
PORT
FLEXIBLE PIPE
TO BLOWER
SOLID WASTE
PLASTIC COLLECTION PIPE

WELL DEPTH VARIES–FIELD DETERMINED
SOLID PLASTIC
WELL PIPE
SOIL (TYP.)
PERFORATED
PLASTIC WELL PIPE
GRAVEL
SOLID WASTE
Figure 2.14 Typical Well-head Assembly
specific factors such as adjacent land use, soil properties, and migration potential.
At some sites, probes may be closely spaced, every 30–60 m (100–200 ft), if there are
buildings near the landfill. Each probe must be permanently marked or tagged with
an identification number to ensure data is accurately recorded.
To monitor the performance of the extraction wells, pressure probes are installed.
Pressure Probe Borings: The pressure probe borings are installed by utilizing a drill
rig capable of advancing a 6 inch diameter hole to a depth equal to the top of
the perforated section of the extraction well.
Pressure Probe: The pressure probes are constructed of 1 inch PVC schedule 40 pipe.
The bottom two-thirds is perforated.
2.11.3 LFG treatment components

The LFG treatment components are used to extract and thermally treat the
LFG from the extraction wells. The extraction/treatment system consists of a blower
and flare.
Blower and Flare Assembly: The blower should be capable of extracting LFG at
a flow rate of 500 ft.3/min. at 30 inches of water column vacuum. The flare can be a
candle type utility flare.
Orifice Plates: Standard pitot tube and/or orifice plate, pipe taps and a differen-
tial pressure gauge is provided at the blower/flare station for flow rate measurements.
2.11.4 Extraction well locations

Each extraction well has a zone of influence within which LFG can be effectively
collected. The zone of influence of an extraction well is defined as the distance from
the well center to a point in the landfill where the pressure gradient applied by the
blower approaches zero. The zone of influence determines the spacing between
extraction wells or location of wells since an effective collection system covers the
entire area of the landfill. The zones (or radii) of influence for LFG extraction wells
are illustrated in Figure 2.15.
The spacing between extraction wells depends on the depth of the landfill, the
magnitude of the pressure gradient applied by the blower, type of waste, degree of
compaction of waste, and moisture content of gas.
The desired method for determining effective well spacing at a specific landfill is
the use of field measurement data. EPA Reference Method 2E can be used to deter-
mine the average stabilized radius of influence for both perimeter wells and interior
wells, and this measured radius of influence can then be used to site wells. A good
practice is to place wells along the perimeter of the landfill (but still in the refuse) no
more than the perimeter radius of influence from the perimeter, and no more than
two times the perimeter radius of influence apart.
The LFG extraction wells should be designed to avoid excessive amounts of air
from entering LFG, i.e., LFG migration control (especially near the site perimeter)
Figure 2.15 Zones of Influence for Gas Extraction Wells

Figure 2.16 Equilateral Pattern of Gas Collection Wells
does not draw in air and cause fires in the waste by sucking excessive amounts of air
into the waste mass.
LFG Well spacing is normally determined by using the “radius of influence”
concept. According to this concept the radius of influence of a particular extraction
well depends upon the extraction rate (i.e., well flow rate), depth of landfill, in place
refuse density, CH4 production rate, and fractional CH4 concentration.
The well should be placed in such a way that the “radii of influence” of the
neighboring wells just overlap each other. This would ensure that LFG from the
entire landfill is collected. The collection wells should also be placed in a pattern
that maximizes the efficiency of LFG collection. Figure 2.16 shows an equilateral
triangle pattern that is an efficient method of collecting the gas considering uniform
conditions throughout the landfill.
The pattern shown in Figure 2.16, however, is not always possible and hence the
patterns must be modified depending upon the local landfill conditions. The spac-
ing of wells is also dependent upon their location on a landfill. If they are located
in the central part, the spacing may be large since higher well flow rates are desired.
However if the wells are located at the periphery then lower spacing would be favo-
rable since lower well flow rates are desired. In addition, the location of the wells
on a landfill is governed by the purpose of gas collection. If the gas is collected only
to prevent it from migrating to neighboring areas, then the wells may be located at
the periphery of the landfill. If energy recovery is the purpose of gas collection, then
wells may be located at the center of the landfill. The wells may be located both at
the center and on the periphery if gas is collected for the dual purpose of migration
control and energy recovery.
A single cluster of three extraction wells or five individual wells are installed in
the tests area. The wells are configured as shown on Figures 2.17.
Age of Refuse: Age of refuse is observed from well cuttings during well instal-
lation. It is unlikely that the age of the refuse in any given test area will be uniform.
A calculated weighted average is used to determine the average age of the refuse
using equation 2.10:
n
Aavg ∑ Fi Ai (2.10)
i 1
150 600 150
100 100
50 50
600 150
100
50
Well
Shallow Probe
Deep Probe
Figure 2.17 Cluster Well Configuration
where
Aavg Average age of the refuse tested, yr.
Fi Fraction of the refuse in the ith section.
Ai Age of the ith fraction, yr.
Installation of Extraction Wells: A rotary drilling rig is used to advance a
36 inch diameter hole in the landfill to a minimum of 75 percent of the landfill
depth. In any event the boring should not proceed through the bottom of the landfill
or the liquid level. The bottom two-thirds of the extraction well pipe is perforated.
The extraction well casing is placed in the center of the hole and backfilled
with 1 to 1-1/2 inch gravel to a level 1 foot above the perforated section. A layer of
backfill material 4 feet thick is placed immediately over the gravel. A layer of ben-
tonite 3 feet thick is then be placed, hydrated, and the remainder of the hole back-
filled with cover material or material equal in permeability to the existing cover
material.
2.11.5 Pressure monitoring probes

Pressure Probe Configuration: Pressure probes are located along three radial arms
approximately 120 degree apart at distances of 10, 50, 100 and 150 feet from the
extraction well. The 50, 100, and 150 foot probes (deep probes) for each well, or
any additional probes located 50 or more feet from a well along the three radial
arms, should be extend to a depth equal to the top of the perforated section of the
extraction wells. All other probes (shallow probes located 10 feet from each well)
shall extend to a depth equal to half the depth of the deep probes.
Pressure Probe Installation: The pressure probe is installed by using a drill rig
to advance a boring 6 inches in diameter to the required depth. The bottom two-
thirds of the pressure probe is perforated. He perforations consists of 0.010 inch
slots. The pressure probe is placed in the center of the hole and backfilled with a
coarse aggregate (pea gravel) to a level 1 foot above the perforated section. A 4 foot
layer of backfill material is then placed over the pea gravel. A layer of bentonite at
least 1 foot thick is placed over the backfill, hydrated, and the remainder of the hole
backfilled with cover material or material equal in permeability to the existing cover
material. The construction of the pressure probes is shown in Figure 2.18.
2.12 FLOW TESTING PROCEDURES
The individual wells are ducted to a common header and routed to the blower and
flare assembly. A flow measurement means, such as an orifice metering station, is
located near the blower inlets.
2.12.1 Leak testing

A leak check of the above ground system is required for accurate LFG flow rate
measurements and for safety. A field multigas meter is used to sample the LFG
stream at the well head sample port and at the blower/flare station sample port to
determine the concentrations of CH4 (methane), CO2 (carbon dioxide) and O2 (oxy-
gen). The concentration of these compounds as a percent value (%) are recorded.
The difference between the nitrogen content at the well and at the blower/flare is
determined by using the formula below.
Difference Co – Cw
where,
Co Concentration of N2 at the outlet, %
Cw Concentration of N2 at the wellhead, %.
The percentage values are totaled and the sum subtracted from 100%. The remain-
ing percentage is then assumed to be nitrogen. The nitrogen content is used as an indica-
tion of air intrusion. The system passes the leak check if the differences is less than 1%.
2.12.2 Static testing

The control valves on the wells are closed during static testing. The gauge pressure
(Ps) at each deep pressure probe and the barometric pressure (Pbar) are measured
every 8 hours for 3 days. The barometric pressure should be obtained prior to each
Figure 2.18 Typical Pressure Probes
measuring event. The gauge pressure of each deep pressure probe is corrected to
absolute pressure (Pi) by using equation 2.11.
Pi Pbar Ps (2.11)
Average Pressure Recording: For each probe, the average of all the 8 hours deep
pressure probe readings are determined and recorded as Pia. These readings are used
to determine the maximum radius of influence. The average initial pressure, Pia, is
calculated by using equation 2.12.
Pia Pia1 Pia2 … Pian/n (2.12)
Static Flow Rate Recording: The static flow rate of each well is measured once dur-
ing static testing. The static flow rate is taken by first fully opening the well head
valve. The operator then connects a digital pressure meter across the orifice plate
located at the manifold station. The operator then records the pressure reading,
disconnect the pressure meter and close the well head valve.
2.13 SHORT TERM DYNAMIC TEST
The purpose of short term testing is to determine the maximum vacuum that can be
applied to the wells without infiltration of air into the landfill. The short term testing
is done on one well at a time. Upon completion of testing on the first well, sections
2.13.1 through 2.13.6 will be repeated for the remaining wells. The extracted LFG
will be transported to the flare for destruction.
2.13.1 Blower/well configuration

The blower is used to extract LFG from a single well at a rate at least twice the static
flow rate of the respective well measured in section 2.11.2. The control valve on the
wells not being measured will be closed. The system should be allowed to stabilize at
this flow rate for 18 to 24 hours.
2.13.2 Infiltration monitoring

To test for infiltration of air into the landfill, the gauge pressures of the shallow
pressure probes is measured using the procedure detailed in 2.12.1 to determine the
LFG N2 concentration. If the LFG N2 concentration is less than 1 percent and all of
the shallow probes have a positive gauge pressure the blower vacuum is increased
by 2 inches water column (in. w.c.) and allowed to stabilize for 24 hours and the
tests for infiltration repeated. The above steps will continue by increasing blower
vacuum by 2 in. w.c., waiting 24 hours and testing for infiltration until the concen-
tration of N2 exceeds 1 percent or any of the shallow probes have a negative gauge
pressure at which time reduce the blower vacuum so that the N2 concentration is
less than 1 percent and the gauge pressures of the shallow probes are positive.
2.13.3 Blower stabilization monitoring

Once the maximum stabilizer blower vacuum, as determined in Section 3.2 is
reached, Pbar is measured every 8 hours for 24 hours and the LFG flow rate as Qx
recorded. The probe gauge pressures for all of the probes is recorded as Pf. The
gauge pressures of the deep probes is corrected to absolute pressures for each 8 hour
reading at Qs using equation 2.13.
P Pbar Pf (2.13)
2.13.4 Pressure probe averaging

For each probe, the total 8 hour deep pressure probe readings are averaged and
recorded as Pfa. The average Pfa value is calculated using equation 2.14:
Pfa Pfa1 Pfa2 … Pfan/n (2.14)
2.13.5 ROI determination

The initial average pressure (Pia) from each probe from section 2.11.2 is compared
to the final average pressure (Pfa). The furthermost point from the well head along
each radial arm where Pfa Pia is determined. This distance is the maximum radius
of influence, which is the distance from the well effected by the vacuum. These val-
ues are averaged to determine the average maximum radius of influence (Rma).
2.13.6 Depth influence calculation

The depth (Dst) affected by the extraction well during the short term test is calcu-
lated using equation 2.15. If the computed value of Dst exceeds the depth of the
landfill, Dst will be set equal to the landfill depth.
Dst WD R2ma (2.15)
where,
WD well depth, m.
2.14 LONG TERM DYNAMIC TEST
The purpose of long-term testing is to extract a significant volume of LFG from the
extraction wells and to ultimately determine the long-term sustainable flow rate. The
blower is used to extract LFG from the wells. The blower vacuum is set to equal
the highest stabilized blower vacuum demonstrated by any individual well in section
2.13. The well head valves on each well are opened to apply the maximum stabilized
applied vacuum on each well. Every 12 hours for 7 days, the LFG is sampled from
each well head sample port, the gauge pressures of the shallow pressure probes and
the blower vacuum. The LFG flow rate is measured.
The criteria for infiltration in section 2.13.2 and the method described in section
2.12.1 will be used to test for infiltration. If infiltration is detected, the blower vacuum
will not be reduced. Instead the LFG flow rate from the well will be reduced by adjust-
ing the control valve on the well head. Each affected well will be adjusted individually.
2.14.1 Total extracted LFG calculations
The total volume, Vt, of LFG extracted from the wells will be calculated using
equation 2.16:
n
Vt ∑ Q1tvi (2.16)
i 1
where,
Vt Total volume of LFG extracted from wells, m3.

Q1 LFG flow rate measured at orifice meter at the ith interval, m3/min.
tvi Time of the ith interval (minimum).
2.14.2 Stabilized flow calculations

The final stabilized flow rate will be recorded as Q1. If, during the long term test-
ing, the flow rate does not stabilize, Q1A will be calculated by averaging the last 6
recorded flow rates using equation 2.17.
Q1A Q1A1 Q1A2 … Q1An/6 (2.17)
2.14.3 Stabilized ROI calculations

For each deep probe, the gauge pressure is corrected to absolute pressure as in
Section 2.13. These values are averaged and recorded as Psa. For each probe, Pia is
compared to Psa. The furthermost point from the well head along each radial arm
where Psa Pia is then determined. This distance is the stabilized radius of influence.
These values are averaged to determine the average stabilized radius of influence
(Rsa) using equation 2.18:
Rsa Rsa1 Rsa2 … Rsan/n (2.18)
2.15 ORIFICE CALIBRATION PROCEDURE
A standard pitot tube is located in line with the orifice plate metering station. The
procedures in Section 4 of EPA Method 2 is used to determine the average dry gas
volumetric flow rate for at least five flow rates that bracket the expected LFG flow
rates, except in Section 4.0, a standard pitot tube rather than a Type S pitot tube is
used. Method 3C is used to determine the dry molecular weight. It may be necessary
to calibrate more than one orifice meter in order to bracket the LFG flow rates. A cali-
bration curve is constructed by plotting the pressure drops across the orifice meter for
each flow rate versus the average dry gas volumetric flow rate in m3/min. of the gas.
Equation 2.19 is used to calculate the depth affected by the test well. If using
clusters, the average depth of the wells is used for WD. If the value of D is greater
than the depth of the landfill, D is set to equal the landfill depth.
D WD Rsa (2.19)
Equation 2.20 is used to calculate the volume of refuse affected by the test well.
Vt RsaπD (2.20)
Equation 2.21 is used to calculate the mass affected by the test well.
Mt Vt p (2.21)
Lo is modified using equation 2.22 (if required) to account for the non-decomposable
refuse in the landfill.
L o fLo (2.22)
K is solved by iteration using equation 2.23. This process continues until the left
hand side of the equation equals zero, 0.001.
⎡ Q ⎤
Ke kAavg ⎢⎢ F ⎥0
⎥ (2.23)
2
⎣ o Mt
L ′ ⎦
Table 2.5 presents simple diagnosis tool to highlight some common problems
in the operation of the LFG collection and utilization facilities and their probable
solutions.
2.16 ACTIVE AND PASSIVE CONDENSATE COLLECTION
LFG is typically warm and saturated when extracted from the moist environment
of a landfill. As the gas travels through the header pipes, it cools, which reduces its
moisture holding capacity. The quantity of condensate generated in a LFG collection
system is a function of how much LFG is being extracted, the vacuum or pressure
being exerted on the LFG, and the magnitude of the temperature change. To prevent
this water from blocking the header lines, low points in the piping system should
have condensate knock-out tanks. Knock-out tanks are specifically designed to pro-
mote the formation of liquid droplets and to separate these droplets from the gas
flow. On large landfills, condensate collection can be automated with pumps and a
piping system that carries the condensate to a central location where it can be stored
and treated.
The quantity of LFG condensate will vary throughout the year. Typically, dur-
ing the winter, condensate formation will be at its highest. A psychometric chart is a
graphical representation of the thermodynamic properties of moist air. These tables
can also be used to provide information on the amount of moisture in LFG.
Design Considerations. Some reasonable assumptions may be made when esti-
mating condensate generation:
• LFG temperature at the wellhead is the warmest.

• The header pipe is installed below the frost line.
• LFG temperature depends on the distance traveled in the buried header pipe and
the thermal conductivity of the header pipe.
• LFG is completely saturated with water vapor.
Sample Calculation – Condensate Quantity: Estimate the rate of condensate gen-

eration for a section of header pipe of a landfill gas extraction system. The flow
rate within the header pipe is 500 cfm (236 L/s). The system is under a vacuum of
40 inches of water (91.4 kPa). This is equivalent to an absolute pressure of 0.9
Table 2.5 Common LFG Collection System and LFG Recovery Issues
Diagnosis Potential Results Recommended Solution

O2 2.5% v/v • Diluting LFG fuel therefore • Adjust valves and rebalance based
or reducing energy recovery on gas quality
CH4 45% v/v • Increased rates of • Check well head for indications of
differential settlement differential settlement stresses
• High subsurface temperatures • Assess gas composition at both well
• Odour problems monitoring ports to identify potential
• Landfill fires wellhead leaks
CH4 55% v/v • Increased energy content • Adjust valves to apply additional vacuum
per unit LFG recovered and rebalance based on gas quality
• Odour problems • If gas quality and quantity are indicative of
• Vegetation stress additional gas in area, add wells to system
• Increased emissions and
migration
O2 2.5% • Diluting LFG fuel therefore • Adjust valves and rebalance based on gas
and Nitrogen reducing energy recovery quality
15% v/v • Increased rates of • Check well head for indications of
differential settlement differential settlement stresses
• High subsurface • Investigate other potential intrusion
temperatures pathways including well seals, cracks and
• Odour problems fissures in landfill cover and intrusion points
• Landfill fires at other landfill systems such as the leachate
collection system
Vacuum 25″ • Potential air intrusion • Adjust valves and rebalance based on gas
WC with high • Increased rates of quality, as required
relative flow differential settlement • If gas quality and quantity are indicative of
rates • Landfill fires additional gas in area, add wells to system;
• Odour problems potential issue of blocked pipes, flooded
wells, and/or extraction points
Vacuum 10″ • Blockage/breakage of • Check well head for indications of differential
WC at extraction piping settlement stresses
extraction • Condensate issues • Identify and address blocked piping and
points with low • Odour problems potential piping sags that have accumulated
relative flow • Vegetation stress condensate
rates • Increased emissions migration
Unstable • Composition oscillations • Investigate system for potential water bellies
vacuum that may affect a utilization associated with piping sags
readings facility (i.e., surging)
atmospheres. The average ambient temperature of the soil surrounding the header
pipe is 50oF (283K). The solution is as follows:
Assume the gas extracted from the landfill is 50% methane and 50% carbon
dioxide and is at 100% relative humidity. Assume the gas temperature within the
pipe drops from 90oF (305K) as it exits the landfill to 70oF (294K) as it travels
through the header pipe. The water holding capacity of the landfill gas will drop as
the temperature of the gas drops and can be estimated from a psychrometric chart.*
Conc. of water vapor 0.030 kg water/kg landfill gas (at 305K)
Conc. of water vapor 0.015 kg water/kg landfill gas (at 294K)
Subtracting gives:
Potential Condensate 0.015 kg water/kg landfill gas
The ideal gas law equation 2.24 can be used to estimate the density of the gas
passing through the header pipe:
Density PM/RUT (2.24)
where:
P absolute pressure within header pipe
M molecular weight of landfill gas
0.5(molecular weight methane) 0.5(molecular weight of carbon dioxide)
0.5(16) 0.5(44) 30 kg/kg-mole
RU Universal gas constant 0.0821 L-atm/g-mole K
T temperature.
Density PM/RUT [(0.9 atm) (30 kg/kg-mole)]/[(0.0821 L-atm/g-mole K)
(294 K) (1,000 g-mole/kg-mole)]
Density of landfill gas 1.12 103 kg/L
The flow rate times the concentration of the condensate yields the following conden-
sate generation rate:
(0.015 kg water/kg LF gas) (1.16 103 kg/L) (236 L/s) (86,400 s/day)
(1 L/kg) 356 L/day
The condensate can be collected in several large tanks located throughout the header
system or the condensate can be periodically removed from several smaller collection
tanks using pumps and header pipes. In this scenario, the condensate will typically
be stored in a larger tank prior to off-site disposal. The condensate generation rate
must be estimated to determine the condensate pump required. Other design consid-
erations include the following:
• Sumps should be located at lowest elevation with respect to gas header and
branches from which condensate will be collected.
• All condensate pipes should have at least a 3 percent slope (if possible) to pro-
mote drainage.
• Condensate pipe should be run with air supply lines and gas collection lines to pro-
vide better access for maintenance and protection of pipe (if PVC or HDPE is used).
• Most condensate collection system sump pumps use compressed air versus elec-
tric powered. If a compressed air system is used, air lines and air compressors
will need to be sized as part of design process.
• Depending on the amount of condensate and its characteristics, pretreatment
may be necessary prior to discharge. Several skid mounted treatment systems
are commercially available.
Figure 2.19 Typical Condensate Knockout System
The removal of condensate from the pipeline is necessary to prevent blockages and
restriction of gas flow. This can be achieved by use of condensate knock out drums
(Figure 2.19). The knock out drums are used when a high condensate volume is
expected or when the levels of groundwater or leachate are expected to rise above the
gas collection pipe network. The knock out drum consists of a drum which allows
expansion of the gas flow with a resultant drop out of condensate which may be
collected within the drum and discharged or pumped to a suitable reception point.
Where condensate is collected, it should be diverted to the leachate collection system.
2.17 LANDFILL LEACHATE TREATMENT
The water or liquid that seeps through the landfill extracts the soluble dissolved or
suspended materials to form leachate. The main composition of leachate is water,
and organic and inorganic chemicals from the decomposition of the waste. The lea-
chates are a potential hazard from landfills and can create groundwater contamina-
tion, health problems and impact the environment. Therefore leachate treatment and
containment is important. Figure 2.20 shows the process of leachate generation and
Figure 2.21 shows the leachate formation process.
Figure 2.20 Schematic of leachate generation
Figure 2.21 Schematic of leachate formation
The factors which affect the composition of landfill leachate are:
1 Type of wastes. Such as biodegradable or non-biodegradable, Soluble or insolu-

ble, Organic or inorganic, Liquid or solid, Toxic or nontoxic.
2 Landfill conditions. The pH, temperature, degree of ongoing decomposition,
moisture content, climate, and landfill age.
3 Characteristics of entering water. The pH, temperature, and amount.
4 The direction of groundwater flow. Groundwater moves slowly and con-
tinuously through the open spaces in soil and rock. If a landfill contaminates
groundwater, a plume of contamination will occur. Wells in that plume will be
contaminated, but other wells, even those close to the landfill, may be unaffected
if they are not in the plume.
Figure 2.22 Typical leachate monitoring system
The amount of leachate produced is directly linked to the amount of precipitation

around the landfill. A simplified and empirical equation 2.25 is often used in order
to calculate the production of landfill leachate.
L P – T – E – SR – RS BP (2.25)
where:
L Leachate Production
P Precipitation
T Transpiration
E Evaporation
SR Surface Run-off
RS Retention and moisture Storage
BP Change in the moisture content due to Biochemical Processes.
Figure 2.22 shows a typical leachate monitoring system at a landfill.
The leachate generation varies widely in quantity and characteristics from one land-
fill to another. Such a variable nature along with other factors make the applicability
of a treatment method highly dependent on leachate characteristics and tolerance of
the method against changes in leachate quality.
The factors which affect the choice of leachate treatment are:
• The anticipated flow rate that will require treatment. This mainly depends on
the water inflow into the landfill.
• Composition of leachate at source which is carried out in an equipped
laboratory.
• Discharge composition required by the regulatory authorities.
Figure 2.23 Leachate treatment options on-site treatment
Figure 2.23 shows various leachate treatment options.

Landfill leachates from old sites are usually highly contaminated with ammo-
nia containing fractions of biodegradable refuse substrates. In general, leachates may
contain large amounts of organic matter as well as ammonia-nitrogen, heavy metals,
chlorinated organic and inorganic salts.
The major challenge in treating landfill leachate consists in the high variability
of the leachate and high amounts of toxic compounds. The characterization of lea-
chate prior to planning the treatment is essential in order to choose the most suitable
treatment option. A wide variety of technologies are currently available, but all of
them have some drawbacks associated.
2.17.1 Physico-chemical treatment

Coagulation-flocculation process has been successfully used to treat landfill leachate.
However, this process has the disadvantage of producing high amounts of toxic sludge
and increase the concentration of metals in the liquid phase. The cost of the coagu-
lants and the sensitivity to pH are also considered disadvantages of this process.
Chemical precipitation has the advantage of the low cost of the precipitants and
the simplicity of the process. However, the problems mentioned for the coagulation,
except the coagulant cost, are also applicable to this treatment.
The activated carbon adsorption has very high efficiencies but the need of regen-
eration of the activated carbon has an elevated cost.
Chemical oxidation has been used to treat landfill leachate. The majority use
simple ozonation, but for higher efficiencies, combinations of oxidants have been
employed. The major drawback of this process is the high electrical energy demand,
leading to an increase in the treatment cost.
The electrochemical treatment is also used to treat leachates. However the high
cost of the treatment and the decomposition of some key components make it a less
viable treatment for landfill leachates.
Figure 2.24 Typical scheme for leachate treatment
Ultrafiltration, nanofiltration and reverse osmosis are some of the most used
technologies for landfill leachates. Reverse osmosis is a promising technology for
landfill leachate. But there are negative aspects concerning the reverse osmosis.
The membrane fouling implicates an extensive pre-treatment or chemical cleaning,
and this can shorten their lifetime. Also, the filtration generates large volumes of
concentrated contaminants which are highly toxic waste. The issue with filtration
technology is that the contaminants are not degraded but concentrated, and the
waste generated has to be treated elsewhere.
Figure 2.24 shows a typical leachate treatment system.
2.17.2 Biological treatment

The biological treatments offer many advantages as low operational costs, the pro-
duction of more valuable sludge, and the possibility of using micro-organisms for
degradation of a wide range of contaminants. The use of biological treatment tech-
nologies in landfill leachate poses a great challenge due to the leachate characteris-
tics. However, new developments in this field are turning the biological treatment
processes more robust and capable.
The biological treatment of landfill leachate may be divided into three main treat-
ments: leachate transfer, aerobic treatment and anaerobic treatment. The leachate
transfer consists in moving the leachates to other treatment facilities, like domestic
sewage treatment plants, or recycling it back into the landfill where it will be treated
by the microbial community present. These two processes are some of the simplest
processes but have some problems. To avoid these problems, specific treatment plants
should be designed for treating the leachates, either aerobic or anaerobic.
The most common wastewater treatment plants use aerobic treatment due to its
simplicity and efficiency, being the aerobic activated sludge the most used technique.
The activated sludge consists in the use of biological flocs containing inorganic
matter, organic matter and microorganisms that are responsible for the degradation
of the contaminants. Due to the landfill leachate highly variable composition, high
ammonium levels and low biodegradability, this process is less suited.
Another aerobic treatment method is the aerated lagoons. However, the use of
aerated lagoons requires a big area available for its construction and problems as
odors, algae blooms or insect infestation may occur in this system.
Trickling filters make use of the biofilm growth on a fixed substrate used to treat
water that runs through it. The higher resistance of the biological community makes
this system more suitable for treating landfill leachate.
The anaerobic treatment consists on generating the optimum conditions for
anaerobic organisms to thrive. The anaerobic treatment has the advantage of pro-
ducing fewer solids, efficiently removing BOD and generating methane which may
be used for energy production. The low ammonium removal rates make this system
not suitable for treating landfill leachates.
REFERENCES
AIT. (2004) State of the Art Review Landfill Leachate Treatment.

Bastos, J.A. (2010) Landfill leachate treatment: a new photobioreactor technology.
Environmental Protection Agency Ireland. (1999) EPAI Landfill Manuals – Landfill
Restoration and Aftercare.
Environmental Protection Agency Ireland. (2000) EPAI Landfill Manuals – Landfill Site
Design.
Monitoring, 2nd Edition.
Environmental Protection Agency Ireland. (2011) EPAI Management of Low levels of Landfill
Gas.
Enviroserv waste management. (2010) LFG to Electricity Project at the Shongweni
landfill site, draft basic assessment report Report No. S0388/01.
Gardner, R. S. (2007) Robeson County Landfill Gas Management Plan.
International Solid Waste Association. (2005) ISWA Field Procedures Handbook for the
Operation of Landfill Biogas Systems.
Kostova, I. (2006) Leachate from sanitary landfills – origin, characteristics, treatment,
University of Architecture, Borovetz.
Kurian Joseph, R. Nagendran and K. Palanivelu. Open dumps to sustainable landfills, Centre
for Environmental Studies, Anna University.
Landgas Technologies. (2011) Protocol for LFG Flow Determination.
SCS Engineers. (2008) Technologies and Management Options for Reducing Greenhouse Gas
Emissions From Landfills, California Integrated Waste Management Board.
SCS Engineers. (n.d) Basic landfill bioreactor kinetic model.
SPREP. (2010) A practical guide to landfill management in Pacific island countries and territo-
ries: Volume 1 – Inland-based waste disposal, JICA.
US Environmental Protection Agency. (2005) Guidance for Evaluating LFG Emissions from
Closed or Abandoned Facilities, EPA-600/R-05/123a.
US Environmental Protection Agency. (2007) Field Test Measurements at Five Municipal Solid
Waste Landfills with LFG Control Technology, Final Report EPA/600/R-07/043.
US Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d) USEPA, Method-2E: Determination of Landfill
Gas Production Flow Rate.
Chapter 3
Landfill gas modeling
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The planning and design of LFG to energy systems require prediction of the amount
of LFG generated from a landfill. LFG modeling is a common method for predict-
ing LFG generation from a landfill site. The prediction of LFG generation using an
LFG model at the planning and design stage of the project must be undertaken with
appropriate input parameters and field data.
A LFG prediction model is a tool that provides an estimation of LFG and meth-
ane as a function of time from a particular volume of waste. The purpose of LFG
model is to describe in simple terms the complex changes during decomposition of
organic waste in a landfill. It is based on the continuity of mass. Figure 3.1 shows
the continuity of mass principle.
The LFG models developed using the data from laboratory scale investigations
and pilot plant studies needs to be validated against data from actual field conditions
of the landfill sites.
The validation of LFG Models can be carried out by monitoring a particular land-
fill over a certain period of time interval, for example 30–50 years, which can give a
fairly good idea of LFG generation. However, this information is required by the land-
fill operators in advance to make economic and environmental decisions regarding set-
ting up and operating LFG recovery and utilization systems.
When formulating an LFG model for its replication under actual field condi-
tions, there are a number of systematic approaches that needs to be addressed as
briefly described below:
• Validity: The application of microbial kinetics, based on population studies of

microbial growth at lab scale.
• Verification: The relationship of LFG model over the life-time of a given landfill
and comparison with real time data.
• Calibration: Using selective measurements from a landfill to vary the input
parameters for better LFG predictions.
• Location: Two or three coordinates
• Condition: Moisture content, temperature, waste composition, gas density and
its composition, microbial population
• Time: related to changes in location and condition, material and energy flow,
organic synthesis or decay.
Figure 3.1 Continuity of Mass Principle
Generally the LFG models use simple empirical functions for the rate of waste
decomposition. They take into consideration microbial growth and decay only; and
are generally zero and first order kinetic models. The LFG models are based on site
specific input data and model parameters. The advantage of the LFG models are that
they provide a quick estimate of the methane generation estimation once the empiri-
cal constants have been determined.
The key LFG model parameters are the ultimate methane potential, the time period
and methane rate constant. The complex LFG models take into consideration the
different waste fractions and assume that the waste placement is either instantaneous
or a time lag of waste placement and methane generation. However under practical
field conditions, waste is placed continuously over several years in varying annual
quantities. This can have a significant impact on the LFG emission.
The LFG model results and actual field measurements differ due to the following
reasons:
• LFG Models do not precisely depict the actual landfill performance

• Site conditions do not correlate with the assumed model inputs
• Waste is assumed to be placed instantaneously and methane generation is assumed
to start soon after waste placement
• The physicochemical composition of waste is assumed to be homogeneous
• Inaccurate site input data
• Recoverable methane depends on the number of gas wells installed at the landfill
• All the generated LFG is assumed to be extracted or flared.
3.2 CONCEPTUALIZATION OF LFG MODEL
Most of the LFG models irrespective of their complexity, type or validation have
explicit outcomes (Lamborn, 2010). They are:
1 Ultimate Methane Potential

2 LFG generation time
3 Shape of LFG generation curve.
Ultimate Methane Potential: The ultimate methane potential is the total amount of LFG
that can be obtained from a landfill. This estimate is based upon assumptions about the
breakdown of the waste within the landfill. In the early models, it was assumed that
there would be a complete fractional conversion of the waste organics into methane.
This gave values of methane generation as high as 400 l/kg of dry waste at STP.
Landfill gas modeling 79
Landfill gas flow rate

18
16
Gas flow rate 106 m3/yr
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Years
Figure 3.2 First Order Model prediction of Gas Generation Rate
LFG Generation Time: For different models, the LFG generation time can be con-
sidered at with respect to the different aerobic and anaerobic phases within the landfill.
The generation time, is the time it takes for part or all of the LFG to generate from
the landfill. One of the useful indicators is the t1/2 (half-life) or time from placement to
when half the LFG has been generated.
Shape of LFG Generation Curve: The accurate prediction of LFG generation is
not possible either by using simple or complex LFG models. A first order model gen-
eration rate curve is shown in Figure 3.2.
Most models include a time lag between the placement of waste and waste
decomposition. The LFG models then show an increasing LFG generation rate.
A decreasing LFG phase is shown, as the quantity of degradable carbon reduction.
The quantity of methane generated from landfill is estimated using a carbon mass
balance approach. Methane is generated by the decay of the degradable organic car-
bon stock in the landfill site and reflects waste disposal activity over many decades.
The concept of the carbon stock model approach is illustrated in Figure 3.3.
3.3 BENEFITS OF LFG MODELING
The LFG modeling is used for sizing LFG collection, flaring, and energy utilization
systems; Projections of LFG emissions and evaluation of potential LFG emission
reduction and energy uses; and Monitoring and evaluation of regulatory compliance
for landfill sites.
3.3.1 Sizing LFG extraction systems

In order to size the LFG collection, combustion and utilization systems for a par-
ticular landfill, LFG modeling is an effective tool to appropriately size the LFG well
fields and the associated LFG collection, treatment and energy recovery equipments.
Figure 3.3 Carbon stock model flow chart
The design of LFG extraction system, piping system, mechanical equipments, and
flaring system is based on the total amount of LFG that is generated rather than the
amount of methane generation. It is a general practice to assume that the LFG gener-
ated consists of 50 percent methane and 50 percent carbon dioxide so that the total
LFG produced is equal to twice the quantity of methane.
3.3.2 Projections of LFG emissions

There are several models for estimating LFG emissions and for developing an LFG
generation curve in order to predict LFG generation over a certain period of time. The
total LFG yield and the flow rate of LFG can slightly vary according to the different
LFG models but the key input parameter for all the LFG models is the quantity of
organic waste considered. The other input parameters can also vary depending on the
LFG model used, and are influenced by several variables including those influencing
LFG generation, uncertainties in the available information for the landfill, and how the
management of LFG extraction impacts LFG generation due to air infiltration. One of
the key factors is the assumed lag time between the placement of waste and the begin-
ning of the anaerobic decomposition or methanogenic phase within the waste mass.
The heterogeneous mass of waste and time-variable feature of landfills creates
difficulties in data collection from a landfill site. The quality of LFG model out-
put is dependent on the input data which generally requires certain assumptions in
order to estimate waste quantities and composition. A simple LFG model requires
few parameters that can be easily assigned according to landfill site conditions. The
accuracy of projection of LFG emissions from a LFG model depends on the degree
of accuracy required, the reliability of the input data, the experience in analyzing the
data, and the degree of similarity between the landfill site being modeled and other
sites which have already been modeled.
3.3.3 Monitoring and regulatory compliance

Several LFG models have been developed by various researchers and companies.
Most models project LFG generation over time from land filled wastes. The yearly
tonnage is typically used as a unit batch, and therefore the models predict LFG gen-
eration for a specific mass of waste land filled in a given year. Total LFG generation
from a landfill is simply the sum of yearly outputs computed over time by apply-
ing the model to the yearly tonnage of waste. Typically, these models include a time
interval before generation starts (lag time) and, depending on the model, intervals of
rising, constant, and falling generation.
First-order kinetic models are frequently used to estimate LFG generation from
a landfill. These models are tailored to specific landfills by a number of assumptions
about conditions at the landfill site. The first-order decay model is widely accepted and
used by industry and regulatory agencies. The model formulation does not tend to vary,
but the assignment and definition of inputs, especially for methane generation potential
and rate constant, can be varied and often are termed different models.
The LFG models used for LFG estimation and projection should be subject to
thorough sensitivity analysis in order to determine a range of potential outcomes
and analyze key parameters that have the greatest influence on LFG emission.
The analysis of sensitive parameters can be used for future improvement in LFG
emission projections. Given the heterogeneous nature of the land filled waste and the
limitations in accurately gathering the input data, it is appropriate to use a range of
values and a sensitivity assessment be considered for the LFG generation assessment.
Using the upper and lower limits of a LFG generation versus time profile based on
the likely conditions within a landfill, it is possible to assign values and design inputs
that are suitable for use in assessing the LFG potential for a landfill site.
3.4 CLASSIFICATION OF LFG MODELS
This section provides an overview of various LFG prediction models. The LFG mod-
els can be broadly grouped into Simple empirical Models and Complex Models.
Further classification includes zero-order, first-order, second-order, multiphase, or a
combination of orders. The more common models are listed below for reference.
1 Zero-Order Model
2 Constant Rate Model
3 Simple First-Order Model
4 Modified First-Order Model
5 First Order Multiphase Model
6 Second-Order Model
7 Scholl Canyon Model
8 Triangular Model
9 Palos Verdes kinetic Model
10 Sheldon Arleta Model
11 GASFILL Model
12 U.S. EPA LandGEM Model Version 3.02
13 LFGGEN Model
14 EPER Germany
15 EPER France
16 IPCC Model 2006
17 TNO Model
18 Afvalzorg Model
19 Colombia Model Version 1.0
20 CALMIM Model
21 Philippines Model Version 1.0
22 Thailand Model Version 1.0
23 Ukraine Model Version 1.0
24 China Model Version 1.0
25 Mexico Model Version 2.0
26 Ecuador Model Version 1.0
27 Central America Model Version 1.0
28 GasSIM Model
29 RET Screen LFG Model
30 EMCON MGM Model
31 IGNIG Model
32 Finite Element Model.
3.4.1 Zero-order model

In a zero-order model, landfill gas formation is constant over time, and thus no
effect of the age of the waste age is incorporated. This is shown in Figure 3.4.
Landfill gas flow rate

30
25
Gas flow rate 106 m3/yr
20
15
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Years
Figure 3.4 Zero Order Model Prediction

The zero-order model can be represented by equation 3.1.

ML0
Q for t0 t t f (3.1)
(t0 t f )
where:
Q methane generation rate in volume per time;
M waste in place, mass;
L0 methane generation potential in volume per mass;
t time;
t0 lag time; and
tf time to end point of generation.
The data that is required by this model is the methane yield potential, the mass
of waste and the duration of the methane generation.
3.4.2 Constant rate model

This model considers a time lag. After this, there is an instantaneous rise in LFG gen-
eration at a constant rate and once the waste is exhausted, the LFG rate decreases to
zero. This is shown in Figure 3.5.
The constant rate model is given by equation 3.2:
dC
k (3.2)
dt
where
t time
C amount of methane or the amount of substrate
k a zero order decay rate constant.
Landfill gas generation

Gas flow rate
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Years
Figure 3.5 Constant Rate Model

3.4.3 First-order model

The effect of age of the waste on LFG production is incorporated in the first-order
model. For each unit amount of waste, LFG generation rates decline exponentially.
This model can be represented by equation 3.3.
Q ML0kek(tt0) (3.3)
where:
k first-order rate constant in reciprocal time.
The model shown in the above equation requires a number of parameters, the meth-
ane yield potential, the mass of waste and the decay rate. The modifications of this model
are used extensively such as the Scholl Canyon Model and the US EPA LandGEM model.
3.4.4 Modified first-order model

This model assumes that LFG generation is initially low and then rises to a maxi-
mum before declining exponentially. The equation of this model is represented by
equation 3.4:
ks ⎡
Q ML0 1 es(tt0 ) ⎤⎦⎥ kek(tt0 ) (3.4)
s ⎣⎢
where:
s first-order rise phase rate constant in reciprocal time.
3.4.5 Multiphase model

A multiphase model is based on the first order exponential model. It distinguishes
different fractions of the waste with different rates of biodegradation. It predicts
higher LFG generation rates in the first years and prolonged formation at the end,
and it has the form of equation 3.5.
Q ML0 ⎡⎢⎣ Fr kr ekr (t t0 ) Fs ks eks (t t0 ) ⎤⎦⎥ (3.5)
where:
kr first-order decay constant for rapidly decomposable waste in reciprocal time;
ks first-order decay constant for slowly decomposable waste in reciprocal time;
Fr fraction of rapidly decomposable waste; and
Fs fraction of slowly decomposable waste.
The LFG generation rate curve for this model is shown in Figure 3.6. This graph
shows the individual graphs for nine years of waste placement and then the total LFG
generation rate gained from summing the LFG generation rate for each year of waste
placement.
The model shown in the above equation requires a number of parameters: the meth-
ane yield potential, the mass of waste, the fraction of rapidly and slowly decomposable
waste and the decay rates for rapidly and slowly decomposable waste.
Figure 3.6 Multi-Phase First Order Model Gas Generation Rate
3.4.6 Second-order model

The second-order model uses a large number of first-order reactions with different
rates to describe the complex reactions during degradation of waste. Being a complex
system of different reactions, LFG generation can be modeled using the second-order
kinetics model. The form of a second order model is represented by equation 3.6:
dC
kC 2 (3.6)
dt
where
t time
k an assumed second order rate constant.
3.4.7 Scholl Canyon model

The Scholl Canyon model is the most commonly used model for determining LFG gener-
ation. It assumes that the lag phase is negligible, LFG generation peaks immediately, and
first-order kinetic rates apply. This model does not account for a lag phase, nor does it
consider any limiting factors like moisture. The derivation of this model, for a unit mass
placed, is described in equation 3.7 through 3.11.
dG
kG (3.7)
dt
where:
G volume of methane remaining to be produced after time t.
Integrating equation 3.7 gives
G G0ekt (3.8)
V G0 G G0(1 ekt) (3.9)
where:
G0 volume of methane remaining to be produced at t 0; and
V cumulative methane volume produced prior to time t.
Differentiating equation 3.9
dV dG
KG KG0 ekt (3.10)
dt dt
where:
kG0 peak generation rate which occurs at time zero in units of volume per time.
The total generation rate is the summation of the generation rates of the sub
masses, as in equation 3.11.
n
Q kG ∑ ri kiG0i ek t
i i
(3.11)
t 1
where:
n number of years of waste placement;
ri fraction of total refuse in submass i;
ki gas generation rate constant for submass i, in reciprocal time;
G0i volume of methane remaining to be produced at t 0 for submass i; and
ti age in years of the waste section placed in the ith year.
The model assumes that a constant fraction of biodegradable material is degraded
per unit time. The shape of the model is shown in Figure 3.7.
3.4.8 Stoichiometric model

The stoichiometric model is based on the stoichiometric reaction, in which the reac-
tants in the waste are represented by an empirical chemical formula, and the prod-
ucts include methane and carbon dioxide. The theoretical CH4 generation capacity
(L0) can be determined by a stoichiometric method. The biodegradation processes of
the organic biodegradable fraction to form LFG is described by equation 3.12.
CaHbOcNd nH2O → xCH4 yCO2 wNH3 zC5H7O2N energy (3.12)

Figure 3.7 Scholl Canyon Model
However, this type of model is of limited use because it provides an estimate of

the total amount of gas generated and does not provide information on the rate of
generation. It also requires knowledge of the chemical composition of the waste.
Another limitation of the model is associated with the stoichiometric estimates
of waste fractions which are not biodegradable (lignin, plastics), the moisture
limitations and also toxins some fraction of the waste which is not accessible (e.g.,
plastic bags).
3.4.9 Triangular model

In the triangular model the biodegradable waste is sorted into two groups: Waste that
decomposes rapidly (from 3 months to 6 years) and Waste that decomposes slowly
(up to 25 years).
The decomposition of waste peaks within first two years and then gradually
reduces. The annual rates of decomposition for fast and slow biodegradable waste are
based on a triangular model. The maximum rate of LFG generation occurs during the
1st and 5th year from the start of LFG generation for the rapidly and slowly decompos-
able waste respectively. The LFG generation is assumed to start at the end of the first
year of the waste deposition. The model assumes a linearly rising first phase followed by
a linearly decreasing second phase of generation rates (Refer Figure 3.8). Tchobanoglous
et al. (1993) further assumed a 1 yr lag prior to commencement of methane generation
and separate triangular curves for rapidly and slowly decomposable wastes. The total
rate is found by summing the rates from the individual components at a given time.
Total LFG generation (m3/kg) ½(years of LFG generation) (peak LFG
generation rate (m3/ kg/yr)).
The total quantity of LFG generated from the disposed waste after a year can be
estimated using equation 3.13:
1 (3.13)
L0 t f Qsp
2
Total gas production (m3)
h 9/10h
4/5h 8/10h
7/10h
3/5h 6/10h
5/10h
2/5h 4/10h
3/10h
1/5h 2/10h
1/10h
1 6 16
Year after placement
Figure 3.8 Triangular model for LFG generation
where:
Qsp specific peak rate of methane generation, in volume per mass-time; and
tf time to complete degradation.
Rearranging:
2L0 (3.14)
Qsp
tf
The key factor which limits the use of this model is the moisture content. The opti-
mum moisture content for decomposition of organic waste varies between 50–60%.
However, in many landfills, the moisture is either insufficient or not homogeneously
distributed. When the moisture content is low, the LFG generation curve is linear
and extends to longer time periods.
3.4.10 Palos Verdes model

The Palos Verdes Model uses first-order kinetics with the following assumptions:
• Two-phase generation,
• LFG generation rate increases exponentially in the first phase,
• LFG generation rate decreases exponentially in the second phase,
• Equal volume of LFG is generated in the first and second phase,
• The peak rate occurs at the transition between the increasing first and decreasing
second phases,
• The organic fraction is composed of readily biodegradable, moderately decom-
posable organics, and refractory organics, and
• The ultimate yield for each organic fraction is based on the fraction’s corre-
sponding fraction of the MSW times the ultimate yield of the waste.
The ultimate yield of the organic fraction can be represented by equation 3.15.
Pj
L0 j L0 (3.15)
100
where:
L0j methane generation potential of the organic component j;
Pj component j’s percentage of total organic fraction; and,
L0 methane generation potential of the whole waste.
Equations 3.16 and 3.17 are used for this model.
dV
k1V for 0 t
t1/ 2 (1st phase) (3.16)
dt
dV
k1 k2G for t t1/ 2 (2nd phase) (3.17)
dt
where:
V volume of gas produced prior to time t;
G volume of gas remaining to be produced after time t; and
k1, k2 first and second phase gas production rate constants in reciprocal time.
Integrating the first phase equation gives:
V V0ek1t (3.18)
where: V0 initial gas volume produced.

The first phase equation becomes applicable when gas production reaches 1 percent
of the ultimate yield (i.e., V0 G0/100. Integrating the second phase equation, knowing
that at t1/2, the limit for G is G0/2, and at time t, the limit is G, gives equation 3.19.
G0 k (t t )
G e 2 1/ 2 (3.19)
2
Since V G0 G, then
⎡ 1 ⎤
V G0 ⎢1 ek2 (t t1 / 2 ) ⎥
⎢⎣ 2 ⎥⎦ (3.20)
Drawbacks of the model are that the methane yield of the individual waste cat-
egories is not considered and that the assumption that half the gas is produced in
each phase may not be accurate.
Figure 3.9 Sheldon Arleta Model for LFG generation
3.4.11 Sheldon Arleta model

This model is similar to that of the Palos Verdes Model as discussed by EMCON
(1980). The model assumes a rising exponential curve in the first stage, followed by
a decreasing exponential phase in the second phase. The maximum rate occurs when
half the gas has been produced; however, it occurs at a time equal to 35 percent
of the total generation period. The two categories of waste are considered in this
model are
1 readily decomposable with a half-life of 9 yr and total production time of

26 yr, and
2 slowly decomposable with half-life of 16 yr and production time of 103 yr.
The assumption that half the gas is generated by the time of the peak rate may
not be accurate. Limiting factors are not considered either. The general shape of the
model is shown in Figure 3.9.
3.4.12 GASFILL model

The GASFILL model was developed by Findikakis, et al. (1988) based on research at
the Mountain View Landfill. The model includes a lag phase, a first stage of a rising
hyperbolic branch, and a second phase of decreasing exponential branch. It is assumed
that carbon dioxide is produced in the same molar quantities as methane and that the
waste is composed of readily biodegradable, moderately slowly biodegradable, and
slowly biodegradable components. The equations used in the model are:
Qj 0 for t
t0j (3.21)
Qj coth αj(t2j t) coth αj(t2j t0j) for t0j t

t1j (3.22)
Qj Qpjeλj(t–t1j) (3.23)
where:
Qj methane generation rate of waste component j in volume per time;
t0j time when methane gas generation starts for component j;
t1j time of peak generation for component j;
t2j time at which the hyperbolic branch of the peak asymptotically approaches
infinity;
Qpj peak methane generation rate in volume per time; and
αj, λj constants.
Further the model assumes a time of almost 2 yr for the beginning of LFG gen-
eration for readily biodegradable waste, but a time of less than a year was used for
moderately and slowly biodegradable waste.
3.4.13 LandGEM model

LandGEM provides an automated estimation tool for quantifying air emissions from
municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills. The model is based on a first order decom-
position rate equation. The software enables the user to estimate emissions over time
using the following:
• Landfill design capacity.
• Amount of waste in place or the annual acceptance rate.
• Methane generation rate (k), and potential methane generation capacity (L0).
• Concentration of total and speciated nonmethane organic compounds (NMOCs).
• Years the landfill has been accepting waste.
• Whether the landfill has been used for disposal of hazardous waste.
Defaults for k and L0 are suggested although site-specific values can be developed
through field test measurements and then used in the software to develop more accu-
rate estimates. The program is designed to model and store multiple landfill studies.
Within a landfill study, reports and graphs of the estimated emissions can be produced
for any particular pollutant including NMOCs (total and speciated), methane, and
carbon dioxide. Given the intended use of the software, there are two sets of defaults.
Equation 3.24 can be used if the actual year-to-year solid waste acceptance rate
is unknown:
n
MNMOC 2kL0 Mi (ekti )(CNMOC )(3.6 × 109 ) (3.24)
i1
where:
MNMOC total NMOC emission rate from the landfill, megagrams per year
over years 1 to n
k methane generation rate constant, year1
L0 methane generation potential, cubic meters per megagram solid waste
Mi mass of solid waste in the ith section, megagrams
ti age of the ith section, years
CNMOC concentration of NMOC, parts per million by volume as hexane
3.6 109 conversion factor
The mass of nondegradable solid waste may be subtracted from the total mass of
solid waste in a particular section of the landfill when calculating the value for Mi.
Equation 3.25 can be used if the actual year-to-year solid waste acceptance rate
is known:
MNMOC 2L0R(ekc – ekt) (CNMOC)(3.6 109) (3.25)
where:
MNMOC mass emission rate of NMOC, megagrams per year
L0 methane generation potential, cubic meters per megagram solid waste
R average annual acceptance rate, megagrams per year
k methane generation rate constant, year1
t age of landfill, years
CNMOC concentration of NMOC, parts per million by volume as hexane
c time since closure, years. For active landfill c 0 and ekc 1
3.6 109 conversion factor.
The value of L0 is most directly proportional to the waste’s cellulose content.
The theoretical CH4 generation rate increases as the cellulose content of the refuse
increases. If the landfill conditions are not favorable to methanogenic activity, there
would be a reduction in the theoretical value of L0. This implies that the theoretical
(potential) value of CH4 generation may never be obtained. The obtainable value
of L0 for the refuse (or specific waste components) can be estimated by performing
biodegradability tests on the waste under conditions of temperature, moisture, nutrient
content, and pH likely to exist in the landfill. Theoretical and obtainable L0 values
have been reported in literature to range from approximately 6 to 270 m3 CH4 per
metric ton of waste for municipal land-fills.
The LandGEM modeling method relies on a tiered approach where default data
are initially used, and field test data for a specific landfill are developed and used to
develop more accurate estimates.
The LandGEM model assumes a one-year time lag between placement of MSW
and LFG generation. LFG has however been detected in a few as 6 months after waste
has been landfilled. The model also assumes that for each unit of waste, LFG genera-
tion decreases exponentially (after the one-year time lag) as the organic fraction of the
landfilled MSW is exhausted by microbes.
The model can be downloaded from: www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/products.html.
3.4.14 LFGGEN model

The LFGGEN model, short for landfill gas generation model, was developed at
the University of Central Florida. The assumptions for this model are a combina-
tion of the assumptions made by Findikakis, et al. (1988), and Tchobanoglous,
et al. (1993), which are:
• Methanogenesis is preceded by a lag phase;
• The first stage of methanogenesis is represented by a linearly increasing genera-
tion rate; and
• The second stage of methanogenesis is represented by first-order kinetics, with
an exponentially decreasing generation rate.
The model has some additional features, which are:
• Methods of analysis provided are

(1) the theoretical stoichiometric generation of methane and carbon dioxide,
(2) biodegradability factors,
(3) biochemical methane potential (BMP),
(4) and the U.S. EPA Tier 3;
• Biodegradable solid waste is divided into eleven categories;
• Moisture is classified as wet, moderate, and dry; and
• Biodegradability rates are classified as rapid, moderate, and slow. Biodegradability
rates are also a function of moisture.
This model includes a time delay t0 to establish anaerobic conditions, followed

by a linear increase to a specific peak rate, QSp, that occurs at the end of year, tp.
After the peak, the generation rate decreases exponentially from the peak to a nearly
zero rate at the end of the prescribed biodegradation time, t99, which is the time for
the gas generation rate to drop to one percent of the peak rate.
The model assumes that the characteristic times t0, tp, and t99, vary with the type
of waste and moisture condition. The specific peak rate QSp is a function of these
times and of methane potential as shown in equation 3.26.
2k
QSp L0 (3.26)
k(t p t0 ) 2
where:
QSp specific peak methane rate in cubic meters per year-kilogram;
L0 methane generation potential in cubic meters per kilogram;
t0 lag time in years;
tp time to peak rate in years; and
k biodegradation rate constant in reciprocal years.
For the second phase of methanogenesis, the biodegradation constant k is related
to the assumed times as shown in equation 3.27.
Ln 0.01 4.6052

k (3.27)
t99 t p t99 t p
where:
t99 time for gas rate to reach 1 percent of QSp in years
The equations describing the annual methane production per unit of MSW are
Qsj 0 0 t
taj (3.28)
QSpj ⎡⎢ t t0 j (t 1) t0 j ⎤
⎥
(3.29)
QSj ⎢ ⎥ t0 j t t pj
2 ⎢ t pj toj t pj t0 j ⎥⎦
⎣
QSpj ⎡ k [t t ]
QSj ⎢ e j pj ekj [t 1t pj ] ⎤⎥ t pj t
t99 (3.30)
2 ⎣ ⎦
where:
Qsj specific methane generation rate in cubic meters per year-kilogram of com-
ponent j;
QSpj specific peak methane rate in cubic meters per year-kilogram of component j;
t time from placement of MSW in years; and
j subscript referring to MSW component j.
Multiplying the annual average methane rate for each MSW component by the
quantity of the waste component and summing gives the total methane produced for
a given year and a given lift as given in equation 3.31.
Q ΣQSj Mj (3.31)
where:
Q methane generation rate in cubic meters per year;
QSj specific methane generation rate for MSW component j in cubic meters per
kilogram-year; and
Mj mass of MSW component j in kilogram.
3.4.15 EMCON MGM model

This model includes a time lag due to the aerobic phase and a constant rate rise fol-
lowed by an exponential decay. Waste is subdivided into fractions and generation
rates are calculated for each fraction. The form for each section of the model is given
by equations 3.32 and 3.33:
1st Section Initial period of no gas generation (lag time)
2nd Section Rate Ax b (3.32)
3rd Section Rate Aekt (3.33)
The main inputs for the model are the amount of waste, composition and moisture
content, lag time and conversion time. The model assumes that the waste is divided into
three classes of material: readily, moderately and slowly biodegradable.
3.4.16 TNO model

The effect of depletion of carbon in the waste through time is accounted for in a first
order model. LFG formation from a certain amount of waste is assumed to decay
exponentially in time. The first order model can be described mathematically by
equation 3.34:
αt 1.87 AC0k1ek1t (3.34)

where:
αt landfill gas production at a given time [m3LFG.y1]
dissimilation factor 0.58 []
1.87 conversion factor [m3LFG.kgCdegraded1]
A amount of waste in place [Mg]
C0 amount of organic carbon in waste [kg C.Mg waste1]
k1 degradation rate constant 0.094 [y1]
t time elapsed since depositing [y]
The TNO model is derived assuming certain amounts of degradable organic carbon.
For the best results, preferably the same waste composition should be used when
using this model to predict LFG production on other sites. It makes the model less
dependent on errors in estimates of waste composition.
To calculate methane production, the LFG production obtained with the TNO
model is multiplied with the methane concentration of 50% and volumetric mass of
714 gCH4.m3. To obtain an emission estimate the recovered quantity of methane
with the recovery system is subtracted from the calculated production and a stand-
ard oxidation factor of 10% is applied.
3.4.17 Multi-phase model (Afvalzorg)

Different types of waste contain different fractions of organic matter that degrade at
different rates. The advantage of a multi-phase model is that the typical waste com-
position can be taken into account. In the Afvalzorg multi-phase model eight waste
categories and three fractions are distinguished. For each fraction LFG production
is calculated separately. The multi-phase model is a first order model and can be
described mathematically by equation 3.35:
3
αt ∑ cAC0 j k1,i ek1,i t
i 1
(3.35)
where:
dissimilation factor []*
i waste fraction with degradation rate k1,i [kgi.kgwaste1]**
c conversion factor [m3LFG.kgOMdegraded1]***
A amount of waste in place [Mg]
C0 amount of organic matter in waste [kgOM.Mg waste-1]
k1,i degradation rate constant of fraction i [y1]*
*: and k values for rapidly, moderately and slowly degradable waste fractions for
Nauerna, Braambergen and Wieringermeer.
**: Only rapidly, moderately and slowly degradable organic matter has been taken
into consideration. The total organic matter content is higher than the sum of these
three categories due to the presence of organic matter that is not considered biodegrad-
able under anaerobic conditions. Examples are humic substances, lignin and plastics.
***: Minimum and maximum values of 0.7 and 0.74 m3LFG.kgOMdegraded1
were used.
The division in phases is made by a ‘best guess’ of Afvalzorg. In order to express

the uncertainty of this approach a minimum and a maximum amount of organic mat-
ter is attributed to each phase of each category, including the minimum and maxi-
mum values for the conversion factor, this results in a ‘best guess’ of minimum and
maximum methane production and consequently minimum and maximum methane
emission. To calculate methane emission in Gg per annum the LFG production is
multiplied with a methane concentration of 50% and 714 gCH4. m3. To obtain an
emission estimate the recovered quantity of methane with the recovery system is sub-
tracted from the calculated production and a standard oxidation factor of 10% is
applied.
3.4.18 GasSim model

The GasSim model is developed by the Environmental Agency of U.K. The model is
based on first order kinetics. The waste decomposition is classified into slow, medium
and fast. The decomposition of the waste is based on the cellulose and hemi-cellulose
content in the waste. The model input requires moisture content, depending on the
available data. Other parameters required are moisture content based on infiltration,
waste density, effective porosity, leachate head, hydraulic conductivity, adsorptive
capacity and leachate circulation.
The GasSim model (Version 1.00, June 2002) is equipped with two approaches to
calculate an estimate of methane emissions (GasSim manual Version 1.00). The first
approach uses the GasSim multi-phase equation, which is based upon a multi-phase
model given by equation 3.36:
m n
αt ζ c ∑ ∑ Aj K j C0, i , j eki (t j) (3.36)
j 0 i 1
where:
formation factor []
c conversion factor [m3LFG.kgOMdegraded1]
m number of years of landfilling []
j year of landfilling amount Aj [y]
n number of fractions i []
i waste fraction with degradation rate ki [kgi.kgwaste1]
Aj amount of waste in year j [Mg]
C0,i,j amount of organic matter in fraction i landfilled in year j [kgOM.Mg waste1]
ki degradation rate constant of fraction i [y1]
The multi-phase model requires waste input in Mg and the specific breakdown
during the particular year of disposal. Each waste category in GasSim is made up of
various fractions. Each fraction is assigned a degradability class and k value.
Other versions of GasSim series includes GasSim2 and GasSim2.5. A key feature
of the GasSim series of models is the representation of uncertainties in input param-
eters by use of Monte Carlo probabilistic approach to simulations.
The 5 key parts of the GasSim2 conceptual model have not been significantly
varied between GasSim2 and GasSim2.5. For HPM4, only the source term module
has been utilised as it determines the generation of landfill gas for an individual cell,
phase or Site based on the mass of waste deposited and the composition of the waste
streams.
In GasSim2.5 (and earlier versions), waste is degraded following a simple cou-
pled first-order decay of three degradable fractions. GasSim2.5 contains in built (but
user adjustable) data on the moisture content, the cellulose and hemi-cellulose con-
tent of waste components. These data are converted to carbon available for degrada-
tion by assuming that 99% of waste is degraded methanogenically and 1% by rapid
acetogenic decay. The degradable organic carbon is partitioned into three separate
fractions, rapidly degrading, moderately degrading and slowly degrading respec-
tively with a separate degradation rate constant for each fraction which are then
aggregated as given in equation 3.37:
Ct C0 (C0,1ek1t + C0, 2 ek2t + C0, 3ek3t ) (3.37)
where:
t time between waste emplacement and LFG generation (years)
Ct mass of degradable carbon degraded up to time t (tonnes)
C0 mass of degradable carbon at time t 0 (tonnes)
C0,n mass of degradable carbon at time t 0 in each fraction (n 1, 2 and 3, i.e.,
rapidly, moderately and slowly degradable fractions respectively) (tonnes)
kn degradation rate constant for each fraction (n 1, 2 and 3) of degradable
carbon (per year)
Cx mass of carbon degraded in year x (tonnes)
GasSim2 uses statistical distributions or probability density functions to char-
acterise most of the input parameters. This approach is designed to reflect inher-
ent parameter uncertainty in normal landfill situations where the key physical and
chemical properties of the waste are not known with a high degree of certainty or
may be entirely absent. More details of the nature of the statistical representation
of input GasSim2 model are provided in Clewes, et al., (2007). For the purposes of
these simulations, where there is greater certainty in the composition of the waste
inputs, statistical uncertainty was applied only to the waste degradation rate.
The model can be downloaded from the link: www.gassim.co.uk.
3.4.19 EPER model France

The French EPER model gives two approaches to estimate methane emissions from
landfills. The operator can select the most suitable approach.
• Methane emission estimates for landfill cells connected to an LFG extraction

system using data of recovered LFG by the landfill operator and the LFG extrac-
tion efficiency.
• Methane emissions estimates for landfill cells connected or not connected to
an LFG extraction system using a multi-phase model and the LFG extraction
efficiency.
The methane emission for landfill cells connected to the LFG extraction system
can be calculated using equations 3.38 and 3.39:
A F*H* [CH4] (3.38)
where:
A recovered amount of methane [m3CH4.y1]
F extraction rate of LFG [m3LFG.h1]
H compressor yearly hours in operation [h.y1]
[CH4] methane concentration in LFG [m3CH4.m3LFG]
A is then corrected to standard temperature and pressure (m3STP.y1) by taking
into account the ambient pressure and temperature at the moment of the gas qual-
ity sample. The surface area of cells connected to the LFG extraction system and the
type of top cover present on that particular cell determine the extraction efficiency.
For example a zone in operation which has no top cover and is connected to a LFG
extraction system has an LFG collection efficiency of 35%. The remaining 65% of
LFG will eventually be emitted to the atmosphere. The production of methane for
cells connected to LFG extraction system is calculated by:
A
P (3.39)
η
where:
P production of methane [m3CH4.y1]
η extraction efficiency [%].
Methane emission is then determined
In the second approach the formation of methane is calculated with a multi-phase
equation following the ADEME model given by equation 3.40:
⎛ ⎞⎟
⎜
FECH 4 ∑ FE0 ⎜⎜⎜ ∑ Ai pi ki ekj t ⎟⎟⎟ (3.40)
x ⎝1, 2, 3 ⎟⎠
where:
FECH4 annual methane production [m3CH4.y1]
FE0 methane generation potential [m3CH4.Mg waste1]
pi waste fraction with degradation rate ki [kgi.kgwaste1]
ki degradation rate of fraction i [y1]
t age of waste [y]
Ai normalisation factor []
The model describes three categories of waste and every category has a specific
methane generation capacity per Mg of waste. The French model calculates with three
fractions and three k values for each waste category. The model calculates an over-
all k value for each waste category. The distribution of the fractions is the same for
Category 1 and 2. This results in the same k value. The k value for Category 3 is zero.
Therefore the French EPER multi-phase model can essentially be considered to be a

single-phase model. The French EPER model assumes an oxidation capacity of the top
cover of 10%. The total methane emission is calculated by using equation 3.41:
CH4 emission P(1 η) 0.9 FECH4 0.9 (3.41)
where:
η extraction efficiency [].
3.4.20 EPER model Germany

The EPER model used in Germany is a zero order model and can be described math-
ematically using equation 3.42:
Me M BDC BDCf F D C (3.42)
where:
Me amount of diffuse methane emission [Mg CH4.y1]
M annual amount of landfilled waste [Mg waste.y1]
BDC proportion of biodegradable carbon 0.15 [MgC.Mg waste1]
BDCf proportion of biodegradable C converted 0.5 []
F calculation factor of carbon converted into CH4 1.33 [Mg CH4. MgC1]
D collection efficiency: active degassing 0.4 []
no recovery 0.9 []
active LFG recovery and cover 0.1 []
C methane concentration 50 [%].
The model only takes “unconditioned residential or similar waste” into account.
For the purpose of the emission estimate household waste, coarse household waste
and commercial waste have been taken into account. The estimate will be considera-
bly lower should an operator decide only to include household waste. The proportion
of biodegradable carbon converted (BDCf) can be compared to the dissimilation fac-
tor used in other models. The factor 1.33 for carbon converted to methane (F) is the
molar weight of methane over the molar weight of carbon. The methane concentra-
tion in the landfill gas accounts for the amount of carbon that is converted to carbon
dioxide. On all three sites compared in this paper the landfill gas extraction system
is managed to maintain a methane concentration of approximately 50%. This value
was used instead of the default value of 55%. The default value is proposed when the
methane concentration of the landfill gas is unknown (Refer Figure 3.10).
More details can be found on http://www.afvalzorg.nl/en/Landfill-sites/Emissions-
management/Methane-emissions.aspx.
3.4.21 Colombia model

The Colombia Landfill Gas Model Version 1.0 was developed by SCS Engineers
under the U.S. EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP). The Model can
be used to estimate landfill gas generation rates from landfills, and potential landfill
gas recovery rates for landfills that have, or plan to have, gas collection and control
systems in Colombia.
Figure 3.10 Typical development of landfill gas production in time
The Model is an Excel® spreadsheet model that calculates LFG generation by

applying a first order decay equation. The model requires the user to input site-specific
data for landfill opening and closing years, refuse disposal rates, and landfill location,
and to answer several questions regarding the past and current physical conditions
of the landfill. The model provides default values for waste composition and input
variables (k and L0) for each of the 33 departments in Colombia. The default values
were developed using data on climate, waste characteristics, and disposal practices
in Colombia, and the estimated effect of these conditions on the amounts and rates
of LFG generation. Actual LFG recovery rates from two landfills in Colombia were
evaluated to help guide the selection of model k and L0 values.
The model estimates the LFG generation rate in a given year using equation 3.43
which was modified from the U.S. EPA’s Landfill Gas Emissions Model (LandGEM)
version 3.02.
n 1 ⎡M ⎤
QLFG ∑∑ 2kL0 ⎢ i ⎥ (ektij )(MCF)(F)
⎢⎣ 10 ⎥⎦
(3.43)
t 1 j 0.1
where:
QLFG maximum expected LFG generation flow rate (m3/yr)
i 1 year time increment
n (year of the calculation) – (initial year of waste acceptance)
j 0.1 year time increment
k methane generation rate (1/yr)
L0 potential methane generation capacity (m3/Mg)
Mi mass of solid waste disposed in the ith year (Mg)
tij age of the jth section of waste mass Mi disposed in the ith year (decimal years)
MCF methane correction factor
F fire adjustment factor.
Model users can either rely on waste composition and disposal rates automatically
calculated by the Model or input site-specific values. The Model applies the disposal
data along with the default k and L0 values for the selected department to estimate
average LFG generation rates for each projection year. The Model also applies the
user’s answers to questions about site conditions to develop estimates of collection effi-
ciency for each year the LFG collection system is expected to operate. LFG recovery in
each year is projected by multiplying LFG generation by the collection efficiency. The
Model was developed with the goal of providing accurate and conservative projections
of LFG generation and recovery. The Model reflects local climate and conditions at
disposal sites in Colombia. The model can be downloaded from the following link:
http://www.epa.gov/lmop/international/tools.html#a08.
3.4.22 CALMIM model

CALMIM (California Landfill Methane Inventory Model) is a field-validated
1-dimensional transport and oxidation model that calculates annual site-specific landfill
methane emissions based on the major processes that control emissions:
• Surface area and properties of the daily, intermediate, and final cover materials,
• The % of surface area for each cover type with engineered gas recovery, and
• Seasonal methane oxidation in each cover type as controlled by climatic factors.
The driving force for emissions is the methane concentration gradient through
each cover type coupled with typical annual soil moisture and temperature profiles
which control methane transport and microbial methane oxidation over an annual
cycle. CALMIM is an IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Tier III
model for methane emissions from solid waste disposal sites.
The climate-related factors (meteorology and soil microclimate) are automatically
accessed based on the site location and physical properties of the cover materials.
This model is intended to be user-friendly with a series of input boxes where the user
enters basic information on the areas and properties of daily, intermediate, and final
cover materials, as well as the % surface area for each cover type with engineered
gas recovery (either vertical wells or horizontal collectors).
CALMIM calculates daily emissions for each cover type which are summed to
provide an annual total for the site, both in units of g methane/square meter/day
(g CH4 m2 d1) and for the site as a whole. Taking into consideration recent litera-
ture which indicates that first order kinetic models for theoretical methane genera-
tion do not match field measurements for landfill methane emissions, CALMIM is
the first landfill methane emissions model which does not rely on a first order model
for methane generation based on the mass of waste in place.
CALMIM was developed during 2007–2010 with supporting laboratory studies
and field validation under the auspices of the California Energy Commission PIER
(Public Interest Energy Research) Program. CALMIM is JAVA-based, freely available to
users, and is intended to be the first step in the development of improved science-based
models which have been field-validated and can be internationally applied to land-
fill methane emissions inclusive of seasonal methane oxidation. The model can be
downloaded from http://calmim.lmem.us.
3.4.23 Philippines model

The Philippines Landfill Gas Model version 1.0 was developed by ERG and OWT
under U.S. EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP). The Philippines LFG
Model can be used to estimate LFG generation rates from landfills, and potential
LFG recovery rates for landfills that have, or plan to have, gas collection and control
systems in Philippines.
The Philippines LFG Model is an Excel® spreadsheet model based on a first
order decay equation. The model requires the user to input site-specific data for
landfill opening and closing years, refuse disposal rates, history of landfill fires, and a
number of landfill characteristics that determine LFG collection efficiency. Based on
the site-specific data supplied by the user, the model selects recommended values for
input variables, including methane generation rate constant (k), potential methane
generation capacity (L0), collection efficiency, and fire discount factor and estimates
generation and recovery rates. Users can also specify their own values for these input
variables, provided the information is reliable. The recommended values for input
variables were developed using data on climate, waste characteristics, and disposal
practices in Philippines, and the estimated effect of these conditions on the amounts
and rates of LFG generation.
For sites with known (or estimated) year-to-year solid waste disposal rates, the
model estimates the LFG generation rate in a given year using equation 3.44, which
is used by the U.S. EPA’s Landfill Gas Emissions Model (LandGEM) version 3.02.
n 1 ⎛M ⎞
QCHj ∑∑ kL0 ⎜⎜ i ⎟⎟⎟ ektij (3.44)
⎜⎝ 10 ⎠
i −1 j 0.1
where:
QM maximum expected LFG generation flow rate (m3/yr);

i 1 year time increment
n (year of the calculation) – (initial year of waste acceptance)
j 0.1 year time increment
k methane generation rate (1/yr);
L0 ultimate methane generation potential (m3/Mg);
Mi mass of solid waste disposed in the ith year (Mg);
tij age of the jth section of waste mass disposed in the ith year (decimal years).
CCH4 methane concentration (volume fraction).
The Philippines LFG Model was developed with the goal of providing general esti-
mation of LFG generation and recovery potential. The Philippines LFG Model reflects
conditions at disposal sites in Philippines. The model can be downloaded from the fol-
lowing link: http://www.epa.gov/lmop/international/tools.html#a05.
3.4.24 Thailand model

The Thailand Landfill Gas Model Version 1.0 was developed by ERG and OWT
under U.S. EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP). The Thailand LFG
Model can be used to estimate LFG generation rates from landfills, and potential LFG
recovery rates for landfills that have, or plan to have, gas collection and control sys-
tems in Thailand.
The Thailand LFG Model is an Excel® spreadsheet model based on a first order
decay equation. The model requires the user to input site-specific data for land-
fill opening and closing years, refuse disposal rates, history of landfill fires, and a
number of landfill characteristics that determine LFG collection efficiency. Based on
the site-specific data supplied by the user, the model selects recommended values for
input variables, including methane generation rate constant (k), potential methane
generation capacity (L0), collection efficiency, and fire discount factor and estimates
generation and recovery rates. Users can also specify their own values for these input
variables, provided the information is reliable. The recommended values for input
variables were developed using data on climate, waste characteristics, and disposal
practices in Thailand, and the estimated effect of these conditions on the amounts
and rates of LFG generation.
model estimates the LFG generation rate in a given year using equation 3.44.
The Thailand LFG Model was developed with the goal of providing general esti-
mation of LFG generation and recovery potential. The Thailand LFG Model reflects
conditions at disposal sites in Thailand. The model can be downloaded from the fol-
lowing link: http://www.epa.gov/lmop/international/tools.html#a06.
3.4.25 Ukraine model

The Ukraine Landfill Gas Model Version 1.0 was developed by SCS Engineers under
U.S. EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP), with local support from
SEC Biomass. The Model can be used to estimate landfill gas generation rates from
landfills, and potential landfill gas recovery rates for landfills that have, or plan to
have, gas collection and control systems in Ukraine.
applying a first order decay equation. The model requires the user to input site-
specific data for landfill opening and closing years, refuse disposal rates, landfill
location, and to answer several questions regarding the past and current physical
conditions of the landfill. The model uses the estimated average composition of
waste disposed in Ukraine, provides default values for input variables (k and L0) for
each province, and estimates the collection efficiency based on the answers provided.
The default values were developed using data on climate, waste characteristics, and
disposal practices in Ukraine, and the estimated effect of these conditions on the
amounts and rates of LFG generation.
The model estimates the LFG generation rate in a given year using equation 3.43.
The Model was developed with the goal of providing accurate and conserva-
tive projections of LFG generation and recovery. The Model reflects local climate
and conditions at disposal sites in Ukraine. The model accounts for fires by apply-
ing a “fire adjustment factor”. Collection efficiency is calculated by model based on
site management practices, waste depth, well field coverage of waste area, soil cover
type and extent, bottom liner, waste compaction, focused tip area, leachate presence.
The model can be downloaded from the following link: http://www.epa.gov/lmop//
international/tools.html#a07.
3.4.26 China model

The China LFG Model was developed with the goal of providing general estimation
of LFG generation and recovery potential. The China LFG Model reflects conditions
at disposal sites in China.
China Landfill Gas Model Version 1.1 was prepared by the Eastern Research
Group, Inc., and Organic Waste Technologies (Hong Kong) Ltd. Under U.S.
Environmental EPA – Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP). The purpose
of the model is to provide landfill owners, operators, and developers with a realistic
tool to evaluate the feasibility and potential benefits of recovering and utilizing LFG
for production of energy for various potential end uses.
3.4.27 Mexico model

The Mexico Landfill Gas Model Version 2.0 was developed by SCS Engineers under
U.S. EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP). The Model can be used to
estimate landfill gas generation rates from landfills, and potential landfill gas recov-
ery rates for landfills that have, or plan to have, gas collection and control systems
in Mexico.
applying a first order decay equation. The model requires the user to input site-
specific data for landfill opening and closing years, refuse disposal rates, landfill
location, and to answer several questions regarding the past and current physical
conditions of the landfill. The model provides default values for waste composition
and input variables (k and L0) for each state and estimates the collection efficiency
based on the answers provided. The default values were developed using data on
climate, waste characteristics, and disposal practices in Mexico, and the estimated
effect of these conditions on the amounts and rates of LFG generation. Actual
LFG recovery rates from four landfills in Mexico were evaluated to help guide the
selection of model k and L0 values.
The model estimates the LFG generation rate in a given year using equa-
tion 3.43.
The Model was developed with the goal of providing accurate and conservative
projections of LFG generation and recovery. The Model incorporated waste composi-
tion data used to develop the Mexico LFG Model Version 1.0 and expanded the data
to include information from additional cities and landfills throughout Mexico. The
Model reflects local climate and conditions at disposal sites in Mexico. The model
can be downloaded from the following link: http://www.epa.gov/lmop/international/
tools.html#a04.
3.4.28 Ecuador model

Ecuador Landfill Gas Model Version 1.0 was developed by ERG under contract
to the USEPA. The development of the Ecuador specific landfill biogas model is an
extension of the LMOP Mexico landfill gas model developed by SCS Engineers under
contract to the USEPA in 2003. The model has been re-calibrated based on the expe-
rience gained through two Pre-Feasibility studies and gas pumping trials carried out
on the Las Iguanas landfill ( Guayaquil ) and Pichacay Landfill (Cuenca) in March
and April of 2007. In addition some information from three Assessment reports
carried out on the Chabay (Azogues), El Valle (Cuenca) and Loja (Loja) landfills in
Ecuador.
The U.S. EPA Mexico LFG Model is based on the first-order exponential decay
function that assumes that LFG generation is at its peak following a time lag repre-
senting the period prior to methane generation. This model is represented by equa-
tion 3.45:
n
1
Q ∑% kML0 ek(t tlag ) (3.45)
0 vol
where:
Q total quantity of landfill gas generated (Normal cubic meters)
n total number of years modeled
t time in years since the waste was deposited
tlag estimated lag time between deposition of waste and generation of methane
%vol estimated volumetric percentage of methane in landfill gas
L0 estimated volume of methane generated per tonne of solid waste
k estimated rate of decay of organic waste
M mass of waste in place at year t (tones).
The model addresses the apparently high rate of landfill gas generation from both
of these sites. Adjustments of the factors used in traditional first order decay models
are used to simulate the effects of high organic and moisture content found in waste
in Ecuador. The Ecuador LFG Model is an Excel® spreadsheet model based on a first
order decay equation. The model requires the user to input site-specific data for land-
fill opening and closing years, refuse disposal rates, average annual precipitation, and
collection efficiency. The model can be downloaded from the following link: http://
www.epa.gov/lmop/international/tools.html#a03.
3.4.29 Central America model

The Central America Landfill Gas Model Version 1.0 was developed by SCS Engineers
under U.S. EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP). The Central America
LFG Model can be used to estimate landfill gas generation rates from landfills, and
potential landfill gas recovery rates for landfills that have, or plan to have, gas collec-
tion and control systems in Central America.
The Central America LFG Model is an Excel® spreadsheet model based on a
first order decay equation. The model requires the user to input site-specific data for
landfill opening and closing years, refuse disposal rates, average annual precipitation,
and collection efficiency. The model provides default values for waste composition
and input variables (k and L0) for each country. The default values were devel-
oped using data on climate, waste characteristics, and disposal practices in Central
America, and the estimated effect of these conditions on the amounts and rates of
LFG generation. Actual LFG recovery rates from two landfills in Central America
were evaluated, but insufficient data were available for model calibration. A guide
to evaluate a site’s collection efficiency, which is used by the model to derive LFG
recovery estimates from model projections of LFG generation, is also provided.
The Central America LFG Model was developed with the goal of providing
accurate and conservative projections of LFG generation and recovery. The Central
America LFG Model reflects conditions at disposal sites in Central America. The model
can be downloaded from the following link: http://www.epa.gov/lmop/international/
tools.html#a01.
3.4.30 IPCC model

The IPCC model for estimating CH4 emissions from landfills is based on the First
Order Decay (FOD) method. IPCC has adopted the relatively simple FOD model
as basis for the estimation of CH4 emissions from landfills. Half-lives for different
types of waste vary from a few years to several decades or longer. The FOD method
requires data to be collected or estimated for historical disposals of waste over a
time period of 3 to 5 half-lives in order to achieve an acceptably accurate result. It is
therefore good practice to use disposal data for at least 50 years as this time frame
provides an acceptably accurate result for most typical disposal practices and condi-
tions. If a shorter time frame is chosen, the inventory compiler should demonstrate
that there will be no significant underestimation of the emissions. Three tiers to esti-
mate the CH4 emissions from landfills are described:
Tier 1: The estimations of the Tier 1 methods are based on the IPCC FOD method
using mainly default activity data and default parameters.
Tier 2: Tier 2 methods use the IPCC FOD method and some default parameters,
but require good quality country-specific activity data on current and historical
waste disposal at SWDS. Historical waste disposal data for 10 years or more
should be based on country-specific statistics, surveys or other similar sources.
Data are needed on amounts disposed at the landfills.
Tier 3: Tier 3 methods are based on the use of good quality country-specific
activity data (see Tier 2) and the use of either the FOD method with (1) nation-
ally developed key parameters, or (2) measurement derived country-specific
parameters. The inventory compiler may use country-specific methods that are
of equal or higher quality to the above defined FOD-based Tier 3 method. Key
parameters should include the half-life, and either methane generation potential
(L0) or Degradable organic Carbon (DOC) content in waste and the fraction of
DOC which decomposes (DOCf).
The estimation of total CH4 emission from landfills can be done using IPCC
2006 first order decay model. In the model, CH4 emissions from landfills for a single
year are estimated using equation 3.46:
⎡ ⎤
CH 4 emissions ⎢⎢ ∑ CH 4 generated x, T RT ⎥⎥ × (1 OXT ) (3.46)
⎣ x ⎦
where:
CH4 emissions CH4 emitted in year T, Gg;
T inventory year;
x waste category or type/material;
RT recovered CH4 in year T, Gg; and
OXT oxidation factor in year T (fraction).
The OX reflects the amount of CH4 from the Solid Waste Disposal Site (SWDS) that
is oxidized in the soil or other material covering the waste. The amount of CH4 gen-
erated from decomposable material in year T (CH4 generatedT) is estimated using
the FOD of the mass of decomposable organic carbon (DDOCm, Gg) in each
waste category or type/material using equation 3.47:
CH4 generatedT DDOCm decompT F 16/12 (3.47)
where:
DDOCm decompT DDOCm decomposed in year T, Gg;
F fraction of CH4 by volume in generated LFG (fraction); and
16/12 molecular weight ratio between methane and carbon (ratio).
DDOCm decompT DDOCmaT1 (1 ek) (3.48)
DDOCmaT DDOCmdT (DDOCmaT1 ek) (3.49)
where:
DDOCmaT DDOCm accumulated in the SWDS at the end of year T, Gg;
DDOCmaT1 DDOCm accumulated in the SWDS at the end of year T 1, Gg;
DDOCmdT DDOCm deposited into the SWDS in year T, Gg;
k reaction constant (k ln(2)/t1/2), year1; and
t1/2 half life time, year.
DDOCm W DOC DOCf MCF (3.50)
where:
W mass of waste deposited, Gg;
DOC degradable organic carbon in the year of deposition (fraction, Gg-C/Gg-waste);
DOCf fraction of DOC that can decompose (fraction); and
MCF CH4 correction factor for aerobic decomposition in the year of deposition
(fraction).
The model can be downloaded from the link: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/

public/2006gl/vol5.html (IPCC, 2006).
The estimation of CH4 emission from landfills using IPCC 1996 first order decay
model can be done using equation 3.51:
Methane emission (Gg yr1) (MSWT MSWF) MCF DOC

DOCF F (16/12 R) (1 OX) (3.51)
where:
1 Gg yr1 1000 tonnes yr1
MSWT Total municipal solid waste (MSW) generated (Gg yr1)
MSWF Fraction of MSW disposed of at the disposal sites
MCF Methane correction factor (fraction)
DOC Degradable organic carbon (fraction)
DOCF Fraction DOC dissimilated
F Fraction of methane in LFG (default is 0.5)
R Recovered methane (Gg yr1)
OX Oxidation factor (default is 0) MSWT, MSWF, and DOC.
3.4.31 RET screen model

RET Screen uses the Scholl Canyon Model. This model, with defined default parameters,
is the empirical, first-order decay model most widely accepted and used by industry and
regulatory agencies, including Environment Canada and the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA). The Scholl Canyon Model is based on the assumption that
there is a constant fraction of biodegradable material in the landfill per unit of time, and
is an estimate of the generation of methane from this biodegradable material. The model
can be downloaded from the link: http://www.retscreen.net/ang/tools_landfill_gas.php.
3.4.32 IGNiG model

The IGNIG model is based on the first order kinetic model and considers 4 catego-
ries of solid wastes. Each category of organic wastes has its own half-life time t1/2,
designated to it. The following half-life times are available:
Waste category: Half-life time:
A – paper, textiles tauA 10 years
B – garden, park wastes, and others (except food) tauB 6 years
C – food tauC 3 years
D – wood and feed (except lignins) tauD 15 years
The annual volume of methane produced EmCH4 is a sum of a methane volume
EmCH4r,x(i) produced in a given year from a waste mass MASA [Mg] deposited in
the following years x prior the calculation year as given by equation 3.52:
EmCH 4 ΣEmCH 4r , x (A) ΣEmCH 4r , x (B)

+ ΣEmCH 4r , x (C) ΣEmCH 4r , x (D) (3.52)
Decomposition of wastes from “i” category, deposited in year “x”, between year
“x” and “T”, where T is the calculation year is calculated from tequation 3.53:
MCT,x MSW · MCF · MASA · udz(i) · (1 e λ(i)(Tx)) [tons] (3.53)
where:
i waste index (A–D).

udz(i) mass of wastes of a category as a fraction of the total mass of wastes
deposited annually
MASA total mass of solid wastes deposited in year [Mg].
λ(i) value depending on a half-life time for each solid waste category, calcu-
lated from the equation: λ(i) 0.693148/tau(i).
x year of solid waste deposition.
T calculation year.
MSW fraction of solid wastes deposited at the landfills.
MCF correction factor for methane.
Solid waste mass at “i”, category, which decomposed in year “T” is calculated using
equation 3.54:
MRT,x(i) MCT,x(i) – MCT,x(i) [tons] (3.54)
Methane volume produced in the calculation year from the solid wastes of “i” category,
included in the mass MASA deposited in year x, is calculated using equation 3.55:
EmCH4T,x(i) DOC · F · conv(i) · MRT(i) [m3CH4] (3.55)
where:
DOC Degradable organic Carbon,

F molar fraction of methane in landfill gas (mol/mol),
conv(i) decomposition of organic material depending on wastes categories.
3.4.33 Finite element model

The finite element model for the prediction of LFG generation is based on continuum
hypotheses and involves coupled sets of partial differential equations. These could be
solved by any finite element method: analytically (using matrices) or by algorithms.
A model must be able to replicate accurately the LFG generation and movement
within the landfill. Waste is placed in a landfill over an extended period of time and
in different locations. Use of a finite element approach should represent this com-
plexity. For such an approach to work, decisions need to be made regarding the size
of the elements and the boundary conditions that occur between each element. The
important descriptors that need to be taken into account are waste composition,
temperature, moisture and the aerobic/anaerobic condition.
The number and size of the elements within a LFG model should be limited
by the available data for calibration of the model. Most landfills do not have data
regarding waste placement, lift heights, location and time placement history of the
waste. It is easy using a finite element model to break the landfill into tiny elements
but the problem is the validation of the model with real data. The simplest, and the
least accurate approach, is to assume that the landfill acts as a single element and
that all gas generation, composition and flow rates occur uniformly across the land-
fill. There are finite element models currently available for the 2D/3D transport of
gases through subsurface systems.
3.4.34 Tabasaran model

The most widely used model in Europe is probably Tabasaran’s expression, a rela-
tionship originally developed for the anaerobic digestion of sewage are represented
by equation 3.56 and 3.57:
Ga Ge (1 – e–ka) (3.56)
where:
Ga Accumulated gas generation until year a [Nm3 t1]
Ge Gas formation potential [Nm3 t1]
k Degradation constant ln 2/t½ [time unit1]
a Time [number of time units]
Ge 1.868C0 (0.014T 0.28) (3.57)
C0 content of degradable carbon in the waste [kg t1]

T temperature [C].
The temperature correction in the Ge determination is derived from the fact that
the portion of substrate which is used for cell synthesis may vary with temperature.
Since the “sludge retention time” of landfills is on a completely different scale than
that of an anaerobic digester, the correction is irrelevant for landfills.
3.5 UNCERTAINTIES IN LFG MODEL PREDICTIONS
The uncertainty in LFG generation rate predictions creates major challenges in design-
ing landfill gas to energy facilities. Uncertainty is inherent within any kind of estimation.
Emission inventories are a compilation of a large number of input parameters. None
of these parameters is known exactly and the value of parameter is determined as
‘‘best estimate’’. LFG generation modeling approaches are either mechanistic or empir-
ical. Mechanistic model parameters are often uncertain that they negatively affect the
accuracy of the model outcomes. Empirical models have been developed based on
observations and experience. The factors giving rise to uncertainties in LFG models
include:
• Inaccurate estimates of LFG recovery efficiency;

• Inaccurate data on the amounts of waste and waste composition;
• Variation in LFG formation due to the lack of homogeneity of the landfill and
presence of inhibitors or nutrients;
• Inaccuracy of the models used to predict LFG formation

• Variation in LFG generation
• “Sparseness and quality of the data used for LFG model development and
calibration;
• Limited time frames for the available field data used;
• Inappropriate application of available data;
• Varying geographic/climatic conditions; and
• Instrumental error, measurement range, variations in the measured points and
weather conditions.
• Other factors specific to the landfill design and operations such as landfill depth,
liners, and leachate recirculation.
The approach to reduce uncertainty is to minimize the difference between the

calculated LFG generation rates and the actual rates by determining the optimal set
of LFG generation parameters using SAS software for statistical analysis. The error
equation used is shown in equation 3.58.
2
∑ t1 (QC Qob )
n
E (3.58)
where:
E error function;
QC Calculated generation rate in units of volume per time;
Qob Observed generation rate in units of volume per time; and
n number of landfills.
Managing these uncertainties, and reducing them over time, is recognized by
the IPCC Good Practice report. IPCC Guidelines suggest that the error in estimated
methane generation potential may be about 15% given high-quality data and 50%
given poor data on methane generation, per ton of waste.
The IPCC guidelines have suggested a simple error propagation approach for
evaluating the uncertainties in CH4 emission estimation. In this approach, uncer-
tainty in emissions can be propagated from uncertainties in the activity data [Waste
quantity, population and organic material in the waste] and emission factor and
other parameters through the error propagation equation. Equation 3.59 can be
used to evaluate the uncertainties in methane emissions from landfills:
U MEL (U MSW U MCF U 2DOC U 2DOCF U F2 )0.5

2 2
(3.59)
where:
UMEL the percentage uncertainties of methane emissions from landfill
UMSW the percentage uncertainties associated with total MSW generated
UMCF the percentage uncertainties associated with methane correction factor
UDOC the percentage uncertainties associated with the fraction of degradable organic
carbon
UDOCF the percentage uncertainties associated with the fraction of total DOC that
actually degrades
UF the percentage uncertainties associated with the fraction of methane is
landfill gas generation (default is 0.5).
3.6 VALIDATION OF LFG MODELS
One of the barriers in the implementation of LFG utilization projects throughout

the world is the limited ability to project the LFG recovery for a landfill and the
total amount of LFG that will be economically available over a period of time.
The technologies employed for LFG recovery is still not completely matured due to
limitations in understanding the factors affecting LFG generation within a landfill.
Although significant work has been done throughout the world to develop LFG pro-
jection models but their validation against the field conditions to prove its commer-
cial viability has been limited.
The key problem in validation of LFG models against field conditions is that
the validation process requires through knowledge of the landfill characteristics. The
major difficulty is in obtaining accurate historical data. This section examines the
data requirement for a typical landfill in order to validate LFG models.
It is a general practice to adjust the LFG model parameters to match actual pro-
duction of LFG in order to improve the specific site projections. The complex LFG
models can be used to validate simpler LFG models. The key information required
to validate the LFG models are the waste composition, waste disposal history, meth-
ane generation rate constant and ultimate methane potential. The complexity of the
LFG model will depend on the available data such as the decay rates for different
organic waste fractions and their quantities. SCS Engineers (1998) while making a
comparison of simple LFG models have mentioned that the landfills identified for
the study needed the following characteristics:
Gas recovery efficiency is maximised. This was considered associated with as
many as possible of the following features:
• Scavenging of LFG for energy-limited equipment;

• Well-maintained covers (clay or synthetic) and frequent well monitoring
• Good well density;
• “Efficient” well configuration in terms of close spacing, greater (rather than
lesser) depth;
• Wellhead and header pipe methane contents 40 to 50 percent (rather than 50 to
60 percent), suggesting tuning of wells for maximum recovery;
• Maintenance of methane below regulatory limits by surface scan; and
• Maintenance of odours below odour thresholds;
• Accurate waste gate receipt and placement history;
• Methane recovery over significant durations. Typically, methane has been
recovered at U.S. landfills for only a portion of the time needed for complete
generation. In addition, little information exists on methane recovery after clo-
sure of the landfill. Consequently, study landfills were sought with long-term
recovery data;
• Other site features known. These include waste composition (for example,
presence of unusual quantities of inerts or degradable materials), knowledge
of leachate quantities (a surrogate for waste moisture), degrees of compaction,
internal temperature, site geology/soils (for example, clay layers which would
tend to prevent lateral migration), rainfall, and other features which might effect
or correlate with methane generation or recovery;
• Measurements of methane recovery by methods accepted as accurate;
• Ready accessibility of records.
These required characteristics show that in order to validate a model, much

detailed information is required about a landfill. Most authors in the literature asso-
ciate the problem with the lack of long term experimental data to calibrate models.
All advise that it is necessary to improve the collection of experimental data from
well-managed landfills to help improve model accuracy. The problems of using real
landfill data to calibrate a model are outlined by SCS Engineers et al. (1998) when
they argued that current landfill models are inaccurate. Therefore, for a real landfill
to be used to calibrate models these factors should be taken into account.
The key information required to validate LFG models is the history of waste
placement and the LFG generation parameters such as methane emission. The more
complex is the LFG model, the more data requirements such as the decay rates for
different waste fractions and fraction quantities. Other parameters include:
• Covering systems applied over the waste i.e., clay or synthetic

• Frequency of well monitoring
• Configuration of well spacing corresponding of waste depth and area of landfill
for maximum LFG recovery
• Wellhead and header pipe LFG and methane composition
• Wellhead and header pipe LFG and methane flow rate
• Accurate history of waste placement and its management
• LFG and methane recovery over a longer period of time
• LFG and methane recovery data for both active and closed landfills
• Waste composition (such as inerts and biodegradables)
• Characteristics of leachate generation and its quantities
• Degree of waste compaction
• Temperature within the landfill
• Site geology/soil characteristics
• Rainfall data of the region.
The variations in waste quantities have significant effect on the quantity of LFG
generated. The newer landfills should document the LFG generation data, waste
composition data and waste placement data.
3.7 CUSTOMIZATION OF LFG MODELS
An accurate estimate of LFG recovery using LFG models are critical for evaluat-
ing LFG project feasibility and economics and estimating system design and facility
sizing requirements. LFG to energy project developers rely on models to decide on

multi-million $ investments.
Most of the LFG models estimate LFG generation and not recovery. Many site-
specific conditions will impact LFG recovery. Finding reliable input data such as waste
characterization and waste disposal history is difficult. Site conditions that limit LFG
recovery rates are Shallow waste depth, poor compaction, limited soil cover, Poor drain-
age, high rainfall, leachate accumulation, Fires, waste pickers, security–Problems with
collection system design and/or operations, Delays in wellfield installation in active cells.
The maximum achievable collection efficiencies for engineered and sanitary landfills are
generally ⬃60–90% and for open and managed dump sites is around 30–60%.
If we over-estimate the recoverable LFG, we will never meet the investment
expectations and if we have poor design, operations, we will collect even less of the
recoverable LFG that already is constrained by site-specific factors. The key param-
eters for customization of LFG models are briefly described below.
3.7.1 Methane generation potential

The methane generation potential (L0) value varies with material type and depends
on temperature and other factors. Most of the experimental and scientific literature
discusses L0 as an aggregated measure but for modeling, L0 needs to be disaggre-
gated into the following component factors namely:
1 Degradable organic carbon (DOC),

2 Fraction of DOC that actually degrades in landfill (DOCf),
3 Fraction of methane in LFG (F), and
4 Methane correction Factor (MCF).
3.7.2 Degradable organic carbon

DOC and DOCf have been estimated for various waste types including through lab-
oratory experiments and chemical examinations of landfill residues. These results are
listed in Table 3.1.
Both Smith, et al., (2001) and US EPA (2006) apply disaggregated DOCf values
based on experimental data taken from the scientific literature. Since methane gen-
eration is proportional to the product of DOC and DOCf, and it can be readily seen
from Table 3.1 that different materials may generate widely different quantities of
methane per tonne. The US EPA (2006) data, for example, suggests that a tonne of
office paper would generate five to ten times as much methane in landfill as a tonne
of garden organics.
In relation to DOCf values, both the Smith, et al., (2001) and US EPA (2006)
values could potentially be used for most materials. But no specific DOCf values are
available in either of these studies for five material categories:
• Timber: A literature review by Barlaz (2004, pp. 34, 35) cites two studies that
found methane generation from timber to be similar to that of paper and card-
board or average municipal waste, suggesting DOCf values of perhaps 30–40%.
Table 3.1 DOC and DOCf values for waste types in LFG Models (Hyder Consulting, 2010)
S. No. LFG Model Waste Component DOC (%) DOCf (%)

1 IPCC (2006) Paper 40 50
Food 15
Garden 20
Timber 43
Nappies 24
Textiles 24
Rubber & leather 39
2 Smith, et al., (2001) Paper 33 35
Food 15 75
Garden 24 50
Textiles 19.5 30
3 US EPA (2006) Cardboard 44 45
Newsprint 47 15
Office Paper 38 88
Coated Paper 32 25
Food 15 84
Garden 13–19 23–32
4 Hogg, et al., (2008) Proprietary model unavailable for review. Waste materials
are characterized by chemical constituents e.g., lignin,
cellulose. Decay of these constituents is then modeled.
On the other hand an Australian study found that only 2.5% and 4.1% of timber
samples had decayed after 19 and 29 years respectively.
• Nappies: No data were identified to provide a DOCf value but a degree of
degradation is expected since much of the weight would be urine and faeces,
and a proportion of nappies contain plant based absorbent material and other
components.
• Rubber and leather are resistant to decay and unlikely to have high DOCf
values.
• Residues from MBTs have been shown to produce methane in landfills but at
rates much reduced from unprocessed wastes. Experimental results found reduc-
tions in methane potential of 82–91% after 15 weeks of composting.
• A proportion of the waste is uncategorised. Typically this material contains
some DOC.
3.7.3 Methane fraction

The proportion of methane in LFG varies from 40–60% by volume (and molar con-
centration) but is more normally in the higher part of that range. Models generally
put the proportion of methane in generated LFG at 50%.
3.7.4 Methane correction factor

MCF is a factor in the IPCC model that corrects for the proportion of the organic
degradation that occurs in an aerobic environment in which carbon from degrada-
tion processes is emitted as CO2 and no methane is generated. Based on its literature
reviews, the IPCC (2006) provides default values related to the size and degree of
management of landfill sites.
3.7.5 Methane oxidation factor

As LFG passes through the landfill cover or cap, methanotrophic bacteria oxidise
some of the methane. The extent of oxidation varies with the type and thickness of
cover material, moisture levels, temperature and the gas flux rate. The IPCC (2006)
guidance sets a default value of zero for national GHG inventories but indicates that
a value of 10% may be appropriate where landfills are well managed.
Methane oxidation rates can be estimated in laboratory experiments and
also in situ through carbon isotopes measurements in gases below and above the
cap. A literature review by Jensen and Pipatti (2002) concludes that up to 30%
could be expected, while the US EPA (2006) suggests up to 40%. A more recent
literature review of 42 studies found a mean OF value of 36% and only four
reporting values of 10% or less. In clayey soil covers the average OF was 18%.
The field studies, on average, had a lower OF than the laboratory studies, prob-
ably because “cracks and fissures . . . in the field allow some CH4 to bypass
oxidation”.
3.7.6 Decay constant

Different waste types decay at different rates, e.g., food waste decays more quickly
than timber. Decay rates are sensitive to moisture and temperature.
To calibrate the k values to a landfill, a first-order decay model should be used
to assess methane generation rates. The model should be populated using data on
waste received at the landfill mid-range values and estimated methane generation
based on recorded collections and a notional collection efficiency. In this way we
could ‘solve’ the model to find a best fit set of k values that explain the methane gen-
eration patterns.
3.7.7 Methane recovery rate

In most large modern landfills some proportion R of the generated methane is col-
lected and burned, mostly to produce electricity for the grid. In estimating a value
for R, we need to take into account gas that is generated before and after the collec-
tion equipment is operating, the proportion of gas that is collected while the turbines
or flare are not operating, and any methane that passes through the turbines or flare
without being oxidized.
Emissions from landfill are difficult and expensive to measure, vary with atmos-
pheric pressure and rainfall, change over time, and are highly dependent on man-
agement factors such as whether edge, crack and piping leaks are monitored and
Table 3.2 Methane recovery rates in the reviewed literature and models (Hyder Consulting, 2010)
Study R Application Derived through

Spokas, et al., (2005) 35% (operating cell) France Estimate based on
65% (temp. cover) measurements at
85% (clay cap) three landfills
90% (geomembrane cap)
Themelis and Ulloa 36% 25 sites in Estimate based on
(2006) California theoretical generation
and measured capture
Scharff and Jacobs 20% Site in The Measurement
(2006) Netherlands
Lou and Nair (2009) 50–100% Uncertain Pipatti & Wihersaari
(1998)
24–60% Oonk and Boom
(1995)
40–60% Hummer and Lechner
(1999)
25–50% Bogner and Spokas
(1995)
IPCC (2006) 20% Global default Literature review
value
Smith, et al., (2001) 49% European average
US EPA (2006) 75% US average
Hogg, et al., (2008) 60% London average
Thompson, et al., (2009) 60–90% Canada average
Centre for Design (2007) 60% Melbourne average
Hyder Consulting (2008) 50–70%
Centre for Design (2001) 55% Victorian average
Centre for Design and 55%
Nolan-ITU (2003)
Nolan-ITU (2004) 55% Australian average
Warnken Ise (2007) 60–75%
Hyder Consulting (2007b) 50% (conventional) Sydney average
70% (bioreactor)
remediated. Because of these factors, R is difficult to estimate across sites, jurisdic-

tions and time, and is the subject of much debate.
Table 3.2 lists values for methane recovery as measured in scientific studies and
estimated in literature reviews and the reviewed models. There is enormous variety
in these estimates and measurements. Most of the values given in Table 3.2, it seems,
refer to collection efficiency rather than whole-of-life estimates, i.e., they do not take
into account methane losses before the installation of the landfill gas recovery system
and after it is decommissioned. They may also exclude methane that is collected but
not burned.
Any model output is only as good as the input data and often very broad assump-
tions are necessary for estimating waste quantities and types. Therefore, it is appropriate
to use a simple model, which employs fewer parameters that can be more reasonably
assigned according to specific site conditions. The predictive success of any model is
dependent mostly on the degree of accuracy needed, the reliability of the input data,
and the experience of the individual analyzing the data. LFG generation modeling is the
main initial input for determining the design of the LFG management system and must
be undertaken with appropriate input parameters and using experience in the field.
REFERENCES
California Energy Commission. (2011) User Manual – Draft Version CALMIM (California
Landfill Methane Inventory Model), Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program.
Chalvatzaki, E. and Lazaridis, M. (2010) Estimation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from
Landfills: Application to the Akrotiri Landfill Site (Chania, Greece). Global NEST Journal,
Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 108–116.
Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. (2010) Technical Guidelines for the
estimation of Greenhouse Gas emissions by facilities in Australia.
Fischer, C. (1999) Gas Emission from Landfills – An Overview of issues and research needs,
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency AFR-Report 264.
Hyder Consulting. (2010) Comparative Greenhouse gas life cycle assessment of Wollert land-
fill, Final report.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2006) IPCC Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories, IGES Japan.
Krakow. (2010) Landfill Gas Energy Technologies.
Lamborn, J. (2010) Modeling Landfill Degradation Behaviour, Phd Thesis, Swinburne
University of Technology.
Lamborn, J. (n.d) Modelling Landfill Gas Generation, Swinburne University of Technology,
Victoria, Australia
Scharff, H., Jacobs, J., and Hensen, A. (n.d) Methods to ascertain methane emissions of
landfills.
SCS Engineers. (1997) Comparison of Models for Predicting Landfill Methane Recovery,
SWANA.
Stalleicken, S.D. and Gregory, R.G. (2011) Modelling LFG Generation using the GasSim 2.5
Regulatory Model.
U.S Environmental Protection Agency. (2005a) First order kinetic gas generation model
parameters for wet landfills. EPA-600/R-05/072.
U.S Environmental Protection Agency. (2005b) User’s Manual – Landfill Gas Emissions
Model (LandGEM) Version 3.02.
U.S Environmental Protection Agency. (2007) User’s Manual – Central America Landfill Gas
Model Version 1.0.
U.S Environmental Protection Agency. (2009a) User’s Manual – China Landfill Gas Model
Version 1.1.
U.S Environmental Protection Agency. (2009b) User’s Manual – Ecuador Landfill Gas Model
Version 1.0.
U.S Environmental Protection Agency. (2009c) User’s Manual – Mexico Landfill Gas Model
Version 2.0.
U.S Environmental Protection Agency. (2009d) User’s Manual – Philippines Landfill Gas
Model Version 1.0.
U.S Environmental Protection Agency. (2009e) User’s Manual – Thailand Landfill Gas Model
Version 1.0.
U.S Environmental Protection Agency. (2009f) User’s Manual – Ukraine Landfill Gas Model
Version 1.0.
U.S Environmental Protection Agency. (2010) User’s Manual – Colombia Landfill Gas Model
Version 1.0.
Wangyao, K., Towprayoon, S., Chiemchaisri, C., Gheewala, S.H. and Nopharatana, A.
(2010) Application of the IPCC Waste Model to solid waste disposal sites in tropical coun-
tries: case study of Thailand, Springer, Environmental Monitor Assessment, 164: 249–261.
Ziad, D. and Al-Ghazawi and Fayez Abdulla. (2008) Mitigation of methane emissions from
sanitary landfills and sewage treatment plants in Jordan, Clean Technology Environmental
Policy, Springer-Verlag.
Chapter 4
LFG monitoring and economic

feasibility evaluation
4.1 LFG MONITORING
The key objectives of LFG monitoring include:
• Compliance with regulatory norms;

• Prevention of uncontrolled emissions to the atmosphere;
• Comparison of actual site conditions with modeling conditions;
• To evaluate the effectiveness of any gas control measures installed at the site; and
• To establish a reliable database of information for the landfill throughout its life.
4.1.1 Monitoring locations within the waste body

The LFG monitoring should be representative for each section of the landfill. It is
generally recommended that the locations for LFG monitoring within the waste
body should be at a density of at least one monitoring point per cell in lined landfills
and one monitoring point per hectare of filled area in unlined landfills.
Monitoring wells constructed within the waste body are for the purpose of
monitoring LFG concentrations and fluxes within the waste. These wells should be
independent of the LFG collection and extraction system and used as dedicated LFG
monitoring points for the purpose of ascertaining the state of degradation within the
waste body and how it responds to environmental conditions.
The monitoring of collection wells and associated manifolds is undertaken to
determine the effectiveness of LFG extraction and collection system and to facilitate
the balancing of the extraction and collection system. Collection well monitoring is
necessary for the efficient management of an LFG extraction system.
4.1.2 Monitoring locations outside the waste body

The monitoring of boreholes outside the waste body is essential to detect any LFG
migrating from the waste body and to demonstrate the efficient management of
LFG within the site. Boreholes for monitoring LFG outside the waste body may be
located both on-site and off-site.
The spacing and location of LFG monitoring points outside the deposited wastes
should be determined on a site specific basis. A detailed exposure and risk assess-
ment should be undertaken with potential pathways and receptors identified. Some
factors which need to be taken into account when selecting LFG monitoring loca-
tions include:
• quality and volume of LFG being generated;

• geology of the site;
• type of waste;
• containment measures adopted, e.g., landfill lining or capping;
• proximity of buildings and developments to the site; and
• permeability of the waste.
The spacing of the LFG monitoring locations is unlikely to be uniform around

the site. It is probable that more monitoring points would be needed near build-
ing developments, where there are changes in the site geology and where there is no
containment.
It is advisable that LFG monitoring boreholes are located a minimum of 20 m
from the waste body and should be installed at least to the depth of the maximum
depth of waste within the waste body. Where appropriate, groundwater monitoring
boreholes may also be used for gas monitoring.
LFG monitoring should also be undertaken in any buildings on the site (e.g., site
offices). For some sites this may take the form of a permanent monitoring system.
4.1.3 Pressure monitoring

Atmospheric pressure should be measured regularly in order to aid understanding
of LFG pressure readings within the waste body. Rapid drops in atmospheric pres-
sure can cause the pressure of LFG to rise significantly above that of the ambient
atmospheric pressure, resulting in possible migration. The monitoring of pressures
within the waste body may give an indication of the likelihood of LFG migration
occurring.
Inversely, a sudden rise in atmospheric pressure after a prolonged low pressure
period can lead to an artificial depression of the monitored methane concentration.
At some landfills very frequent recordings of barometric pressure trends (e.g., hourly
intervals from the nearest meteorological station) may be necessary so that fluctuating
methane concentrations can be related to barometric pressure conditions.
4.1.4 Monitoring frequency

The frequency of LFG monitoring required is site specific and should be established
from the results of the investigations. The frequency will depend on a number of
factors, such as:
• the age of the site;

• the type and mix of waste;
• the possible hazard or nuisance from gas escaping from the site;
• the results of previous monitoring;
• the control measures that have been installed;
• the development surrounding the site; and
• the geology of the site and its environs.
LFG monitoring and economic feasibility evaluation 123
Monitoring should be increased when:
• there are increases in LFG quantity or change in LFG quality during monitoring;
• control systems are altered by landfill operations;
• capping of part, or all, of the site takes place;
• pumping of leachate ceases or leachate levels rise within the wastes; or
• buildings or services are constructed within 250 m of the boundary of the waste.
Monitoring should continue until either:
a) the maximum concentration of methane from the landfill remains less than 1%
by volume (20% LEL) and the concentration of CO2 from the landfill remains
less than 1.5% by volume measured at all monitoring points within the wastes
over a 24 month period taken on at least four separate occasions, including two
occasions when atmospheric pressure was falling and was below 1,000 mb; or
b) an examination of the waste using an appropriate sampling method provides a
95% level of confidence that the biodegradation process has ceased.
4.1.5 LFG trigger levels

Unless otherwise determined from baseline monitoring results, the trigger levels for
emissions of methane and carbon dioxide in boreholes outside the waste body are
shown in Table 4.1. These trigger levels for LFG emissions also apply to measure-
ments in any service duct or manhole on, at or immediately adjacent to the landfill.
If either of these trigger levels are attained within buildings then the affected
areas should be evacuated and the emergency services notified. Monitoring should
be undertaken to identify the point of LFG ingress and control measures should be
implemented to prevent further ingress. Methane has explosive and flammability
risks and carbon dioxide is an asphyxiant.
4.1.6 Monitoring surface emissions

The surface methane emissions of LFG from a site cap and from other parts of a
landfill should also be monitored from time to time. This gives a measure of the
methane escaping to atmosphere and checks the integrity of LFG management sys-
tem and the capping system.
A walkover survey may be undertaken using a portable flame ionisation detec-
tor (FID) held as close to the surface of the landfill as possible. More detailed meas-
urements of changes in methane concentrations above a specific small area of the
Table 4.1 LFG Trigger Levels for Boreholes outside the waste body (EPAI, 2003)
S. No. Parameter Trigger Concentration

1. Methane Greater than or equal to 1% v/v or
2. Carbon dioxide Greater than or equal to 1.5% v/v
landfill surface may be undertaken using a flux box. These flux boxes are most suit-
able for use on completed areas of a landfill site. They will produce high flux meas-
urements if used on waste that is not capped or covered by an intermediate layer of
soil or other inert material.
It has been established that on a capped landfill with active LFG abstraction
that a limit value of 1 103 mg/m2/s of methane surface emissions or better can
be achieved. Monitoring of other surface emissions such as hydrogen sulphide or
non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs) should also be undertaken if
required.
4.1.7 Monitoring locations

It is essential to monitor routinely both the inputs and outputs of the flare and/or
LFG to energy utilization plant. All emissions from LFG combustion processes
will be variable in terms of flow-rate and composition due to the nature of the gas
source. Variations may occur due to the aging of the waste, inconsistencies within
the waste composition itself as well as changing meteorological conditions.
Health and safety is of great importance when sampling emissions from combus-
tion plants. Easily accessible, safe and functional monitoring/sampling points should
be fitted on all combustion plants.
4.1.8 Parameters for analysis

Table 4.2 contains a typical monitoring regime for LFG flares and utilisation plants.
The exact parameters and emission limit values will vary depending on the regula-
tory requirements or the specification of the equipment.
The species and composition of emissions from the combustion of LFG is deter-
mined by a number of factors. These include:
• compounds present in the LFG;

• type and design of the equipment used;
• operation of the equipment; and
• combustion conditions, temperatures, excess air, etc.
All flares should be fitted with continuous combustion temperature and carbon
monoxide monitors and utilisation plants fitted with continuous carbon monoxide
monitors connected to a datalogger with visible display panel at ground level.
In the case of enclosed flares, a minimum combustion temperature of 1,000C
and a retention time of 0.3 seconds is recommended as an indicative standard that is
likely to achieve required emission standards.
Incomplete combustion of halogenated organic compounds may occur due to a
combination of low turbulence, temperature and oxygen content. These conditions
may be found at the periphery of an open flare or in the cooler zones around the
walls of enclosed flares. This is one of the key reasons why all flares are required to be
enclosed and to operate at a minimum combustion temperature and retention time.
There are a variety of equipment available for the detection and quantifica-
tion of LFG. The instrument to be used may be fixed where continuous monitor-
ing is required (e.g., in a building or combustion plant) or portable where periodic
Table 4.2 Typical LFG Flare and Utilization Plant Monitoring Regime (EPAI, 2003)
Parameter Flare Monitoring Frequency LFG to Energy Plant

Inlet
LFG flow rate Continuous Continuous
Methane (CH4) % v/v Continuous Continuous
Carbon dioxide (CO2) % v/v Continuous Weekly
Oxygen (O2) % v/v Continuous Weekly
Total Sulphur Annually Annually
Total Chlorine Annually Annually
Total Fluorine Annually Annually
Process Parameters
Combustion temperature Continuous Not applicable
Retention time Annually Not applicable
Outlet
Carbon monoxide (CO) Continuous Continuous
Nitrogen oxides (NOx) Annually Annually
Sulphur dioxide (SO2) Annually Annually
Total VOCs as carbon Annually Annually
Total non-methane VOCs Not applicable Annually
Particulates Not applicable Annually
Hydrochloric acid (HCl) Annually Annually
Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) Annually Annually
Other parameters e.g., heavy metals, Site specific Site specific
halogenated organic compounds
Notes:
1. If a high concentration of these substances is present in the gas (Cl 160 mg/m3, F 25 mg/m3,
S 1400 mg/m3), purification treatment may be required in order to fulfill emission standards.
2. The presence of CO in the flue gases is indicative of incomplete combustion.
monitoring is required (e.g., boreholes outside the waste). The most important part
of the instrument is the sensor. In the selection of equipment, particular attention
should be given to the safety features of the instrument and to its intended use.
Interpretation of the results obtained from monitoring equipment requires a full
understanding of the method of detection employed and of the environment which
is being sampled. The wide variation in gas mixtures which can occur in and around
landfills can lead to misinterpretation of readings.
4.1.9 LFG within and outside the waste body

When monitoring LFG from boreholes or wells, the following guidelines should be
followed:
• Health and safety precautions should be adhered to at all times. There should
be no smoking while sampling for LFG. Direct inhalation of LFG and entry into
confined spaces should be avoided. Chemical resistant gloves should be worn to
avoid contact with LFG condensate.
• All equipment should be operated, calibrated and serviced according to the

manufacturers instructions.
• All boreholes or wells should be fitted with sealable gas sampling valves to iso-
late the borehole/well from the atmosphere, to prevent air ingress and to enable
equilibrium with the area to be monitored.
• In order to prevent atmospheric dilution of the sample the gas sampling valve
should be closed at all times other than when the gas sampling equipment is
attached to the monitoring structure. The borehole or well should be resealed
after sampling. Monitoring boreholes should also have a security cover to ensure
that the valves cannot be tampered with.
• Most portable gas monitoring instruments are susceptible to interference by
water vapour or water entering the equipment. To check the borehole for flood-
ing, it may be necessary to remove the seal and therefore open the borehole to
the atmosphere. Care should be taken to ensure that liquid is not sucked into
the gas sampling equipment during monitoring.
• Where groundwater boreholes are also used to monitor off-site LFG migration,
then screw on caps and a control valve need to be fitted. Gas monitoring should
be undertaken before groundwater monitoring. It should be noted that the spe-
cific construction of a groundwater monitoring borehole could sometimes render
it ineffective for gas monitoring and the construction details should be assessed
to determine if it is also suitable for gas monitoring.
• The atmospheric pressure should be measured during each sampling round and
the details noted on the log book, e.g., 1001–1003 millibar (rising). The moni-
toring of gas pressure in wells within the waste body may also be noted and this
may give an indication of the likelihood of gas migration occurring.
• Any unusual observations should be noted while monitoring at the facility such
as any vegetation die-back, any hissing sounds or bubbling occurring, descrip-
tion of any odours occurring and if the ground is warm.
• Leachate monitoring or abstraction wells are inappropriate for gas monitoring
purposes within the waste body. If such monitoring points are used, then the
results cannot be regarded as comparable with, or a substitute for specifically
designed monitoring points within the waste body.
• Monitoring of bulk gases and flow rates of the gas collection wells and mani-
folds should be undertaken in order to achieve sufficient control over the gas
extraction and treatment systems. These wells are not appropriate for the moni-
toring of LFG concentrations and fluxes within the waste body.
4.1.20 Flare and utilization plants

There is a wide range of instrumentation available for monitoring LFG flares and
utilisation plants. Monitoring will usually take the form of either in-situ techniques
or extractive monitoring. In-situ or in-stack techniques are where the sensing device
is in the stack and the results are conveyed as an electronic signal. Extractive moni-
toring involves the collection of a sample of combusted gas and transport away to
an analyser.
Stack testing of flares generally cannot meet the same standardised monitoring
procedures required of industrial stack testing. By using certified and experienced
specialists, monitoring standards will be adhered to as closely as possible and the

interpretation of sampling results will be based on a thorough understanding of the
variabilities involved.
When monitoring emissions from LFG flares/utilisation plants the following
points should be noted:
• A full health and safety risk assessment should be undertaken before commence-
ment of monitoring. This should identify any hazards that may be encountered
and put in place potential control measures.
• Stack testing personnel or consultants should be certified under a professional
competency scheme specific to LFG flares, where available, or alternatively
should provide company certification of flare emission testing experience gained.
• Monitoring conditions are severe with high temperatures and corrosive gases
present. Flares may have flames exiting at the top and as a result are extremely
dangerous to personnel working near the top of the flare. Adequate personal
protective equipment should be worn at all times.
• An adequate sampling platform may need to be constructed so that sampling
can be undertaken safely. Ladders and small mobile platforms such as cherry-
pickers should not be used to access monitoring points.
• Easily accessible, safe and functional monitoring/sampling points should be pro-
vided at all plants. Provision for these should where possible be provided at the
design and construction stage. These sampling ports allow much safer and more
frequent on-site testing of the flare or utilisation plant.
• Sampling of emissions should take place after combustion is completed.
• Special high temperature resistant (1,100C) monitoring equipment is required
and may have to be manufactured specifically for flare emission monitoring.
• Representative sampling points need to be determined in the ducts through
which the LFG flows. Multi-point sampling may be necessary to obtain a more
representative sample.
• In-situ probes should be fitted where continuous monitoring is required (e.g.,
carbon monoxide emission monitoring).
• Recognized standard methods (e.g., ISO, CEN) should be used.
• All relevant on-site sampling and laboratory analytical methods should be
accredited.
• There may be variation in gas composition across the stack due to poor mixing
and variable flow rates. Combustion is an unsteady process. Thus, ‘single-shot’
measurements may be misleading. Time averaged readings are essential. In prac-
tice measurement intervals of less than 30 minutes are of little value.
• Some flare designs operate at extremely high excess air values. This needs to be
accounted for when measuring and correcting data.
Table 4.3 shows the monitoring protocols for flares and utilisation plants.
A typical monitoring borehole is presented in Figure 4.1. It is essential that mon-
itoring points be established on the perimeter of the site and between the site and
locations such as buildings that may be at risk from LFG migration. Investigations
should identify likely monitoring point locations.
Table 4.3 Minimum baseline monitoring requirements for a non-hazardous landfill (EPAI, 2003)
LFG Gas composition (Methane, Three perimeter Two readings over a year prior
Carbon dioxide, Oxygen) boreholes to waste deposition to establish
background gas concentrations
Figure 4.1 Typical LFG monitoring borehole (Outside waste body)

Source: Landfill Manuals – Landfill Site Design, EPA, Ireland, 2000
4.2 TEST METHODS/PROTOCOLS FOR LFG MONITORING
The LFG monitoring is generally carried out using four methods. These are passive
monitoring, active monitoring, continuous monitoring and remote monitoring. Each
of these is briefly described below:
Passive monitoring: It involves adsorption of pollutant in a chemical agent in a tube

over a period of few weeks and averaging the pollutant concentration over the
time period. This gives the average concentration of the pollutant but will not
effectively identify events, since the results are averaged.
Active monitoring: It involves passing a known volume of LFG through a filter or
chemical solution over a specific time interval and then analyzing the filter or
the solution in the laboratory. As in passive monitoring, this will not effectively
identify events, since the results are averaged over the sampling period.
Continuous monitoring: It involves using automatic analysers which give average
concentrations of LFG over short periods of time, usually less than an hour. In
this method, the LFG sample is analysed in real time.
Remote monitoring: It also provides real-time measurements using long-path detec-
tion methods such as long-path infrared (IR) spectroscopy.
Table 4.4 Comparison of gas sensors for use in LFG monitoring devices (EPAI, 2010)
S. No. Type of Sensor Selectivity Range Response time Power Poisoning

Consumption
1. Semiconductor Not good Good Good (1 min) High Possible
sensors
2. Pellistor Not good Good Good (1 min) High Possible
Sensors (Combustible
gases only)
3. Electrochemical Good Good Good Low Possible
sensors
4. Infrared gas Excellent Excellent Fast (1 sec) High N/A
sensors
Figure 4.2 Graphical representation of flux chamber sampling train (EPAI, 2009)
The extent of LFG monitoring and the most appropriate method of sampling
varies from one landfill site to site to another and are dependent on factors such as
landfill design, type of waste deposited in the landfill and the age of the landfill.
There other approaches to CH4 detection, including hand-held devices based on
flame ionization detection (FID), photo ionization detection and IR spectroscopy,
and larger lab-based off-line detection systems based on infrared spectroscopy and
gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS). Most detection methods, espe-
cially where quantitative results are given, are not in real time but require a sam-
ple to be ‘grabbed’ and then analyzed at another location. The types of sensors for
potential use are given in Table 4.4.
Flux Chamber Method: The flux chamber is used to isolate a known surface area
for emissions measurement. The flux chamber consists of a hemi spherical sealed
chamber (Figure 4.2) whereby clean, dry, VOC free standard sweep air (Air Products)
is added to the chamber at a metered rate of less than or equal to 3.25 liters/
minute and verified using a Primary flow calibrator. A temperature and pressure sen-
sor is fitted to the headspace of the chamber. The headspace air within the chamber
is allowed to exchange a minimum of 5 times before any measurements are made.
Within the chamber, the sweep air is mixed with emitted vapors and gases from the
measurement surface by the physical design of the sweep air inlet. The concentra-
tion of the exhaust gas is measured at the chamber outlet for Methane and speciated
VOCs with a FID and sorbent tube method. The sample rate of the instrumentation
is at minimum less than 40% of the sweep volume. Values are recorded when the
exhaust gas concentration in the chamber exhaust is stabilised.
The emission flux from a surface can be calculated using the following equation:
Ei CiQ/A
where:
Ei emission rate of component i (μg/m2/s or mg/m2/s);

Ci concentration of component i (μg/m3 or mg/m3);
Q sweep air flow rate into chamber (m3/s); and
A surface area enclosed by chamber (m2).
Sample locations were informed by the results of the surface emissions survey.
The accuracy of the flux box method is dependent on the number of flux box
chamber tests conducted and can only provide an average flux over the sampling
period. As reported by the Environment Agency, grid spacing of 20 m to 30 m
which are typical of densities for small areas (less than 3 hectares) or for academic
research. Grid spacing of 20 m to 30 m have a probability of detecting a 25 m2 cir-
cular feature of 6% and 3%, respectively, which is very low. Grid spacing of 35 m
to 50 m which are more typical of densities applied on a commercial basis to sites of
5 to 20 hectares, have a probability of detecting a 25 m2 circular feature that is even
less than 3%. To improve the probability of detecting a significant emission feature,
a walkover survey can be conducted prior to flux box testing. However, this can
skew the results to high emission features if flux boxes are targeted at high emission
features.
The advantages of the flux box method are that it is relatively simple and eco-
nomical for small landfills and there are methodologies that are well established.
The disadvantages include:
• It is a point sampling method. Unless a very high density of flux box tests are
used, statistically there will always be a relatively significant degree of uncer-
tainty as to the actual emission flux.
• Cannot account for emissions from concentrated sources such as cracks, small
emission features or leakage with LFG wells or monitoring points.
• Since it is labour intensive, it can be time consuming and costly for large
landfills.
Vertical abstraction wells: Problems with vertical abstraction wells and gas man-
agement systems are encountered on landfill facilities. Insufficient LFG abstraction
gives rise to surface emissions from the area in and around the well and in the zone
of influence of the vertical well. Insufficient abstraction augments into a number of
points, which are discussed further in this section. These are:
Inadequate well sealing: Inadequate sealing of LFG wells is a significant problem. This
can result in surface emissions in and around the feature and also result in prefer-
ential pathways for the ingress of Oxygen into the system. This may force the land-
fill managers to turn back the applied vacuum pressure on the wellhead in order to
prevent the risk of landfill fire. On permanently capped areas, surface emissions can
occur as a result of settlement resulting in liner detaching from the pipe work.
Construction of vertical well: If vertical wells are not constructed to a sufficient diame-
ter they may become perched with leachate. Sites with a high occurrence of perched
leachate should optimise vertical well construction to take account of this fact.
Inadequate condensate removal:
• Surface emissions due to insufficient condensate removal from pipe work and
removal of leachate from vertical wells can be encountered. Inadequate removal
of condensate results in failure to maintain gas vacuum pressure at the wellhead.
Accumulation of condensate should be engineered out using sufficient falls and
condensate removal pots.
• Condensate management plans should be implemented in landfill facility to
allow for the development of progressive and proactive procedures and equip-
ment for the removal of condensate.
• Sufficient consideration given to the design of the LFG collection system include
barometric drip-legs, pumped and gravity drain knock-out pots, correct falls in
pipe work to allow easy removal, dewatering well heads and legs and correct
sizing of pipe work so as to prevent frequent blockages.
• Consequences of inadequate condensate management lead to flooded spurs and
headers, low vacuum at wellheads which in turn gives rise to increased surface
emissions.
Inadequate flow control:

• Limited capacity to control LFG flow because either ball valves are faulty, cor-
roded or installed incorrectly. Typically valves used are ball and socket valves,
butterfly valves, linear valves, and Angle seat valves. Butterfly valves should only
be used on spur or sub headers. Ball valves appeared to be the main choice on well-
heads while a small number of facilities had linear and angle seat valves installed.
Since ball valves can have poor flow control of gas, these should be sized correctly
to allow for sufficient headloss and flow control at the vertical and horizontal gas
abstraction well. Careful consideration should be given to the type of valve, level
of control required with that valve and ease of maintenance/replacement.
Gas field balancing and lack of understanding: The interaction of monitor-

ing, balancing and process control of this system should be used to optimise LFG
abstraction.
Leachate side slope risers and leachate chambers: Problems with respect to sur-
face emissions from leachate side slop risers and leachate chambers may be encoun-
tered. The issues encountered included inadequate sealing of the leachate side slope
risers or chambers and the absence of LFG abstraction from the leachate side slope
risers or chambers. Since the leachate side slope risers and chambers provide a direct
connection into the waste body it is very important that they are capped, sealed ade-
quately and placed under a slight negative vacuum to minimize LFG leakage.
Flanked areas: Flanked/sloped area surface emissions may be encountered. It
should be noted that the one facility which did not have flanked/sloped area sur-
face emissions had very high surface emissions on other surfaces. In general flanked/
sloped areas were too steep therefore maintenance including reapplication of cover
material and tracking in loose cover material could not be easily carried out. When
a flanked/sloped area is not maintained adequately, it will become etched as a result
of water damage. Gas abstraction techniques should be designed to minimize surface
emissions from flanked/sloped areas.
Flare and blower capacity: Blower static pressure capacity issues are mainly
due to insufficient static pressure within the flare blower to overcome the resistance
to remove gas from the LFG field and to force it through the flaring system. This
can result in insufficient gas abstraction which would result in over pressurization in
the LFG field. There was a lack of understanding with some landfill managers on the
flare performance criteria for flaring systems and there appeared to be a dependency
on overseas service, which was not readily available for immediate fixing of faults. In
moving forward, all flaring systems should be performance tested to ensure they can
achieve the stated treatment volume and pressure capacity. Sufficient flare blower
static pressure should be incorporated into the flare design to also take account of
pressure losses throughout the gas field pipe work. Sufficient flare volume treat-
ment capacity should be maintained on the flaring system for new fill phases and the
quantity of gas volume capacity at least based on site data for recently fill cell (i.e.,
ascertain through site records the volume of LFG produced per tonne of waste mate-
rial landfilled). The filling of additional cells should not occur until proof is provided
of sufficient available flare treatment capacity within the system. It is important for
the operator to observe continuous vacuum pressure applied to the field in order to
trend any loss in performance throughout a working day. Flare volume flow sensors
should be calibrated regularly and volume flow verification should be performed.
Gas management system: Gas management systems need to be introduced in
active zones within the landfill as early as possible thereby minimizing emission of
odors and GHGs. The enclosed flaring of LFG with low % methane concentration
(i.e., down to 4 to 6%) can now be achieved using advance low calorific flaring sys-
tems so LFG from active cells can now be flared without any supplementary fuel
required.
4.3 LFG MIGRATION AND DYNAMICS IN BOREWELL
The ratio of CH4/CO2 is dependent on a number of factors such as the season, the
soil type, moisture content, temperature and the activity of methanogenic bacte-
ria. Most of the LFG is extracted from the main waste body and flared off, but a
small amount will diffuse through the soil by vertical and/or lateral migration over
time. The soil type and porosity can affect the path taken and can also affect the
CH4/CO2 ratio. In areas of high porosity and particle size distribution, CH4 can
have a longer residence time leading to conversion to CO2 in the presence of metha-
nogenic bacteria, thus decreasing the CH4/CO2 ratio in this area. The temperature
affects the activity of the methanogenic bacteria, with most activity occurring in the
summer months. In areas of higher moisture, the CO2 content can decrease as it is
more soluble in water, thus increasing the CH4/CO2 ratio.
It is the change in this ratio that causes most of the non-homogeneity in LFG
extracted from the perimeter borehole well headspace. The pathways for migra-
tion to the perimeter will change with changing weather or soil type, etc., and
the CH4/CO2 ratio will frequently change based on the factors described above.
Therefore, when studying the LFG samples extracted for the borehole well head-
space over a depth of a number of metres, differences in the component con-
centrations are to be expected. The borehole well inner pipe is porous, so LFG
migrating through the soil can diffuse into the pipe for extraction. This movement
into the pipe is accelerated when extraction takes place and the quasi-steady-state
CH4/CO2 ratios that have been established in areas in the soil are disturbed. It is
these areas of high and low CH4/CO2 ratio being extracted that lead to the non-
homogeneity in the borehole well headspace and inconsistency in repeat sampling
each day.
Dilution of LFG sample at the top of the borehole well headspace also leads to
inconsistent results when repeat sampling is employed, as the gas sample is often
mixed with varying amounts of atmospheric air. Ingress of atmospheric air com-
monly occurs to stabilise the pressure, leading to a dilution of the LFG present. It
has been recorded that the ingress of atmospheric air can affect the gas concentra-
tion up to 2 m from ground level, to varying degrees.
During sampling, especially prolonged sampling at the perimeter, the composi-
tion of the LFG can change. Extraction of LFG can lead to the ingress of migrated
LFG and/or atmospheric air, leading to changes in component concentration and/or
ratio in the same sampling cycle. Prolonged sampling creates a localised area of low
LFG pressure, promoting LFG migration and the filling of the borehole well with
LFG from different areas within the perimeter, leading to different concentrations
and ratios of CH4/CO2 being seen.
To further understand the variability of the major gas components (CH4 and
CO2) in the borehole well and to provide the most effective sampling cycle for the
landfill gas sampling, additional studies can be carried out such as:
1 An investigation into the appropriate sampling time needed for the prototype
device to provide a representative sample of landfill gas;
2 A study of the influence of sampling landfill gas at varying depths in the bore-
hole well headspace on the time needed for the gas sensors to report a consistent
concentration of the gas components, CO2 and CH4;
3 An examination of the impact of a relatively small perturbation (i.e., insertion of
a borehole well depth probe) on the changes in the gas composition;
4 Exploration of the changes in gas composition that occur when a sample is
extracted from the borehole well headspace; and
5 A study of the impact of the reintroduction of the extracted and measured
landfill gas sample into the borehole well headspace on the internal gas
composition.
The dynamics of CO2/CH4 (greenhouse) gas generation and migration within landfill
sites, and their distribution into borehole wells are complex, and cannot be tracked
or modeled adequately through a single monthly measurement. Significant events
can build up and decline rapidly, and may be completely missed by a monthly sam-
pling regime.
Sampling at the top of the borehole well will lead to significant underestimations
of the true levels of these gases present. This means that the levels of greenhouse
gases in landfill sites are very likely to be grossly underestimated, and management
practices correspondingly cannot be efficient.
Sampling at lower depths in the headspace leads to much more reproducible
data that are likely to be much more representative of the true levels of CO2/CH4 in
the vicinity of the borehole well.
For active sampling (i.e., pumped) and continuous monitoring of the efficiency
of the gas management system, recycling of the sample back into the borehole well
appears to be a viable sampling method which does not appear to have an adverse
effect on the headspace gas composition in the short term, compared with distur-
bance caused by non-return extraction from the headspace. However, for compli-
ance monitoring, returning of the sample to the borehole well headspace should not
be used without further investigation.
Accurate modelling and optimum management of CO2/CH4 generation and
migration will require monitoring at multiple boreholes. It has been shown that
remedial actions taken to reduce excessive levels of gases can lead to an upsurge of
gas levels at other locations due to the unpredictable nature of gas dynamics across
landfill sites.
For continuous monitoring of the efficiency of the gas management sys-
tem, the extracted sample should be recycled back into the borehole well during
measurements.
The sample should be extracted from a depth within the borehole well head-
space and not from the top of the borehole well. The depth will be dependent on
the water table and headspace depth within the borehole well, but 0.5–1.0 m would
appear to be a reasonable compromise for most situations.
An extraction time of 3 min should be sufficient to get a steady-state measure-
ment from the headspace and take a representative sample.
Sampling should take place more frequently. Sampling once per month means
that a great number of events on the site can be missed. Twice-daily sampling may
be employed and this may be sufficiently frequent to capture the dynamics of gas
generation and migration within the chosen landfill site.
4.4 STANDARDIZED APPROACH FOR LFG PROBE ASSESSMENT
The standardized approach for LFG probe assessment developed by SCS Engineers
consists of the following activities:
1 Pre-Assessment Activities consists of pre-notification of site owners/operators,

on-site random selection of probes, and recording of ambient conditions (pressure,
weather, etc.).
2 Initial Condition Assessment consists of reviewing the geographic location of

the probe, reviewing the identification methodology for the probe, assessing the
probehead assembly (fittings, piping, etc.), and conducting surface emissions
monitoring in the vicinity of the probe.
3 Gas Monitoring Assessment consists of recording initial pressure readings, LFG
monitoring, ambient oxygen analysis, depth trend analysis, and methane con-
centration analysis.
4 Vacuum Testing of the probe consists of the application of a known vacuum to
a probe and recording the probe response once the vacuum was stopped.
5 Video Borescope Inspection consists of verifying the probe construction by
creating a video log of the inside of the probe using a small diameter borescope.
6 Lithology Evaluation consists of the evaluation of the adequacy of the placement
of the screened section of a probe considering permeable and porous lithologies.
4.4.1 Pre-assessment activities

• Selection of Gas Probes: considering the age, depth, and accessibility of the
probes.
• Ambient Conditions: Prior to the assessment of each LFG migration monitoring
well, recording ambient atmospheric conditions including weather, barometric
pressure, temperature, wind speed and wind direction.
• Recordkeeping: All data collected for each probe investigation should be on a
LFG Probe Field Data Sheet.
4.4.2 Initial monitoring probe condition assessment

An assessment of the initial monitoring probe conditions consists of an evaluation of
probe location, probe identification, probe head assembly assessment and an assess-
ment of surface emissions around each probe.
Monitoring Probe Location: A map of the landfill should be obtained in order
to locate the probes to be monitored. When the mapped location of the probe is
verified in the field, cross-checking of the map should be done to identify the true
location of the probe. Then digitally photograph the gas probe wellhead and sur-
rounding area.
Monitoring Probe Identification: In order to properly identify monitoring probes
at a landfill, the probe should be uniquely labeled in order to distinguish it from
other probes within the casing. This is typically done by sequentially numbering
the well locations around the site and using a designation of “S” for shallow depth,
“M” for medium depth, and “D” for deep depth probes. Each probe should be indi-
vidually labeled with the well identification, as well as probe relative depth (shallow,
mid-depth, and deep), and screened interval.
Probe head Assembly Assessment: The probe head design assembly may vary
significantly from site-to-site, and sometimes even from well to well on a landfill
site. The gas monitoring port of the probes at each landfill also varies. The lab cock
valves and/or quick connect fittings provide suitable connection for standard moni-
toring instruments.
Surface Emissions Monitoring: The surface emissions monitoring (SEM) is con-

ducted to assess the overall integrity of the wellhead and individual probe comple-
tions, i.e. surface emissions may be an indicator that subsurface gasses are migrating
up the well borehole, outside of the probe casing. SEM activities are conducted
within a five-foot radius around each monitoring well. SEM is conducted in order
to evaluate the potential for the presence of LFG due to possible inadequate probe
design or probe breakage. Significant gas detections near the ground surface outside
of the probe casing may include:
• Inadequate probe completions (deteriorated bentonite seals, etc.)

• Cracks, leaks in probe casing near ground surface
• Poorly designed/opened sample ports at the time of monitoring
• Improper design of the wellhead assembly
• Location of probe in proximity to refuse footprint.
4.4.3 Gas monitoring assessment

Initial Pressure Readings: Each probe should be monitored for initial pressure using
a pressure gauge. The data will provide an initial assessment of the subsurface envi-
ronment of the probe, and can also be used to assist in determination of probe
functionality. While a positive pressure reading in a probe is generally considered
indicative of gas generation and migration away from the refuse mass, a negative
pressure reading is generally indicative of a probe under vacuum, as may be seen
with probes located in close proximity to an LFG extraction well. Note that this
assertion is made notwithstanding the influence of typical (e.g., diurnal) barometric
pressure fluctuations within probes. However, and more importantly, the more of a
variation from ambient (i.e., zero) static pressure a probe displays, the more a probe
can be relied upon as functional since, by showing either negative or positive pres-
sure, the probe is also demonstrating that it can hold pressure.
LFG Monitoring: In addition to ambient pressure and temperature, each probe
should be monitored for methane (CH4), carbon dioxide (CO2), and oxygen (O2),
using a Gas Extraction Monitor. Probes should also be monitored for carbon mon-
oxide (CO) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S). The monitoring should be carried out until
a steady state level is achieved.
Gas concentrations monitored from each probe should represent the concentra-
tion of gasses in the soils around the screened portion of the probe. In order for gas
concentration data to validate the functionality of a given probe, the concentrations
of gasses observed in the probe itself must be indicative of a subsurface environment
(e.g., lower than ambient O2, increased CO2, etc.).
Ambient Oxygen Analysis: Gas concentrations within shallow probes that are
not influenced by migrating LFG generally have a higher (closer to ambient) con-
centration of oxygen than do deeper probes. This is because air exchange with the
atmosphere, under barometric influences, decreases substantially as we go deeper
into the soil horizons, while natural (non-landfill) subsurface oxidation and decay of
soil organics (roots, etc.) increases. Further, migrating methane itself can be biologi-
cally oxidized within soil pore spaces.
Aerobic microorganisms in soils deplete the oxygen and release carbon dioxide
within the soil, resulting in higher concentrations of carbon dioxide and lower con-
centrations of oxygen. This is especially common in the deep probes where oxygen
concentrations are expected to be low. Therefore, a decrease in oxygen with depth in
probe monitoring is typically considered to be indicative of a valid sample obtained
from a subsurface environment, whereas near atmospheric levels of oxygen in a deep
probe, while they can and do periodically occur, is generally indicative of atmos-
phere leaking into a probe via a crack in the casing, a break in the sampling port/
sampling train, or a leak in sampling valve itself.
Depth Trend Analysis: The evaluation of gas data, should also consider shal-
low to deep gas trends, particularly CO2 and O2 between shallower and deeper
probes within the same well in order to further evaluate the validity of the gas
monitoring data.
Methane Concentration: The concentration of methane in probes is of the
utmost importance during monitoring. Typically, a detection of methane in a perim-
eter probe is indicative of the concentration of methane crossing that monitoring
point, headed away from the landfill.
4.4.4 Vacuum testing

Immediately following gas monitoring activities a vacuum test should be conducted
on each of the probes. The vacuum test consists of the application of a known vac-
uum to each probe and noting the change in vacuum (i.e., recovery) over time.
In order to complete the vacuum test, a sampling train including a vacuum/
pressure gauge, control valve, and vacuum pump is connected to each probe. The
probe valve is opened and a vacuum is applied to the probe. The initial vacuum
pressure is recorded and the sampling train valve is opened and the residual vacuum
is monitored over a 2 minute period. The residual vacuum decline is noted in 30 sec-
ond intervals on the LFG Probe Data Sheet.
It is generally assumed that any introduced vacuum in a probe without any leaks
would drop slowly over time, as gasses from the subsurface enter the screened sec-
tion of the probe. As such, the amount of time necessary for a probe to recover is
highly contingent upon the porosity and moisture content of the soils located around
the screened section of a probe. For example, a probe with its screened interval in
silty clay would be expected to take longer to recover from the introduction of a
vacuum than a probe with its screened interval located in coarse sand.
Taking all of this into account, it is difficult to precisely determine the nature of
the vacuum integrity of a probe. However, as stated above, it is assumed that a probe
that decreases in vacuum slowly over time does not have any major leaks in the cas-
ing and the wellhead assembly. Vacuum testing is not a fool-proof method of probe
functionality determination. Results from the vacuum testing can be used to verify
probe functionality, as opposed to determining the non-functionality of a probe.
4.4.5 Video borescope inspection

Each probe monitoring can be recorded with a video borescope in order to visually
inspect the integrity of the probe. The video allows evaluation of the durability and
design of the probe, and aids in the selection of future material selection, construc-
tion, and design.
After conclusion of the vacuum/pressure test, the well cap is removed from the
probe and the video borescope camera is lowered into the probe. First, the probe
identification (landfill and probe number) is entered onto the video record. Features
such as casing joints, top and bottom of screen, water level (if present), and bot-
tom of probe is identified on the video record, as well as any other remarkable fea-
tures such as casing or screen damage, screens mostly flooded with water, or screens
not constructed as designed. At all identifiable features, the depth is recorded on the
audio portion of the video, as well as the LFG Probe Data Sheet.
The primary purpose of the video borescope inspection is the verification of the
probe construction information as compared to the installation log and identifica-
tion of blockages.
In assessing the differences between the installation log and the borescope, it
is important to remember that there may be a differential between the probe log
and the borescope record based on the fact that the borescope records are reported
from the top of the probe casing, whereas probe installation records are typically
reported from ground surface. Hence, during evaluation of video borescope records,
a difference of up to approximately 4 feet can be attributed to this variance and is
not considered significant for purposes of functionality determination. However, the
differences in screen sizes from video log to construction log are still applicable.
Probe Construction Observations: One of the primary goals for the video bore-
scope inspection is the verification of the probe construction logs. The screened
section of a probe is easily detectable using the video borescope.
In addition to screened intervals, the overall probe construction could be deter-
mined through a review of the video borescope records.
Probe Obstructions: The obstructions generally observed in the probes include
bentonite, nails, roots, rubber stoppers, bent/collapsed casings, PVC pipe, and soil.
In general, minor obstructions, such as rootlets, may still allow gas to travel in the
probe between the screened interval and the probhead for sampling. However, sev-
eral other types of obstructions (soil, bentonite, stoppers, etc.) will likely retard, if
not stop, the flow of gasses through the probe. For this reason, the probes should
be identified with significant obstructions (clogged with bentonite, soil, flooded with
water, etc.) as non-functional.
4.4.6 Lithology evaluation

Lithologic evaluation is done in order to determine if the probe screened intervals
are placed, “preferentially adjacent to soils which are most conducive to gas flow.
There is no single way in which to evaluate the functionality of a probe. It is through
a combination of observations that probe functionality can be determined.
Probe Construction: The probes should be constructed of PVC piping with a
perforated or screened interval. Generally the probes are constructed using 10 foot
sections of piping. If the probes are constructed with five foot sections of pipe, this
will double the number of joints on the probe, which could increase the possibility
of leaks. By constructing probes with longer pipe segments, the possibility of bio-
fouling, blockages by bentonite, dirt, and roots is decreased.
Screws should not be used as a binding material for overlapping pipe seg-
ments in order to allow visual inspections. The probes should be constructed using
threaded coupling in order to minimize the possibility of gas intrusion.
A wellhead assembly should include at minimum a locking valve with a sam-
pling port.
The selection of probe locations, in terms of depth and topography, is crucial in
the planning process. Probes that are located close to vegetation had some degree
of root intrusion either in the screened interval, or between the joints of the probe.
Roots can destroy probes by cracking the casing, rendering them useless. In order to
minimize the possibility of root intrusion on a probe, the probe location should be
placed as far away from vegetation, if possible, or should be periodically inspected
and cleared of vegetation.
The depth of the probe in relation to the water table is also a crucial step in
the planning process in order to prolong the life of the probe. In order to maximize
the effectiveness of the monitoring probe, the depth to the water table plus seasonal
fluctuations in the water table should be taken into account when determining the
depth of the probe.
More rigor should be applied in consideration of soil lithology and the location
of a screened interval of a compliance probe. The specified depths of the monitoring
probes within the wellbore should be installed based on the most permeable lithol-
ogy encountered.
Durability of Materials: The materials used at the study landfills should be dura-
ble (degradation of PVC, etc.).
Regular monitoring of the boreholes and checks on the gas wells for perform-
ance and gas yield will identify areas where maintenance works are required during
the aftercare period. These works will include:
• remedial works to wells and pipework;

• extension works to include recently capped cells;
• changing systems from passive to active extraction;
• relocating gas flare system; and
• decommissioning and removing redundant structures.
Once gas extraction is exhausted, the gas compound should be decommissioned

and all redundant equipment removed. The site operator must ensure that the works
required have minimal impact on the afteruse and users of the restored site.
4.5 ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF LFG TO ENERGY PROJECT
The relative costs of installing a LFG management system to collect and transport
LFG to a facility can vary substantively based on site-specific conditions and the
applicable design basis. The costs to install a LFG management system can vary dra-
matically as a function of:
• Quantity of waste in the landfill

• Landfill dimensions
• LFG generation potential
• Cost of petroleum and associated products

• Local costs for materials such as aggregate, pipe, and bentonite
• Availability and costs for suitable construction contractors
• Proximity to material manufacturing facilities
• Nature of the design.
The specific characteristics of a landfill site will have many direct implications for
the design options and related costs of LFG management system. As such, it is highly
recommended that these costs be reviewed carefully on a project-specific basis.
The economic feasibility of LFG to energy technologies also depend on the pre-
vailing local and regional energy prices. The economic feature of LFG to energy
technologies can be performed by cost and profit analysis. The cost is divided into
capital cost, annual Operation and maintenance cost and carbon tax and energy
tax. The profit is the sales revenue of energy generation. In addition, other economic
benefits include:
• Improved cost effectiveness of the existing MSW management system

• Improved overall cost recovery;
• Provide local people with employment opportunities;
• Increased institutional capacity of local government;
• Low energy costs for inhabitants in remote or off-grid areas.
Beside these, a cost-benefit analysis appropriate for small LFG to energy projects
can be developed and performed by incorporating the value of the energy gener-
ated, the value of the avoided methane emissions, and the value of the avoided
groundwater treatment costs when applicable. This cost-benefit is described as
follows:
Considering a landfill i, the profit of initializing the LFG to energy project
(Equation 4.1) is the difference between the total revenue which includes the reve-
nue from sales of methane (RHi), the revenue from carbon trading (RCi), the benefit
from groundwater remediation (BGi) and the total cost that includes the cost of col-
lection system (CCi), the cost of operations and maintenance (COi), and the cost of
transporting the collected gas (CTi).
Pi RHi RCi BGi CCi COi CTi (4.1)
In spite of the fact that energy recovery from landfill is one of the most prom-
ising renewable energy technologies, LFG energy recovery projects are not always
successful. It is often not the case that a technical problem causes a LFG energy
recovery project to fail. But when there are problems, they are often because of non-
technical barriers. Non-technical barriers that may face developers of LFG energy
recovery projects include:
• Potential developers awareness of LFG energy recovery and risk perception by

potential end-users and financiers;
• Project and energy supply economics;

• Ownership and rights;
• Market access;
• Finance;
• Planning, permitting and licensing; and
• Bureaucracy.
The evaluation of economic feasibility, selection of most viable alternative and deter-
mination of available financing mechanism for the project are key steps for LFG to
energy projects. This section provides guidance on the steps for performing an eco-
nomic analysis. The economics of LFG to energy projects can be analyzed under six
scenarios:
1 Convert the LFG to LNG to use as a transportation fuel (LFG–LNG);

2 Convert the LFG to CNG to use as a transportation fuel (LFG–CNG);
3 Convert the LFG to pipeline grade natural gas (LFG–Pipeline);
4 Convert the LFG to electricity (LFG–Electricity);
5 Cap the landfill and flare the LFG (Closed Flare);
6 Do Nothing (Nothing).
Numerous costs and benefits are associated with each option and some of them
are common to more than one scenario. Table 4.5 summarizes the types of benefits
and costs associated with each of the scenarios.
Estimating the Benefit Cost Ratio for each scenario: The costs and benefits
should be evaluated for each scenario. Each scenario will incur a different set of
Table 4.5 Types of benefits and costs associated with LFG scenarios
Scenario
Description LFG to LFG to LFG to LFG to Enclosed Nothing

LNG CNG Pipeline Electricity Flare
Benefits
Diesel or Natural Gas Savings X X X
Electricity Conversion X
Carbon Credits X X X X X
Tax Credits X X X X
Fleet Turnover Emissions Reductions X X
Costs
Landfill Capping Costs X X X X X X
CNG/LNG Facility and Operation Cost X X
Pipeline Natural Gas Facility and X
Operation Cost
Electricity Plant and Operation Cost X
Flaring System and Operation Costs X
Costs of Emissions X
costs and benefits. Depending on the efficiency of the LFG to energy project, differ-
ent proportions of the costs and benefits may be considered to apply to a particular
scenario. The estimation of the benefit cost ratio for each of the scenarios is evalu-
ated as shown in Equation.
Costs of NPV Total

Benefit/Cost Ratio (B:C)
Benefits of NPV Total
Scenarios 1 and 2: Conversion of LFG to LNG/CNG for Use as a

Transportation Fuel: In these scenarios, the costs incurred for each landfill includes
the cost of the technology. Additionally, the operational cost of the LNG/CNG facil-
ity, as well as the NPV of the cost of investing in new trucks may also be considered.
In terms of the benefits, these include the NPV of savings due to not purchasing
diesel, carbon credits, tax credits, and the emissions benefits due to using LNG/CNG
trucks instead of diesel trucks.
Scenario 3: Conversion of LFG to Pipeline Grade Natural Gas: The costs for
this scenario include the facility costs and operational costs. The benefits that can be
considered include the NPV of earnings from the natural gas sales, tax credits and
carbon credits.
Scenario 4: Conversion of LFG to Electricity: The costs for this scenario
include the electricity plant cost and operational costs. The benefits considered for
this scenario include the NPV of benefits from the sale of electricity, tax credits and
the carbon credits. Efficiency losses in electricity lines should be assumed; therefore,
certain percent of the electricity produced is assumed to be lost, which reduces the
percentage of earnings from carbon credits and electricity.
Scenario 5: Flaring a Capped Landfill: The costs of this scenario include the
costs for installing and operating the flaring system. The only benefit for this sce-
nario comes from the NPV of carbon credits.
Scenario 6: Do Nothing: The costs associated with the do-nothing scenario
assume that the landfill must be capped due to regulations once it has reached the
end of its design life or its maximum capacity. In the do-nothing scenario the landfill
capping costs should be included as well as operational and maintenance costs that
will be incurred throughout the 20-year lifetime of the project analysis. Additionally,
the fleet turnover costs for diesel vehicles that may be purchased over the 20-year
analysis period should also be included. These are real costs and benefits but are
included in all scenarios. Therefore the marginal costs and benefits of all scenar-
ios are relative to this, which is why the do-nothing scenario has no benefit-cost
ratio.
The first step in the evaluation process is to perform a preliminary economic fea-
sibility assessment. If the preliminary economic assessment shows that a project may
be well-suited to the landfill, then a detailed economic assessment for the landfill
and potential project options should be performed. A preliminary feasibility study is
based on typical costs (e.g., typical equipment costs, typical right-of-way and permit-
ting costs, typical financing methods and interest rates). A detailed feasibility study
is based on project-specific costs and estimates (e.g., cost quotes for a specific model
of equipment appropriate to the landfill, assessment of costs depending on pipeline
routes and number of land owners, assessment of permitting costs depending on

specific permitting requirements, specific financing methods and interest rates). In
both cases, the outputs of these assessments include costs and measures of financial
performance required to make investment decisions, such as:
• Total installed capital costs

• Annual costs in first year of operation
• Internal rate of return (IRR)
• Payback period
• Net present value (NPV).
4.5.1 Capital and O&M costs

LFG to energy project costs may include costs for LFG collection and flaring, elec-
tricity generation, direct use, or other project options. The LFG to energy project
will involve the purchase and installation of equipment (capital costs) and the
expense of operating and maintaining the project (O&M costs). It is important to
decide early on whether to collect LFG from the entire landfill or just the most pro-
ductive area. This decision may be dictated in some cases by regulatory requirements
to collect LFG. It is often most cost-effective to put in a smaller LFG collection sys-
tem first and then extend the system over time as new areas are filled and begin to
produce significant quantities of LFG.
For evaluating LFG to energy project economics, the capital costs for develop-
ment of an LFG recovery system and utilization project at the landfill should be
estimated. The expected costs for operation and maintenance (O&M) of the LFG
collection system should also be estimated. The costs of remediation and closure of
the landfill and installation of a final cover should be undertaken independently of
the LFG project and initiated prior to LFG project implementation.
LFG Collection and Flaring System Costs: An estimation of LFG collection and
flaring system construction should be made. These are costs associated with the pro-
posed LFG collection system, including: LFG extraction wells, header and lateral
piping, condensate management, and installation of a blower and enclosed flaring
station. The summary of the items include:
• Mobilization and project management

• Horizontal or Vertical extraction wells and wellheads (Number of wells and
average depth). The extraction well costs include wells, wellheads, wellbore seals,
butterfly valves, and disposal of drilling refusal
• Leachate pumping equipment
• Main gas header collection piping (length of pipe and its diameter, header valves)
• Gas lateral piping to wells
• Condensate management (Condensate traps, self-draining, Condensate manholes
with pumping, Road Crossings)
• Blower and flaring equipment (enclosed flare). The flare station costs should
cover flare, blowers flame arrestor, controls, piping, valves, foundation and fenc-
ing, construction and site work,
• Flare station construction and sitework, including installation and electrical
• LFG measuring and recording equipment, flare start-up, and source test.
• Security fencing around well field
• Engineering and contingency, and
• Up-front CDM transaction costs.
Cost can vary significantly due to design details. For example, the cost for instal-
lation of header piping is significantly higher if the pipe trenches need to be deeper.
Cost can vary significantly for different types of equipment. Some types of equip-
ment may have a lower initial installation cost but higher operation and maintenance
costs. For example, variable frequency drives are optional for active LFG manage-
ment systems, but their installation (at higher capital cost) in some situations can
result in significant power savings. The state of the economy and market forces can
significantly affect pricing. The cost can vary depending on the location. Site condi-
tions can have significant effect on the cost of LFG management. For example, if a
landfill has a high leachate levels, LFG collection can be problematic and significant
additional capital and operational costs may be incurred. Some landfills have more
or higher capacity abstraction plant equipment than is required to collect LFG at the
present time. This is likely done either to provide redundancy (back-up) or in antici-
pation of LFG collection increasing in the near future. Provision of a higher capacity
abstraction plant than is required at present would increase abstraction plant capital
costs. Similarly, some landfills have installed horizontal collectors in anticipation of
future waste placement, although LFG may not be extracted awhile. This would also
increase the apparent capital cost.
Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost: The annual O&M of the LFG collec-
tion system should be estimated which is approximately 7–10% of the construction
costs (excluding security fence construction). These costs include those associated
with operation and maintenance of the collection system such as labor, testing equip-
ment and parts, routine maintenance and system repairs, and limited replacement of
existing wells and piping.
The skill of personnel who operate the LFG management system can affect
O&M costs.
Other annual costs include those associated with the process of obtaining LFG
emission reductions, including registration fees, and monitoring and verification of
the LFG emission reductions.
Energy Project Costs: Since the LFG flow changes over the life of the project, it
is important to decide whether to size equipment for minimum flow, maximum flow,
or average flow. This may help determine which technology is best suited for the
project. Due to the high capital cost of electricity generating equipment, it is often
advantageous to size the project at (or near) the minimum LFG flow expected dur-
ing the 15-year project life. This approach, however, can result in lost opportunity
to generate electricity and receive revenues in years when LFG is more plentiful. The
best sizing approach for the project will largely be influenced by the site-specific LFG
curve, electricity rate structures, other revenue streams, and contract obligations
(i.e., minimum electricity generation requirements). It may be worth evaluating the
economics of sizing near the minimum and near the maximum LFG flow. Also con-
sider adding generating capacity (more internal combustion engines or gas turbines)
over time as LFG flow from the landfill increases.
Direct-Use Project Costs: A direct-use project may be a viable option if an end

user is located within a reasonable distance of the landfill. Examples of direct-use
projects include industrial boilers, process heaters, kilns, or furnaces; or space heat-
ing for commercial, industrial, or institutional facilities or for GHGs. For direct-use
projects, costs may vary depending on the end user’s requirements, but will typically
involve the following items:
• Gas compression and treatment to condition LFG for the end user’s equipment.
• A gas pipeline to transport LFG to the end user.
• A condensate management system for removing LFG condensate along the pipeline.
The size of the pipeline can affect project costs. For projects with increasing LFG
flow over time, it is often most cost-effective to size the pipe at or near the full LFG
flow expected during the life of the project and to add compression and treatment
equipment as LFG flow increases.
The costs for the LFG compression and treatment system include compression,
moisture removal, and filtration equipment typically required to prepare LFG for
transport through the pipeline and for use in a boiler or process heater. If more
extensive treatment is required to remove other impurities, costs will be higher. The
gas pipeline costs also assume typical construction conditions and pipeline design.
Pipelines can range from less than a mile to more than 30 miles long, and length will
have a major effect on costs. In addition, the costs of direct-use pipelines are often
affected by obstacles along the route, such as highway, railroad, or water crossings.
Other Project Options: In addition to electricity and direct-use projects, other
less common LFG to energy project options exists, including CHP, leachate evapora-
tion, vehicle fuel, and upgrading to high-Btu gas for sale to natural gas companies.
These technologies are not as universally applicable as the more traditional LFG to
energy projects, but given the right situation, they can be very cost-effective and may
be worth exploring as potential project options.
CHP is a better option for end users located near the landfill, or for projects
where the LFG is transported to the end user’s site and both the electricity and the
waste heat are generated at their site. The electricity produced by the end user can
be used on site or sold to the grid.
Leachate Evaporators combust LFG to evaporate most of the moisture from land-
fill leachate, thus greatly reducing the leachate volume and subsequent disposal cost.
These projects are cost-effective in situations where leachate disposal in a publicly
owned treatment works or wastewater treatment plant is unavailable or very expensive.
Vehicle Fuel Applications Costs associated with this option include converting
the vehicles to use the alternate fuel and installing a fueling station.
To Upgrade LFG to Produce High-Btu Gas, although expensive, increasing
energy costs may make high-Btu gas a more viable option. These projects are ideally
suited for large landfills located near natural gas pipelines.
The project expenditures that should be considered for LFG power plant option are:
• Initial capital investment for LFG collection system, flare, and power plant.
• Purchase of LFG from landfill owner.
• Annual cost for operation and maintenance of the LFG collection system, flare,
and power plant.
The project expenditures that should be considered under the direct use option are:
• Initial capital investment for LFG collection system, flare, and LFG treatment/
compressor skid and pipeline.
• Annual cost for operation and maintenance of the LFG collection system, flare,
and LFG treatment/compressor skid and pipeline.
The project expenditures that should be considered under the flaring only option are:
• Initial capital investment for LFG collection system and flare.

• Annual cost for operation and maintenance of the LFG collection system and
flare.
4.5.2 Energy sales revenue

Electricity Project Revenues: When assessing the economics of an electricity project,
it is also important to consider the avoided cost of the electricity used on site.
Electricity generated by the project that is used in other operations at the landfill is,
in effect, electricity that the landfill does not have to purchase from a utility. This
electricity is not valued at the buy-back rate, but at the rate the landfill is charged to
purchase electricity (i.e., retail rate). The retail rate is often significantly higher than
the buy-back rate.
LFG to energy projects can potentially use a variety of additional environmental
revenue streams, which typically take advantage of the fact that LFG is recognized as
a renewable, or “green,” energy resource. These additional revenues can come from
premium pricing, tax credits, greenhouse gas credit trading, or incentive payments.
They can be reflected in an economic analysis in various ways, but typically, con-
verting to a cents/kWh format is most useful. LFG cost accommodates four common
types of electric project credits: a direct cash grant, a renewable energy tax credit
expressed in dollars per kWh, a direct greenhouse gas (carbon) credit expressed in
dollars per metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent, and a direct electricity tax credit
expressed in dollars per kWh.
The following list includes the available environmental revenue streams that an
LFG energy project could possibly use.
• Premium pricing is often available for renewable electricity (including LFG)

that is included in a green power program, through a Renewable Portfolio
Standard (RPS), a Renewable Portfolio Goal (RPG), or a voluntary utility green
pricing program. These programs could provide additional revenue above the
standard buy-back rate because LFG electricity is generated from a renewable
resource.
• Renewable energy certificates (RECs) are sold through voluntary markets to
consumers seeking to reduce their environmental footprint. They are typically
offered in 1 megawatt-hour (MWh) units, and are sold by LFG electricity gener-
ators to industries, commercial businesses, institutions, and even private citizens
who wish to achieve a corporate renewable energy portfolio goal or to encour-

age renewable energy. If the electricity produced by an LFG energy project is not
being sold as part of a utility green power program or green pricing program,
the project owner may be able to sell RECs through voluntary markets to gener-
ate additional revenue.
• Tax credits, tax exemptions, and other tax incentives, as well as federal and
state grants, low-cost bonds, and loan programs are available to potentially pro-
vide funding for an LFG energy project. Another popular funding option is the
Clean Renewable Energy Bond (CREB) program, which allows electric coopera-
tives, government entities, and public power producers to issue bonds to finance
renewable energy projects including LFG electricity projects. The borrower pays
back the principal of the CREB, and the bondholder receives federal tax credits
in lieu of the traditional bond interest.
• Many state and regional government entities are establishing their own green-
house gas initiatives to cap or minimize greenhouse gas emissions within their
jurisdictions. Examples include the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).
Some of these programs establish a cap-and-trade program on carbon dioxide
emissions, while others require new fossil-fueled boilers and power plants to
either implement or contribute to funding of offset projects, such as LFG energy.
• LFG to energy projects are also well suited to voluntary emissions trading pro-
grams. The credit includes certain restrictions based on project start dates; also,
if the landfill is required by law to collect and combust LFG, then it cannot
receive credit for methane reductions.
• Bilateral trading and greenhouse gas credit sales are other voluntary sources of
revenue. They are project-specific and are negotiated directly between a buyer
and seller of greenhouse gas credits. In these cases, corporate entities or public
institutions, such as universities, may wish to reduce their “carbon footprint”
or meet internal sustainability goals, but do not have direct access to develop-
ing their own project. Therefore, a buyer may help finance a specific project in
exchange for the credit of offsetting greenhouse gas emissions from their organi-
zation. These may be simple transactions between a single buyer and seller (e.g.,
the project developer), or may involve brokers that “aggregate” credits from
several small projects for sale to large buyers. These programs often involve
certification and quantification of greenhouse gas reductions to ensure validity
of the trade. As a result, there can be rigorous monitoring and recordkeeping
requirements for participating in the program. The additional revenue, however,
is likely to justify these additional efforts.
Direct-Use Project Revenues: The primary source of revenue for direct-use projects
is the sale of LFG to the end user; the price of LFG, therefore, dictates the projects’
revenues.
The following revenues may be considered under the power plant project:
• The power plant generated electricity is sold to the power grid at a suitable rate.
• GHG emission reductions are sold at a suitable rate per tonne CO2e. The sale of
emission reductions may be considered depending on the assumed duration of
revenues from GHG emission reductions.
• LFG collected in excess of the power plant capacity, along with LFG collected
during plant downtime is assumed to be combusted in the flare.
The following revenues may be considered under the direct use project:
• The direct use project produces a maximum LFG for a suitable period and
declining amounts in each subsequent year. The LFG is sold to the end-users at a
suitable rate.
• GHG emission reductions are sold at a suitable rate per tonne CO2e. The sale of
emission reductions may be considered depending on the assumed duration of
revenues from GHG emission reductions.
• LFG collected in excess of the amount sold to end-users, including LFG collected
during facility downtime, is assumed to be combusted in the flare.
The following revenues may be considered under the flaring only project:
• GHG emission reductions are sold at a suitable rate. The sale of emission reduc-
tions is considered depending on the assumed duration of revenues from GHG
emission reductions.
• All collected LFG is assumed to be combusted in the flare.
4.5.3 Economic feasibility

Once the costs and revenues for a project have been determined and the project is
still considered viable, an economic feasibility analysis should be performed. When
performing a more detailed analysis, a spreadsheet model is used to estimate cash
flow based on the costs and revenue streams, and it provides a more accurate esti-
mate of the probable economic performance over the lifetime of the project. The key
parameters used are:
• Project capital and O&M cost data.

• Operation summary – electricity generated, Btu delivered, gas consumed.
• Financing costs – the amount of the project that is financed and the interest rate
will determine how much it will cost to service the project’s debt each year.
• Inflation rates – this could impact O&M costs, especially if the product is sold
at a fixed price over a term.
• Product price escalation rates – increases or decreases in the price of electricity
or LFG will affect project revenues.
• Revenue calculation – sales of electricity and incentive/markets revenue.
• Cost uncertainty factors – the project capital or O&M costs may be less or more
than expected in any given year.
• Tax considerations – taxes or tax credits that may apply will affect revenue
streams.
The financing mechanisms used for a project will affect the cost to generate
electricity or provide LFG to the direct user. Factors such as project lifetime, loan
periods, interest rates, taxes, discount rates, and down payment percentage all affect
project cost and therefore the cost of generating the electricity or providing the LFG
to the direct user. These costs account for the funds required to purchase and install
the capital equipment (capital amortization costs) and, together with the O&M
costs, constitute a more representative cost of producing electricity or providing LFG
to a direct user.
For a preliminary assessment, LFG cost will calculate several of these financial
performance indicators, such as IRR, NPV, and NPV payback period. It will also
provide a preliminary capital and O&M cost estimate for the project.
LFG energy projects where a gas collection and flaring system is already in place
realize improved economics because the collection system installation costs are not
attributed to the energy project. Instead, the costs for gas collection are considered a
sunk cost associated with other landfill operations, such as mitigating methane migra-
tion or controlling odors. However, such projects will generally not be eligible for
credits for GHG capture if the gas collection and flaring was required by regulatory
programs.
The financial requirements of the parties involved in developing a project must
be considered in determining economic feasibility and selecting financing mecha-
nisms. A project at a publicly owned landfill that is not financially attractive to a
project developer could still be implemented through self-development or partnering
arrangements.
4.5.4 Comparison of economically feasible options

It may be necessary to compare the economic analyses of each option and select the
most promising option. A head-to-head economic comparison can be used to rank
the financial performance of each option to select a winner. This comparison should
incorporate several economic measures in the ranking, since no single measure can
guarantee a project’s economic success. Some project options may be based on more
proven technologies and would incur lower risk than other, newer technologies,
despite their having the potential for a greater return on investment. The risk involved
may influence the financing available and could require a higher-interest loan.
4.5.5 Project financing options

Many financing options are available to landfills and project developers, including
finding equity investors, using project finance, and issuing municipal bonds. This
section describes common types of financing and some potential advantages and dis-
advantages of each.
4.5.6 Perspective of lenders/investors

Typically, lenders and project investors look at the expected financial performance
of the project to decide whether or not to lend or invest in the LFG energy project.
The debt coverage ratio is an important measure that the lender/investor will want
to see (in addition to the IRR and other financial performance indicators from
the pro forma analysis). The debt coverage ratio is the ratio of a project’s annual
operating income (project revenue minus O&M costs) to the project’s annual debt
repayment requirement. Lenders usually expect the dept coverage ratio to be at

least 1.3 to 1.5 to demonstrate that the project will be able to adequately meet debt
payments.
The higher the risk associated with a project, the higher the return expected
by lenders or investors. Risks vary by site and by project and may entail various com-
ponents of the overall project, from availability of LFG to community acceptance. In
many cases, however, risks can be mitigated with a well-thought-out project, strong
financial pro forma, use of proven equipment vendors and operators, and a well-
structured contract. Table 4.6 lists the various categories of risk that might be asso-
ciated with a landfill project, and potential measures that can be taken to mitigate
these risks.
Table 4.6 LFG to Energy Project Risks

LFG availability • Measure LFG flow from existing system
• Hire expert to report on gas availability
• Model gas production over time
• Execute gas delivery contract/penalties with landfill owner
• Provide for backup fuel if necessary
Construction • Execute fixed-price turnkey projects
• Include monetary penalties for missing schedule
• Establish project acceptance standards, warranties
Equipment performance • Select proven technology for proposed energy use
• Design LFG treatment system to remove impurities, as
necessary
• Get performance guarantees, warranties from vendor
• Include major equipment vendor as partner
• Select qualified operator
Environmental planning • Obtain permits before financing (air, water, building)
• Plan for condensate disposal
Community acceptance • Obtain zoning approvals
• Demonstrate community support
Power sales agreements (PSA) • Have signed PSA with local utility
• Match PSA pricing, escalation to project expenses
• Include capacity, energy sales, and RECs in energy rate
• Sufficient contract term to match debt repayment schedule
• Confirm interconnection point, access, requirements
• Include force majeure (act of God) provisions in PSA
Energy sales agreements (ESA) • Signed ESA with energy customer
• Fixed energy sales prices with escalation or market-based
prices at sufficient levels to meet financial goals
• Customer guarantees to purchase all energy delivered by
project
• Limit liability for interruptions, have backup
Financial performance • Create financial pro forma
• Calculate cash flows, debt coverage
• Maintain working capital, reserve accounts
• Budget for major equipment overhauls
4.5.7 Financing approaches

Several possible approaches can be taken to financing the project, each of which is
described briefly below. The approaches described here are not necessarily mutually
exclusive; a mixture of different financing approaches may be available for a project
and might be better suited to meeting specific financial goals.
Private Equity Financing. This financing approach has been widely used in past
LFG energy projects. It involves an investor who is willing to fund all or a portion
of the project in return for a share of project ownership. Potential investors include
some developers, equipment vendors, gas suppliers, industrial companies, and invest-
ment banks. For small projects without access to municipal bonds, private equity
financing may be one of the few ways to obtain financing. Private equity financing
has the advantages of lower transaction costs and usually the ability to move ahead
faster than with other financing methods.
Project Finance. This is a popular method for financing private power projects.
With this approach, lenders look to a project’s projected revenues rather than the
assets of the developer to ensure repayment. The developer, therefore, is able to
retain ownership control of the project while still obtaining financing. Typically, the
best sources for obtaining project financing are small investment capital companies,
banks, law firms, or energy investment funds.
Municipal Bond Financing. In the case of municipally owned landfills and
municipal end users, the local government might issue tax-preferred bonds to finance
the LFG energy project. This approach is the most cost-effective way to finance
a project, because the interest rate is often 1 or 2 percent below commercial debt
interest rates, and can often be structured for long repayment periods. However,
municipalities can face barriers to issuing bonds, such as private business use and
securities limitations, public disclosure requirements, and high financial performance
requirements.
Direct Municipal Funding. This approach – possibly the lowest-cost financing
available – uses the operating budget of the city, county, landfill authority, or other
municipal government to fund the LFG energy project. It eliminates the need to
obtain outside financing or project partners, and it avoids the delays caused from
their project evaluation needs.
Lease Financing. In this approach, the project owner/operator leases all or part
of the LFG energy project assets. This arrangement usually allows the transfer of tax
benefits or credits to an entity that can best make use of them. Lease arrangements
can allow for the user to purchase the assets or extend the lease upon completion of
the term of the lease. The benefit of lease financing is that it frees up capital funds of
the owner/operator while allowing them control of the project.
4.5.8 Evaluation of costs and benefits

In general, conducting an economic feasibility analysis for a specific landfill would
involve the estimation of costs and benefits associated with various options over a
specific analysis period.
This section outlines the methodology that is the framework behind the feasibil-
ity analysis that will enable users to choose between a LFG to Energy project, flaring
of LFG, or taking no action. For conducting a pre-feasibility analysis that involves
looking at costs and benefits, a total of six scenarios are chosen to examine which
option is most financially viable. Each cost and benefit is evaluated in terms of a
total Net Present Value (NPV) over the entire analysis period. Each scenario will
incur a different set of costs and benefits.
4.5.9 Conclusions
LFG energy project development poses several risks and rewards. Landfill owners
should keep detailed data records, be conservative on the energy potential from the
landfill, carefully review pro forma statements, and assist the procurement process in
any way possible; long delays from permits, public opposition, or financing can be a
turn-off for investors. Project developers should allow for all parties to benefit from
the project, conduct financial sensitivity analyses to accurately portray risks, and
set conservative goals for project schedules, costs, and revenues. Successful project
development requires that all parties work together to mitigate the project risks and
ensure that they can survive with less-than-ideal project results.
REFERENCES
Environmental Protection Agency Ireland. (2000) EPAI Landfill Manuals – Landfill Site
Design.
Monitoring, 2nd Edition.
Environmental Protection Agency Ireland. (2009) EPAI Summary Report – Independent
Assessment of LFG Emissions and Management Systems at 29 EPA Licensed Landfills in
the Republic of Ireland.
Environmental Protection Agency Ireland. (2010) EPAI Monitoring of Gas Emissions at
Landfill Sites Using Autonomous Gas Sensors (2005-AIC-MS-43-M4), STRIVE Report.
Mbav, W.N., et al. (2010) Energy production from Landfill Gases in African Countries,
International Conference on Power System Technology.
SCS Engineers. (2008) LFG Monitoring Well Functionality at 20 California Landfills,
California Integrated Waste Management Board.
Texas Transportation Institute. (2009) TTI Pre-Feasibility Analysis for the Conversion of
Landfill Gas to Liquefied Natural Gas to Fuel Refuse Trucks in India, U.S. EPA Methane
to Markets Partnership.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1996) LMOP Turning a liability into an asset: A land-
fill Gas-to-Energy Project Development Handbook.
Chapter 5
Landfill gas treatment technologies
5.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter discusses in detail several LFG flaring technologies, from the passive to
active systems. In addition, several cleaning and upgrading technologies to treat the
LFG have been described in detail in this chapter. Case studies of LFG flaring and
treatment technologies from various countries are provided to familiarize the reader
with current practice.
5.2 PASSIVE VENTING OF LFG
The passive venting of LFG is generally adopted at those landfill sites which have
low LFG flow rates or where LFG to energy recovery projects may not be viable.
The LFG vents consists of large stones placed in perforated concrete manhole sec-
tions, large diameter corrugated metal pipe, or wire mesh baskets placed vertically.
A typical LFG passive vent is shown in Figure 5.1.
These vents provide gas pressure relief and odor control if flared. These vents are
effective in constructing LFG extraction components as the landfill grows without
relying on drilling equipment. An important feature of LFG vents are that they can
be modified into active extraction wells. This can be done by excavating to a suffi-
cient depth around the vent to alter the top portion so that a vacuum can be applied
with less potential for air intrusion. Another approach can be to modify the vent
construction in a manner that can easily be converted to an active extraction well.
A typical vent installation, however, provides several design and operational
challenges, including the following:
• If flared, the flame is difficult to maintain due to low LFG flow rates and the
lack of a wind shroud and automatic ignition device.
Figure 5.1 LFG Vent Modification

Landfill gas treatment technologies 155
• If the vent opening is close to the ground surface, safety hazards can be created
by open flames or concentrated methane emissions.
• When converting to an active system, such vents are difficult to utilize in the
final system without significant modification to reduce air intrusion created by
the stone backfill extending to the surface.
• If new vertical wells are drilled near existing vents, the vents can act as air intru-
sion points if vacuum from the new wells overlaps the vent location. Thus, unused
vents may need to be sealed, which is difficult when the vent riser is a large diam-
eter concrete ring or corrugated metal pipe.
5.3 LFG COMBUSTION MECHANISM
Although the main components of LFG are carbon dioxide and methane, however it
contains about 557 trace components. Therefore LFG should be controlled by col-
lection and burning in flares or energy recovery plant. The technology of LFG flar-
ing is very simple. LFG is brought into contact with a supply of air and ignited.
The objective is to dispose of the flammable constituents, particularly methane, safely
and to control odour nuisance, health risks and adverse environmental impacts. The
selection of flaring system, setting of standards for flaring and compliance norms for
LFG emissions depends on the combustion process of methane in LFG. The reaction
mechanism of methane combustion is given below:
CH4 2O2 → CO2 2H2 (5.1)
Equation 5.1 shows that 9.6 volumes of air per volume of methane is stoichio-
metrically required to achieve complete oxidation. For a typical LFG composition this
are about 5.7:1. The gaseous emissions from flaring of LFG are given in Table 5.1.
Table 5.2 shows the mechanism of formation of these undesirable products of
LFG Combustion. If there is sufficient air mixed with the LFG to ensure complete
combustion, then the flame produced will be relatively short, bluish in color, and
relatively hot. If there is insufficient air or it is poorly mixed with the LFG, the flame
will tend to be reducing, characteristically long, luminous and possibly sooty.
The flaring system should be designed to maximize the conversion of methane in
order to minimize the release of unburned methane and products of incomplete oxi-
dation for example carbon monoxide and other trace components in LFG depending
Table 5.1 Gaseous Emissions Generated from the Flaring of LFG
Emission Emission Source

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Combustion products of methane and other carbon compounds
Water Vapor (H2O) Combustion products of methane and other carbon compounds
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Product of incomplete combustion
Hydrogen (H2) Product of incomplete combustion
Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) Combustion products, nitrogen in fuel or secondary formation in fuel
Methane (CH4) Un-burnt landfill gas (indicating incomplete combustion)
Source: Guidance for Monitoring Enclosed Landfill Gas Flares. SEPA, 2004
Table 5.2 Undesirable Products of LFG Combustion
Undesirable Product Mechanism of Formation

CO Complete oxidation requires T 850°C and residence time of
0.3 seconds throughout the flame.
Partially Oxidised HC, Dioxins T 850°C and 1200°C throughout the flame to prevent
and Furans, PAH the formation of these species through unwanted molecular
rearrangements.
NOx Formed at 1200°C by oxidation of N2, Also formed within the
flame by the oxidation of nitrogenous NMVOC
Source: Adapted from IEA, 2000
Figure 5.2 Flame Temperature (C) for CH4/CO2 Gas Mixture for a Range of Excess Added Air
Concentrations
Source: Adapted from IEA, 2000
on the ratio of air: fuel ratio and temperature and kinetics of combustion reactions.
The temperature and residence time are the key parameters that establish the per-
formance specification for flaring system.
The temperature within the flame is governed by the amount of air added to the
LFG. The theoretical relationship between excess added air and flame temperature
based on the heat released from methane combustion is shown in Figure 5.2.
Mapping the desired temperatures and typical LFG concentrations onto this plot
and taking account of heat loss provides an operating range for flares, given by the
blue envelope.
LFG flares usually operate at the right hand side of the envelope at CH4 50%
with the excess air to LFG ratio of the order of 10–15 volumes of air:LFG. Under
these conditions the air is employed to both oxidize the LFG and cool the flame – it
also propagates more turbulence and mixing. Mixing within the burn is crucial to
ensure that all the LFG is burned uniformly and under ideal conditions.
Once the basic air requirement has been determined – the other parameters can
be calculated. The principal combustion reaction is equimolar and therefore sum-
ming the LFG and air flow and adjusting for temperature gives the exhaust gas flow
rate. Dividing this by the section of the enclosure gives the exit velocity. This needs
to be sufficient to prevent the flame front travelling backwards down the burner but
also not too great for the flare to blow itself out. The height of the flare at or above
the design temperature is determined empirically and this can then be used to derive
the retention time at the design temperature. Gas flow and calorific value of the
major components determine the potential heat release.
5.4 LFG FLARING SYSTEM
Although there are a number of flare systems and types, all have the following basic
components:
• A LFG collection and distribution system (the network of wells, pipework and
manifolds that collect the LFG and transport it to the gas conditioning stage);
• A LFG conditioning system to remove moisture and particulate matter from
LFG to ensure burners do not become blocked;
• A pressurising system to ensure that the pressure of LFG is adequate for correct
operation of the burner (a blower or other gas compressor is used to increase
LFG pressure to about 3–15 kPa);
• A flame arrestor device to avoid flashback of a flame to the fuel feed pipe;
• Burner(s) to provide controlled mixing of the fuel and air, and to ensure control-
led combustion over a range of LFG flow rates (burner design can vary consid-
erably and there may be one or several burners installed within a flare);
• An ignition system to provide safe, controlled ignition of LFG;
• Flame detection to determine that ignition has occurred and that the burner is
operational (this is normally a temperature sensor or ultra-violet based detec-
tor which is used to determine the presence of a flame and to initiate controlled
shutdown and/or re-ignition);
• A combustion air system to provide air for combustion support, depending on
burner load. There are two methods of providing primary air to support combus-
tion. The first involves mixing of air with the fuel prior to the burner (premix).
The second involves the air being drawn into the combustion chamber (diffusion).
5.4.1 Design of a flaring system

The key factors influencing the LFG flare system design are:
1 LFG flow rate;

2 LFG composition;
3 LFG temperature;
4 LFG pressure;
5 Utility costs and availability;

6 Safety requirements;
7 Environmental requirements;
8 Social requirements.
LFG Flow Rate: The determination of LFG flow rate is important since an over esti-
mation of LFG flow rate will lead to oversized equipment which in turn will increase
both capital and operation and maintenance cost of the flaring system. Under esti-
mation of LFG flow rates will lead to an ineffective or unsafe system. It also affects
the mechanical size of the flaring equipment e.g., an increased LFG flow will result
in an increased thermal radiation from the flaring system which in turn will have an
impact on the height and location of the flare stack.
LFG Composition: By studying the composition of LFG, its combustion char-
acteristics and potential flue gas components can be identified e.g., the presence of
hydrogen sulfide or inerts. Such components might require special design considera-
tions such as ground level concentration analysis. LFG composition and flow rate is
used to determine the volume or mass of LFG flow by the flaring system. The com-
position of LFG affects the design and size of the flare tip used. In reviewing LFG
stream composition, the primary concern is assuring destruction efficiency. A good
destruction efficiency is assured if stable flame can be established.
LFG Temperature: A large variation of LFG temperature can result in mechani-
cal design failures. Therefore, where the LFG temperature at the source is signifi-
cantly variable from the ambient conditions, the heat loss or gain from the source to
the flare stack should be calculated in order to determine the LFG temperature. This
will significantly reduce the cost of the stack.
LFG Pressure: Higher pressure drop in the flare burner will lead to reduction in
the LFG volume, resulting in a smaller flare header size and reduction in cost.
Utility Costs and Availability: Local energy costs, availability and reliability
should be taken into consideration before selecting the smoke-suppression medium.
Environmental Requirements: The main environmental concerns include smoke-
less burning, increased combustion efficiency and reduced flue gas emissions. For
environmental considerations the key parameters are as follows:
• Flare Location: The flare location should comply with all governmental laws and
regulations affecting height, noise, smoke suppression, and allowable toxic con-
centrations, other important factors must also be considered. These include the
relationship of the flare to the areas in the landfill where people work, roads, other
elevated structures and guy wire location with regard to possible interference .
• Wind Effect: Wind direction and velocity affect the head radiation produced by
the flare by influencing the length and angle of the flame. Normal design prac-
tices assume the average wind speed for the area and take any possible wind
direction into account.
• Temperature Inversions: Temperature inversions and other meteorological con-
ditions affect atmospheric stability and reduce the dispersion of odors, toxic
concentrations, and smoke. These conditions should be considered on the basis
of the frequency of temperature inversion occurrences and the expected effect on
people in the area.
• Heat Radiation: Radiation from the flare flame generally determines flare stack
height. During normal operations, design intent is to limit heat intensity at grade
to levels which are low enough for both humans to safely withstand and to pro-
tect surrounding equipment from heat-related damage. A new flare tip and/or a
higher flare stack may be necessary to maintain safe conditions.
• Ground Level Concentration: If hydrogen sulfide or hydrogen cyanide are in
LFG stream, flare height must be calculated to assure that unburned toxics do
not exceed safe dispersion/ground-level concentrations. Thermal rise and exit
velocity effects dilute stack gases. As the gases reach grade downwind of the
stack, toxic materials concentrations must be reduced to tolerable levels.
Safety Requirements: Safety requirements include thermal radiation from the

flare system, ignition, air infiltration and flue gas dispersion.
Flashback Protection: A sure method of preventing the backflow of air into
the flare stack must be provided to protect against explosions. Flame arresters are
satisfactory in certain situations; however, because of plugging, maintenance, and
expense they must be carefully considered. Systems with large turndown, hydrogen,
or other high flame-speed components, dirty gases or large capacity may warrant
alternative means of flashback protection.
Operational standards: Standards range from simple planning conditions such
as ‘no visible flame’ (directing the process operator towards an enclosed flare) to
specifying a temperature and minimum residence time for combustion to minimise
the formation of undesirable combustion products.
Emissions standards: Emissions monitoring, particularly of the more exotic
emissions, is not straightforward and can be very expensive. However, most coun-
tries that do regulate on emissions standards specify simple combustion parameters,
setting emission limits for a range of parameters.
Monitoring Regimes: Monitoring regimes should be specific to the individual
flare and location, and be designed based on the results of the impact assessment.
5.4.2 Types of flaring system

Flares are broadly classified into open and enclosed flares. Open flares are defined
as devices where residual gas is burned with or without any auxiliary fluid assist-
ance. Open flares burn LFG as open flames, though a windshield is normally fitted.
Open flares are also known as elevated flares. Open flares have been commonly used
because of its cheap and simple design (Refer Figures 5.3 and 5.4). In the case of
open flares, flare efficiency cannot be measured in a reliable manner because external
air will mix and dilute the remaining methane.
An enclosed flare system is one in which an insulation system reduces heat losses
and enables operation at higher temperatures. The enclosed flare system is also
known as a ground flare (Refer Figures 5.5 and 5.6). The enclosed flare consists of
a burner or burners located at the base of a shroud. The flare height is usually in
excess of three times its diameter. The height of the flare has a key effect on the com-
bustion process, as it enhances air supply to support the combustion process in the
shroud. Air is drawn into the shroud by the natural draught caused by the height
of the flare and the buoyancy of the hot combustion gases. Combustion control is
Figure 5.3 Schematic of Elevated Flaring System
Figure 5.4 Open flare with knock-out pot, flow meter, fan, air operated shut down valves, air com-
pressor and flame arrestor
Figure 5.5 Schematic of an Enclosed Flaring System
Figure 5.6 Side View of the Flaring System

usually provided with air control and the enclosure is insulated in order to maintain
consistently high combustion temperatures. The system provides an optimum mix of
air and LFG to ensure complete combustion. The higher the rate of combustion; the
lower will be the emissions from the flare. Enclosed flares can be classified accord-
ing to the way in which they combust the LFG into ‘diffusion flame’ flares – primary
air and LFG are mixed before the burner and ‘pre-aerated flame’ flares – air diffuses
into the LFG leaving the burner.
Solar Vent Flares: Interest in the Solar powered flares has been on the increase in
the recent years. They provide low energy, low system cost, flaring techniques for low
LFG flowrates. The Solar Vent Flare is a flare system with a solar powered igniter.
They can be used at small landfill sites located in remote areas where there is no
access to electric power, or on the perimeter of larger sites to control LFG migration.
Since power demands are to be kept to a minimum with a solar powered system,
the solar flares are typically passive and include no blower. The flares are generally
designed for high-efficiency combustion of LFG, about 98% destruction efficiency.
The major components of a standard solar vent flare includes:
Flare Stack: The flare stand pipe is of carbon steel with a flange base.
Inlet Valve: A stainless steel ball valve for shut-off and is integral with the flare stand
pipe.
Burner Assembly: The burner assembly is of stainless steel construction with an inte-
gral windshield.
Igniter System: The igniter system consists of an insulated igniter rod, high voltage
transformer, battery, battery charger, enclosure and solar panel. The transformer,
battery and charger are mounted in the enclosure. The enclosure and solar panel
are supported from the flare stand pipe.
Support: The flare base flange supports the lateral wind loads on the flare. However,
holes may be provided in the windshield for wires should the well head on
which the Solar Flare is mounted require an additional lateral support.
Flame Arrestor: This device prevents flame flash back in the event of high oxygen
concentrations in the landfill gas. The standard flame arrestor is equipped with
an aluminum tube bank assembly.
Solar Blower System: A small blower may be added to the Solar Flare should active
ventilation of the landfill be required. This blower is also solar powered to per-
mit operation in areas without electrical service. The Solar Blower System con-
sists of the blower, blower mounting housing, battery, battery charger, enclosure
and solar panel. The battery and charger are located in the enclosure. The enclo-
sure and solar panel are mounted on the flare stand pipe.
5.4.3 Description of LFG Flaring System

A blower/flare station is typically composed of a Blower, Flare, Flame Arrestor, Flow
Metering, Piping and Valves and Electrical controls (Refer Figure 5.7). Each of these
is briefly described:
Blower: The blower should work under varying conditions due to changes in LFG
composition and flow rate. The blower applies the required vacuum on the LFG
collection system and supplies the required discharge pressure for the flare. The
amount of vacuum required depends on the size of the LFG collection system.
The amount of pressure required is governed by the flare burner configuration.
LFG collection systems generally use centrifugal or positive displacement type
blowers:
Centrifugal Blowers: Centrifugal blowers are compact and produce an oil-free air-
flow. A multistage impeller creates pressure through the use of centrifugal force.
A unit of air enters the impeller and fills the space between two of the rotating
Figure 5.7 Typical LFG Flaring System
Figure 5.8 Schematic of Enclosed Flare
vanes. The air is thrust outward toward the casing but then is turned back to
another area of the rotating impeller. This process continues regenerating the
pressure many times until the air reaches the outlet.
Rotary Lobe Blowers: The positive displacement blowers are typically used for a
medium range of vacuum levels. During operation of these blowers, a pair of
matched impellers rotates in opposite directions, trap a volume of gas at the
inlet, and move it around the perimeter to the outlet. Timing gears that are
keyed into the shaft synchronize rotation of the impellers. When a belt drive is
employed, blower speed may be regulated by changing the diameter of one or
both sheaves or by using a variable speed motor.
A typical schematic of an enclosed flare system is shown in Figure 5.8. The basic
flare unit consists of a multi-orifice burner and burner chamber enclosed in a stack
containing refractory insulation. Usually the stack height is greater than the flame
height. Exit gas temperature is measured by thermocouple and is recorded at the
flare control panel. An automatic combustion air control system (dampers) oper-
ates based on the temperature controller. The dampers provide ambient air to the
flare interior for combustion oxygen and for controlling the exit gas temperature.
Sampling ports are located in the walls near the top of the stack where emissions
monitoring are performed. A flare will include an electric pilot ignition system. The
pilot ignition system requires auxiliary fuel near the flare to serve as pilot fuel.
The basic enclosed flare unit consists of the following components:
• Multi-orifice burner
• Burner chamber.
• Automatic combustion air control system (dampers).
• Electric pilot ignition system.
• Sampling ports.
• Flare control panel.
• Temperature controller (flare stack high temperature interlock).
• Flame arrestor.
• Emission control.
The elements of combustion that must be addressed in the design of a LFG flare are:
• Residence time.
• Operating temperature.
• Turbulence.
• Oxygen concentration.
These elements are interrelated and, to some extent, dependent on each other.
Adequate time must be available for complete combustion. The temperature must
be high enough to ignite the LFG and allow combustion of the mixture of LFG and
O2. The residence time in a combustor must be sufficient for hydrocarbons to react
with the O2. Residence times for VOCs can vary from 0.25 to 2.0 seconds. Solid
particles, such as carbon, may require as long as 5 seconds for complete destruction.
The operating temperature of a combustion unit depends upon the material
to be combusted. The temperature should be about 148 to 260oC above the auto-
ignition temperature of the LFG. CH4 auto ignites at 540–760oC, thus a minimum
operating temperature of 760oC is often specified. A temperature that is too high
may cause refractory insulation damage as well as production of excess NOx, while
a temperature that is too low may result in the production of excess carbon mon-
oxide and unburned hydrocarbons. Flare Stack high and low temperature alarms
should be provided as well as a high-high interlock to shutdown the gas supply to
the flare stack in the event of an excessively high temperature. Methane has a flame
temperature of 1880oC when no excess air is present to cool the gas.
There must be enough turbulence to mix LFG and O2, and enough O2 to sup-
port combustion. Mixing the LFG and air at the burner tip is critical to proper oper-
ation of the flare. Proper mixing and adequate turbulence will create a uniform mix
of LFG and air in the combustion zone, whereas improper mixing will result in flue
gas stratification, which contributes to high emissions and unstable operation.
Operating at high flow rates and tip velocities requires flame stabilizers to pre-
vent the flame from extinguishing itself. Windshields allow the flame to establish
itself and resist high wind conditions. Automatic pilots sense the LFG flame and
automatically relight the flare when necessary.
A gas flow meter system is necessary to measure LFG flow to the flare. The
LFG flow should indicate both current flow and accumulated flow. The total vol-
umetric flow rate to the flame must be carefully controlled to prevent flashback
problems and to avoid flame instability. A gas barrier or a stack seal is some-
times used just below the flare head to impede the flow of air into the flare gas
network.
Thermocouples are used to monitor the flame in open and elevated flares. For
enclosed flares, ultraviolet (UV)-type flame detectors should be used. The UV flame
detectors can detect instantaneous flame failure so the inlet valve can be shut before
the vessel fills up with unburned gas.
The design and selection of LFG flares depends upon the required design and
operating objectives. In any case, flares should be designed and manufactured to
provide the minimum operating temperature under a range of LFG compositions
and flow rates. Other typical flare operating criteria include Reactive Organic Gas
(ROG), Exit Gas Temperature, Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), Residence Time, Sulfur
Oxides (SOx), Carbon Monoxide (CO) and PM10.
Turn-down ratio: Turn-down is the ratio of minimum LFG flow to maximum
LFG flow under which satisfactory operating conditions can be maintained. Turn-
down depends upon the range of rates of heat release for which the flare is designed,
and permissible exit velocities from the burner tip. The turn-down ratio will there-
fore affect the flare emission significantly.
Condensate Collection Equipment: LFG is typically saturated with water vapor.
As the gas cools in the extraction system piping, the vapor condenses into droplets
that eventually combine into LFG condensate. Accumulations of condensate in LFG
pipelines can obstruct the flow of LFG. Therefore, LFG condensate must be removed
in a controlled manner. Condensate control is required irrespective of how great a
vacuum is imposed on the collection system. Knock-out tanks are normally used to
remove condensate from LFG entering the flare station. Low points in collector pip-
ing should have barometric drip legs installed and multiple arrays of piping should
meet at common condensate knock-out tanks. Environmental regulations often
require the treatment of collected condensate.
Auxiliary Fuel: Auxiliary fuel is required if the LFG methane content is too low
to burn by itself. Since the operating temperature is a function of LFG composition
and flow rate.
Flame Arrestor: The function of the flame arrestor is to prevent the propagation
of flame into the header pipes. The flame arrestor is packed with a flame quenching
media that is durable, resistant to oxidation, and easy to clean. Pressure gauges and
sampling ports must be installed on each side of the flame arrestor to indicate the
degree of clogging and whether removal for cleaning is required. Proper sealing of
the flame arrestor in the housing is essential. The flame arrestor housing is generally
carbon or stainless steel.
Flow Metering: An important additional piece of equipment at a blower/flare
station is a gas flow metering system. LFG flow rate information is the basis for con-
trolling operation of the extraction and treatment system. The gas flow meter should
display current and total gas flow.
Piping and Valves: They are generally made of Cast iron or ductile iron mate-
rials. Hand-operated, wafer style butterfly valves are easiest to install and use for
blower adjustments.
Electrical Design Requirements: The electrical system planning and design
should consider materials, equipment, and installation of all electrical components.
Normally, the blower is operated in AUTO mode that enables the blower to be
automatically controlled from the control panel. The flare is also operated in AUTO
mode and requires an operator to push the start button to initiate flare ignition and
blower operation.
Automation of Controls: A good instrumentation and control system design
will assure that the individual components of LFG collection and control system are
coordinated and operate effectively. At a minimum, the following process control
components are required:
• Pressure and flow indicators for each well

• Blower motor thermal overload protection
• Vacuum relief valve or vacuum switch to effect blower shutdown
• Pressure indicators at blower inlet and outlet
• High-level switch/alarm for condensate collection system.
A typical piping and instrumentation diagram (P&ID) is shown in Figure 5.9.

The degree of automation depends on the sophistication of the LFG flaring sys-
tem, the site conditions, and monitoring and control requirements. Generally there
are three forms of process control: local, centralized, and remote.
a) In a local control system, all control elements (i.e., indicators, switches, relays,
motor starters, etc.) are located adjoining to the flaring equipment.
ID INSTRUMENT
FCV FLOW CONTROL VALVE
TE THERMOCOUPLE ELEMENT
TS TEMPERATURE SWITCH
AIT ANALYZER INDICATOR TRANSMITTER
AAH ANALYZER ALARM HIGH
AE ANALYZER ELEMENT
PS PRESSURE SWITCH VENT
H HIGH NITROGEN
HH HIGH HIGH SUPLLY
P PRESSURE
T TEMPERATURE
TA TEMPERATURE ALARM
FCV PRESSURE CONTROL VALVE
INTERLOCK
STEEL
FCV NSUL
SHELL
GAS FRESSURE
IN GAS STACK FCV TS 1600°F
30 TE
HH
AIT AAH
CO TS
15 TE
ND HH
HOSE
EN
ST - PRESSURE
PS SA CP RANGE
AE EA - OXYGEN IN GAS
HH CU 1450–1550
M
T TAH
IN
P,T P,T T TSH
T MANUAL
TE DAMPER
OXYGEN PS
LANDFILL ANALYZER BLOWER AIR STACK
CARBON
FCV HEATER FCV ENCLOSED
ADSORBER
CONDEBRATE FLARE STACK
FLAME
RECEIVER
ARRESTOR
Figure 5.9 Typical Piping and Instrumentation Diagram for a Enclosed Flare System
b) In a centralized control system, the control elements are mounted in a single loca-
tion. These systems may include a hard-wired control panel, a programmable
logic controller (PLC), or a computer. Remote control can be accomplished in
several ways including the use of modems or radio telemetry.
c) A localized control system is less complex, less expensive, and easier to con-
struct. Centralized control systems are easier to operate.
To select the appropriate control scheme, the advantages and disadvantages of

each control scheme must be considered.
System Safety: Since LFG contains corrosive gases, therefore a protective coat-
ing should be used in blower parts. Flexible connections should be used on both
inlet and outlet sides of a blower to adsorb vibrations during operation. A temper-
ature and pressure gage should be installed on each side of the blower. Depending
on the potential health hazards due to mechanical failure, a back-up blower is
sometimes provided in the event the primary unit fails or is out of service for main-
tenance. Stand-by units not in service should be isolated from the LFG flow stream
by butterfly or gate valves. These valves, when closed, will prevent accumulation
of condensate from the LFG in the piping and blower casing. The valves can also
be used to adjust the flow rate and allow removal of the unit for maintenance.
5.4.4 Comparison of open and enclosed flares

Table 5.3 shows a general comparison between an open and closed LFG flaring
system.
Table 5.4 shows a comparison of design criteria for open and closed LFG flaring
system.
Table 5.5 compares items and system operation for an open and closed LFG
flaring system.
5.5 CASE STUDIES ON LFG FLARING SYSTEMS
5.5.1 Aleksandrovsk, Lugansk oblast, Ukraine

More than 12 million tons of municipal solid wastes are generated in Ukraine annu-
ally. The waste is disposed at approximately 700 official landfills or open dumps.
Burial in landfills is the main type of MSW disposal in Ukraine. Most landfills were
started more than 30 years ago. Consequently, their engineering often does not meet
national environmental protection regulations and violates current sanitary and
technical requirements. Out of the total number of dumps in Ukraine (700), only
140 landfills are suitable for LFG extraction and utilization. Of them, 90 are large
scale landfills that contain up to 30% of all MSW of Ukraine and are most econom-
ically attractive for LFG recovery. The energy potential of the landfill gas that can
be used for energy production is estimated at 0.21 million toe (estimated gas vol-
ume 400 million m3/year), or approximately 0.3% of the total consumption of fossil
fuels in Ukraine. Therefore, there is significant potential for commercial recovery of
LFG in Ukraine, which makes it an important priority area for achieving economic
development and environmental sustainability in Ukraine.
Table 5.3 General comparison between an open and closed LFG flaring system
Open Flares Enclosed Flares

Open flares are used on landfills, especially as Enclosed flares are employed for improved
temporary flares emissions control
An open-flame flare or candle-stick flare Enclosed flares differ from open flares in that both
represents the first generation of flares LFG and airflows are controlled
Open flares burn LFG as open flames, though Enclosed flares are usually ground based
a windshield is normally fitted. If provided, permanent plant housing a single burner or array
combustion control is rudimentary. Open flares of burners enclosed within a cylindrical enclosure
are also known as elevated flares lined with refractory material
The open-flame flare was mainly used for safe They provide a simple means of hiding the flame
disposal of combustible gas when air emission (i.e., neighbor friendly)
control was not a high priority
Open flare is Simple in design and construction Closed flare is sophisticated in design and
since combustion control is not possible construction since combustion control is possible
Cost-effective in disposing LFG Costly but capable of operation over a wide range
of combustion conditions
Open flares can be located at ground level or Enclosed flares burn LFG in a vertical, cylindrical
elevated or rectilinear enclosure
They do not have the flexibility to allow Some means of combustion control is normally
temperature control, air control, or sampling of provided, and the enclosure is often insulated to
combustion products due to its basic design reduce heat losses and allow operation at higher
temperatures
Sampling LFG from open flares is difficult. Sampling LFG from closed flares is easy. Periodic
Sample probes placed too close to the flame sampling of these flares can be conducted to
will measure high CO2 and hydrocarbon levels. ensure the required rate of emissions reduction is
Samples taken further away from the flame are being achieved
diluted unpredictably by air
Cannot meet performance or emission criteria Meet performance and emission standards
May be skid mounted and collapsed for Permanent – 10–15 m high
transport
The prices for flares vary widely depending on Enclosed flares are about 1.5 to 2 times the price
a number of factors. of an open flare with the equivalent duty
Suitable for temporary or test uses only Can be further engineered to meet specific site
conditions
Description of the Project Site: The landfill gas collection and utilization project
is being implemented at the first phase of Lugansk MSW landfill (Oleksandrivsk
city). Landfill is owned by Lugansk territorial community represented by Lugansk
city council. It is servicing Lugansk city and several neighboring villages with total
population of 450 thousand peoples. The landfill is being operated since 1978. The
first phase of the landfill was closed in 2006. The total area of first phase is 11.6 hec-
tares, new designed area upto 8.7 hectares. Landfill contains more than 2.0 million
tonnes of MSW. The average annual waste acceptance rate is 120 thousand tonnes.
Table 5.4 Comparison of design criteria for open and closed LFG flaring system
Design Criteria for open LFG flaring system Design Criteria for closed LFG flaring system
The open flaring system should be capable The closed flaring system should be capable
of achieving the following performance of achieving the following performance
requirements: requirements:
1. The flare must be capable of sustaining 1. The flare should be able to sustain stable
stable combustion with 30%–50% CH4 at the combustion with 30% to 50% methane
maximum required flow rate. concentrations at the maximum flow rate,
2. The flare must be capable of a minimum 40:1 while maintaining the operating temperature,
turndown. without requiring any burner adjustment.
3. The flare exit velocity should be designed 2. Considering a 50% methane concentration,
in accordance with International or national all flares designed for flow rates of 1500
standards. SCFM or greater should achieve a 10:1
4. The radiation on any point at grade should not instantaneous heat release turndown
exceed 500 Btu/Hr-ft2 when the flare is firing at minimum.
the maximum design heat release and with a 3. The flare should be able to sustain stable
20 mph wind. combustion with methane concentrations of
5. Flame shape should be based on the at least 20% at reduced flow rates without
momentum flux differences between the LFG any burner adjustments or flare modification.
exiting the flare tip and the cross wind. The 4. The pressure loss through the flare, from
LFG should take into account the hydrocarbon the inlet flange through the flare enclosure,
concentration. should be less than 5 H2O.
6. Flame length should be based on the maximum 5. The flare should operate free of pulsation
design heat release with allowances for the and vibration with at most 5% oxygen
molecular weight. concentration in LFG stream.
7. The pressure loss through the flare should 6. Emissions from the flare should not exceed
be less than 5 water column from the inlet the prescribed regulatory standards.
flange through the outlet of the flare. 7. The flare system should achieve a destruction
8. Emissions from the flare should not exceed efficiency greater than 99% of total organic
the prescribed regulatory standards. compounds and greater than 98% of total
9. The flare should be capable of achieving a non-methane organic compounds (NMOC)
minimum destruction efficiency of 98% throughout the entire flare operating range,
of total non-methane organic compounds without any burner adjustments or flare
(NMOCs). modification.
Features of the Flare and Blower Stations: High temperature flare and blower
station is being set up based on the physical and chemical characteristics of LFG,
weather condition and operation procedure (Refer Tables 5.6 and 5.7).
• Emissions comply with international standards

• High safety standard and Environmental protection system
• Efficient combustion efficiency 95% based on residence time or flue gas con-
tent measurements)
• Material: hot dip galvanized steel, stainless steel
The unit is equipped with a gas utilization connection for the purpose of the pos-
sible energy recovery. High temperature flare and blower is equipped with monitoring
Table 5.5 Comparison of items for open and closed LFG flaring system
Items for Open Flaring System Items for Closed Flaring System
The open flaring system should have the The closed flaring system should have the
following items: following items:
1. Self supporting base ring 1. Anti-flashback burners
2. Carbon steel stack 2. Flare stack
3. Spark ignited pilot assembly 3. Externally removable spark ignited pilot
4. Flare tip 4. Ignition and control station
5. Control system 5. Ancillary equipment
System Operation System Operation
1. The flare system should be able to safely 1. The flare system should operate with
destroy 98% of the organic compounds automatic temperature control and shall safely
in LFG. destroy organic compounds in LFG.
2. The system should be controlled by a 2. The system should be controlled by a
programmable logic controller (PLC) which programmable logic controller (PLC) which
receives and transmits signals with respect receives and transmits signals with respect
to operating conditions. If an unacceptable to operating conditions. If an unacceptable
operating condition occurs, the system operating condition occurs, the system
should discontinue operation. should either adjust the operating parameters
3. System operation should include an to correct the problem or discontinue
initial timed ignition sequence, and fail-safe operation.
controls. 3. System operation should include an initial
4. System shutdown should result pilot flame purge cycle, timed ignition sequence, and
failure, main flame failure, automatic block fail-safe controls.
valve failure, and flame arrester high 4. System shutdown should result from low
temperature. purge air flow, pilot flame failure, main flame
5. Individual thermocouples should monitor failure, flare low temperature, and flare high
both pilot flame and main flame. temperature.
5. A self-checking flame scanner should monitor
both pilot flame and main flame.
Table 5.6 Parameters for designing LFG Flaring System
Parameters Unit Quantity

3
LFG yield nm /h 600
Temperature of gas in inlet ºC 340
Biogas moisture content % 100
CH4 content % vol. 25–65
CO2 content % vol. 20–30
O2 content % vol. 0–5
H2S content ppm 50–500
Temperature in the area of plant location Year average summer ºC 8 40 30
maximum winter minimum
Operating hours per day hours 24
Operating days per year days 365
Table 5.7 Expected parameters for high temperature flare and blower station
Gas flow rate of the flare max Nm3/h 600

min Nm3/h 60
Gas flow rate of the blower max Nm3/h 600
min Nm3/h 60
Blower pressure rise mbar 200–250
Suction pressure at inlet of the plant (max) mbar 100
Supply pressure at utilization flange mbar 100
Turn down ratio 1 : 10
Combustion temperature C 1000–1200
Flange connection PN16 DN125
Sound pressure level of the flare at full load in 15 m distance dB(A)
70
Electricity supply V/Hz 3400/230 50
Electrical capacity consumption κW 1520
system, data storage and remote transfer by means of Internet connection. The system
is capable to send SMS to operator in case of emergency.
Monitoring Requirements: The monitoring methodology is based on direct
measurement of the amount of LFG captured and destroyed at the flare, and the
electricity generating/thermal energy unit(s) to determine the quantities as shown
in Figure 5.10. The monitoring plan for flaring provides for continuous measure-
ment of the quantity and quality of LFG flared. The main variables that need to be
determined are the quantity of methane actually captured, and quantity of methane
flared. The methodology for flaring also measures energy consumed by the project
activity that is produced using fossil fuels.
To determine these variables, the following parameters are being monitored:
• The amount of LFG generated (in m3, using a continuous flow meter), where the
total quantity as well as the quantities fed to the flare are measured continuously;
• The fraction of methane in LFG with a continuous gas analyzer;
• Temperature (T) and pressure (p) of LFG to determine the density of methane in
the LFG;
• The operating hours of the flare.
The LFG flaring setup is provided with the following systems:
• High temperature flare with safety equipment and automatic combustion tem-
perature control is provided.
• A Condensate trap with thermal insulation and heating element.
• A Blower with frequency transformer for step less adoption of the degassing
volume and constant pressure regulation.
• An Electrical control cabinet and Data logger and transfer system.
5.5.2 Gorai landfill, Mumbai

Gorai Landfill site, Mumbai India, is a very popular and closely watched Landfill
site for its scientific closer and Flaring of LFG in environment friendly manner. With
Figure 5.10 LFG Monitoring Plan
an estimated flow rate of around 1200 cubic meter per hour an enclosed flaring
system was developed for the site in the Year 2009 to flare LFG as per recommenda-
tions of CDM. The System fabricated by Combustion Research Associates (CRA),
India consists of:
• Fully Automatic Gas Train.

• Gas Blowers.
• Ignition System.
• Pilot Burners.
• Main Burners.
• Flare Encloser.
• Instrumentation Package.
• Air Blowers.
• PLC based Control Panel.
• Paperless Recorder.
• Inter connection Piping & Valves.
• The System has all the Safety Locks and inbuilt Protection Systems.
Figure 5.11 Flow diagram of Enclosed flaring system for Gorai Landfill
Table 5.8 Parameters for designing the System
S. No. Parameter Quantity Units

1 LFG Flow Rate 500–000 nm3/h
2 Relative humidity of LFG 100 %
3 Inlet Temperature 40 ºC
4 CH4 Content 21–48 %
5 Operating Hours 24 h
6 Turn Down Ratio 1: 10
7 Combustion temperature 950–1180 ºC
8 Exhaust gas temperature 680–750 ºC
The flow diagram for the system is given in Figure 5.11.

The Flaring is continuously done since 2009 and the Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai has earned CDM on the Flaring of LFG. Table 5.8 shows the major
parameter of the system.
The exhaust gases from the Flare Station are analyzed after taking the samples
from the sample Port. Methane contents in the exhaust gases are found to be in
traces or negligible which is a desired parameter and shows that the destruction effi-
ciency exceeding 99%.
5.5.3 San Pedro, Manila

A landfill site at San Pedro, Manila is a potential site for beneficial extraction of
LFG and generation of Power to sell it to the Grid. The landfill site is thus capped
partially and LFG is being withdrawn. This environment friendly system is capa-
ble of generating 6 MW of Power using LFG. But before feeding the LFG into the
Engines it has to be conditioned and processed to meet the engines requirements.
This is essential to increase the Engines life and its efficiency.
A comprehensive module is developed to process the LFG in order to meet
the engines requirements. As the Siloxanes in the LFG were negligible so no spe-
cial methods was applied to treat Siloxanes. The system fabricated by Combustion
Research Associates (CRA), India consists of:
• Gas Filtering.
• Gas Dehumidification.
Figure 5.12 Flow diagram of LFG conditioning system for San Pedro, Manila
Table 5.9 Parameters for designing the System
S. No. Parameters Quantity Units

1 Maximum LFG Flow Rate 3500 nm3/h
2 Inlet Gas Temperature 30 to 40 0oC
3 Outlet Temperature 12 to 15 0oC
4 RH of Inlet Gas 100 %
5 RH of Outlet Gas 100 %
6 Gas Delivery Pressure 1200 to 1800 mm WC
7 Operating Hours 10 to 24 h/day
8 CH4 Contents 40 to 55 %
• Gas Compression.
• Flow Measurements.
• Gas Analyzer.
• Instrumentation package
• Integrated Control Panel.
• SCADA for Monitoring & Data Acquisition.
The flow diagram for the system is given in Figure 5.12.

Table 5.9 shows the important parameters used for designing the system.
The project is registered with CDM and is in continuous operation since
September 2010.
5.6 LFG CLEANING AND UPGRADATION
The raw LFG needs to be cleaned or upgraded before being used as a source of
renewable energy. The purification or upgradation process is required for the
removal of moisture and contaminants present in the LFG which can create prob-
lems of corrosion, scale deposition and wear and tear of the LFG utilization systems.
The contaminants which require treatment or removal include free moisture/water
vapour, Hydrogen Sulphide, Carbon Dioxide, Halogenated organic compounds
(Chlorides, fluorides), Siloxanes and Particulates. However, the extent to which the
raw LFG should be cleaned and its methane content enriched is dependent on the
end use application of LFG.
The end use application of LFG as a source of energy is based on the level of
treatment or upgradation and is generally classified into three categories:
a) Low-grade energy – The utilization of LFG as a low-grade energy usually

requires condensate removal or moisture reduction in the LFG stream.
b) Medium-grade energy – The utilization of LFG as a medium grade energy usu-
ally involves compression and refrigeration of LFG and chemical treatment or
scrubbing to remove additional moisture and trace LFG compounds such as
mercaptans, sulfur compounds, siloxanes, and volatile organic compounds.
c) High-grade energy - The utilization of LFG as a high-grade energy involves
separation of CO2 and other major constituent gases from CH4 and to remove
impurities such as mercaptans, sulfur compounds, hydrogen sulfide and volatile
organic compounds, and LFG compression to dehydrate it.
Low- and medium-grade energy produced from LFG has a heating value of
around 16.8 MJ/m3. This heat value is half the heating value of natural gas. LFG
that has been further processed and treated to produce high-grade energy has a
higher heating value of around 37.3 MJ/m3 and can be substituted in place of natu-
ral gas.
Figure 5.13 depicts various applications for the three grades of LFG as a source
of energy and the degree of processing that may be required to convert LFG from a
low-grade energy into high-grade energy.
It is also important here to mention the difference between “cleaning” and
“upgrading” of LFG. The word “cleaning” is used for technologies and measures to
reduce the content of impurities such as hydrogen sulphide (H2S), ammonia, siloxanes
and halogenated hydrocarbons in LFG and removal of water droplets and moisture.
The word “Upgrading” is used for technologies and measures with the purpose to
reduce the content of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the LFG. It also includes removal of
nitrogen in some special cases. The primary treatment of LFG is to remove moisture
from saturated LFG. Reducing the moisture content of LFG and the concentration of
contaminants reduces the corrosive nature of LFG. The upgradation of LFG to high-
grade energy requires the separation of methane from other gases present in LFG that
have no heating value. The upgraded and compressed LFG is generally referred as
biomethane.
Figure 5.14 depicts various technologies for LFG refinement.
Moisture Removal: The biodegradation of waste in a landfill is an exothermic
process and therefore LFG is warm and saturated with water vapor. High moisture
content along with carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and VOCs, creates corrosive
gases. The technologies employed for reducing moisture in LFG includes mois-
ture separators, mist eliminators, direct cooling, compression followed by cool-
ing, absorption, and adsorption. Some moisture separators function by swirling
gas through a large cylinder, slowing down the gas velocity and allowing moisture
in the form of droplets to collect on the walls of the cylinder. Mist eliminators, or
coalescing filters, are usually used in combination with a moisture separator to col-
lect droplets too small to have been intercepted by the separator. These are usually
Figure 5.13 LFG Utilization Options (The World Bank, 2004)
constructed of a wire mesh screen through which LFG passes. Mist eliminators also
intercept particulate matter entrained within the water droplets.
Cooling and compression of the gas decreases the ability of the LFG to hold
water. This process is usually achieved through the use of air/air or air/liquid heat
exchangers. Compression following cooling serves to further dehydrate the air.
However, it also increases the temperature of LFG.
Particulate Removal: The particulates in LFG should be removed for use of LFG
as medium to high-grade energy and to avoid damage to the blower systems and
Figure 5.14 Technologies for LFG refinement
other LFG to energy utilization system components. Most of the particulates are
entrained within the moisture droplets in the LFG. Filters can also be used to reduce
particulates in LFG but these filters require frequent cleaning and replacement and
maintenance.
Trace Gas Removal: The trace contaminants in LFG generally consist of
sulfur compounds, non-methane organic compounds (NMOCs), and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs). These trace contaminants can be removed using activated
carbon, selective solvents, or iron sponge. Activated carbon is commonly used for
hydrocarbon and VOC removal. However, since activated carbon has high affinity
for trapping moisture, therefore a moisture removal system should be used before its
application.
The selective solvent processes use various solvents to selectively adsorb trace
gases. Iron sponge processes can be used to remove hydrogen sulfide from LFG. The
system uses hydrated iron oxide to react and produce iron sulfide.
Figure 5.15 Overview of LFG upgrading technologies for CO2 removal
5.7 TYPES OF LFG TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
The range of options for the clean-up of LFG is quite extensive (Refer Figure 5.15).
The important technologies for LFG treatment and upgradation are:
1 Physical absorption (scrubbing with liquid)
2 Chemical absorption (chemical reaction with a liquid)
3 Pressure swing adsorption (adsorption on adsorption material like activated
carbon)
4 Membrane separation
5 Cryogenic separation (cooling at elevated pressure).
Upgrading of LFG involves the removal of pathogenic substances, as well as
siloxanes, water, nitrogen, hydrogen sulphide and carbon dioxide from LFG. The
upgraded LFG when used as a vehicle fuel should not contain contaminants that can
damage or corrode mechanical components or systems. Additionally, reducing the
moisture content also prevents the potential of ice formation in a LFG engine. Table
5.10 shows the substances that are removed using different methods.
Each of these technologies is discussed in detail in the subsequent sections.
5.8 WATER SCRUBBING USING DMT TECHNOLOGY
Water scrubbing is a technique based on the physical effect of gases dissolving in

liquids. Water scrubbing can be used to remove CO2 and H2S from LFG since these
Table 5.10 LFG Upgrading Methods
Substances to be removed
Pathogenic
substances
Hydrogen
Siloxanes
Nitrogen
sulphide
Carbon
dioxide
Water
Methods of removal
Water scrubbing X X X X X
Pressure swing absorption (carbon molecular
X X X
sieves)
Drying X
Use of biocode X
Chemical scrubbing (absorption amines) X X
Adsorption filter X X X X X
Heat exchanger X X
Chemical absorption in desulphurization tower X
Stripping X
Source: How to implement biomethane project, Decision maker’s guide, Biogasmax
Figure 5.16 Flow diagram for high pressure water scrubbing
components are more soluble in water than in CH4. This absorption process is a
fully physical process. The main parts of the process are shown in Figure 5.16. In
high pressure water scrubbing, gas enters the scrubber at high pressure. This high
pressure increases the dissolubility of gases in water. Then, water is sprayed from the
top of the column so that it flows down counter-current to the gas. To ensure a high
transfer surface for gas liquid contact, the column is usually filled with a packing
material.
In the flash vessel the pressure is decreased and some traces of CH4 will be
regenerated. In the stripper the washing water is regenerated. CO2 and H2S are
stripped by air in this vessel. After a drying step, the obtained CH4 purity can reach
98% using this process and yields can achieved up to 94%.
There are two types of water scrubbing:
Single pass scrubbing: In single pass scrubbing, the washing water is used only once.
The advantage of this type of scrubbing is that no contamination in the water
occurs like traces of H2S and CO2. This means that the total amount of CO2
and H2S is at its maximum. The disadvantage of this technique is that it requires
a large amount of water.
Regenerative absorption: In regenerative absorption, the washing water is regen-
erated after washing the LFG. The main advantage of this technique is that
the total amount of water required is much lower compared to single pass
scrubbing.
When working at high pressure, there are two advantages compared to work-
ing at atmospheric pressure. The main advantage is that the dissolubility increases
when the pressure is higher. This results in a lower required amount of water per
amount of LFG. The total amount of water required will thus be a lot lower. Also,
the washing water is oversaturated at atmospheric pressure so regenerating will be a
lot faster. The driving force behind the regenerating process is the concentration dif-
ference between the oversaturated concentration and the equilibrium concentration.
With this being as high as possible, the speed of the process will be highest.
Water scrubbing is a simple process because it only requires water and an
absorption column to upgrade LFG. Scrubbers also have some advantages compared
to other devices. Wet scrubbers are capable of handling high temperatures and mois-
ture. The inlet gases are cooled so the overall size of the equipment can be reduced.
Wet scrubbers can remove both gases and particulate matter and can neutralize cor-
rosive gases.
Furthermore, water scrubbing can be used for selective removal of H2S because
this is more soluble in water than CO2. The water which exits the column with the
absorbed components, can be regenerated and recirculated back to the absorption
column. This regeneration can be done by depressurizing or by stripping with air in
a similar column. When levels of H2S are high it is not recommended to strip with
air because the water can become contaminated with elemental sulfur which causes
operational problems. Also at high levels of H2S the dissolubility is limited because
of decreasing pH.
Waste Streams: The water scrubbing process contains two main waste streams.
This stream mainly consists of air and a high percentage of CO2 but also contains
traces of H2S. Because H2S is rather poisonous this stream needs to be treated. Also
the stream contains small amounts of CH4. To keep the dissolubility as high as pos-
sible a part of the washed water is purged and replaced with clean water. In this way
the concentration of CO2 and H2S in the water stream to the scrubber will remain as
low as possible and CO2 and H2S will not accumulate. Because most of the CO2 and
H2S will be absorbed in the gas phase in the stripper the purge stream does not have
to be treated.
Figure 5.17 Flow diagram for high pressure water scrubbing
5.9 WATER SCRUBBER USING GMBH TECHNOLOGY
The water scrubber using GmBH technology is an absorptive method for separat-
ing CO2 from the gas stream. Besides CO2, H2S and NH3 can also be separated.
Normally it is not required to schedule a desulfurisation step before the raw
gas enters the absorption column. But it can be helpful to avoid significant H2S
emissions to the atmosphere by the exhaust gas or alternatively if there is an exhaust
gas treatment technology installed, it will avoid SO2 emissions. Pressures in the
absorption column are in the range from 7–10 bar. Typical CH4 concentrations in
the product gas stream are ⬃97% (Refer Figure 5.17).
Because the exhaust gas stream includes 1% CH4 (related to the CH4 mass
flow of the LFG) an exhaust gas cleaning is required. Because the exhaust gas nor-
mally contains H2S either Regenerative Thermal Oxidation or Flameless Oxidation
can be used for treating the exhaust gas.
5.10 WATER SCRUBBING USING ISET TECHNOLOGY
The LFG is compressed to about 10 bar and fed into a column where the water
flows in counter current. Carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulphide are absorbed in
the water. After the absorption step the biomethane has significantly higher methane
content and is saturated with water vapour. Finally, it needs to be dried.
The most cost effective way is to use fresh water all the time. The other pos-
sibility is to clean the used water by depressurizing it which causes the release of
Biomethane
Waste gas
Gas drying system

Biofilter
Pump
Gas cooler
Stripper
Scrubber
Air supply
Compressor Gas cooler Compressor Gas cooler
(1880 m3/h)
Biogas
Flash tank
Water supply
Deshydrator Deshydrator (1 m3 pro Tag)
Condensate Condensate
Effluent
Figure 5.18 Flow sheet of a water scrubber (ISET) 2008
CO2 Refer Figure 5.18. The process can be further enhanced by applying a vacuum
pump. Another enhancement method is to strip the solution with air flowing upwards
through the desorption tower. In a water scrubber with fresh water use and air flow-
ing enhancement is shown. It depends on the hydrogen sulphide content whether this
technology is practicable. If the content is too high, a lot of elementary sulphur is pro-
duced and contaminates the water. In such a case, desulphurisation is recommended.
5.11 PHYSICAL ABSORPTION USING ISET TECHNOLOGY
The physical absorption technology using organic solvents (mostly Selexol or

Genosorb) is basically comparable to the water scrubber technology. Besides CO2
also H2S, NH3 and H2O can be separated. Normally it is not required (and also not
constructed in current plants) to schedule a desulfurisation step before the raw gas
enters the absorption column.
But it can be helpful to avoid significant H2S emissions to the atmosphere by the
exhaust gas or alternatively if there is an exhaust gas treatment technology installed,
it will avoid SO2 emissions. The pressures in the absorption column are normally
⬃8 bar. For regeneration in the desorption column, a temperature level of ⬃50C
is required. Typical CH4 concentrations in the product gas stream are in the range
from 93–98%.
Because the exhaust gas stream includes 2% CH4 (related to the CH4 mass
flow of the biogas) an exhaust gas cleaning is required. Because the exhaust gas nor-
mally contains H2S the following exhaust gas treatment technologies are possible:
• Regenerative Thermal Oxidation
• Flameless Oxidation
Exhaust gas
Biogas
Compressor
Flash tank
Desorption column
Absorption column
Gas cooler
Air supply
Deshydralor
Pump
Pump
CO2
Gas cooler Compressor Gas cooler
Condensate
H2S
H2O [ISET, 2006]
Figure 5.19 Flow chart physical absorption (using organic solvents)
Figure 5.19 describes the process and shows the places in the process where H2S,
H2O and CO2 are separated.
5.12 PRESSURE SWING ADSORPTION USING

DMT TECHNOLOGY
Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA) is another possible technique for the upgrading of
LFG. PSA is a technology used to separate certain components from a mixture of
gases under pressure according to the species’ molecular characteristics and affinity
for an adsorption material. Figure 5.9 shows how the adsorption material selects the
different gas molecules. The adsorption material adsorbs H2S irreversibly and is thus
poisoned by H2S. For this reason, an H2S removal step is often included in the PSA-
process. Disturbances have been caused by dust from the adsorption material getting
stuck in the valves. Special adsorption materials are used as molecular sieves, pref-
erentially adsorbing the target gas species at high pressure. Aside from their ability
to discriminate between different gases, adsorbents for PSA-systems are usually very
porous materials chosen because of their large surface areas (for instance activated
carbon, silica gel, alumina and zeolite). The process then swings to low pressure to
desorb the adsorbent material. Desorbing the adsorbent material leads to a waste
stream, containing concentrations of impurities.
The upgrading system consists of four adsorber vessels filled with adsorption
material. During normal operation, each adsorber operates in an alternating cycle
Figure 5.20 Flow Diagram for pressure swing adsorption
of adsorption, regeneration and pressure build-up (Refer Figure 5.20). During the
adsorption phase, LFG enters from the bottom into one of the adsorbers. When
passing the adsorber vessel, CO2, O2 and N2 are adsorbed on the adsorbent mate-
rial surface. This can be seen in figure 5.19 where N2, O2, H2O, H2S and CO2 are
adsorbed in the adsorber. The gas leaving the top of the adsorber vessel contains
more than 97% CH4. This methane-rich stream is substantially free from siloxane
components, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), water and has a reduced level of
CO2. Before the adsorbent material is completely saturated with the adsorbed feed
gas components, the adsorption phase is stopped and another adsorber vessel that
has been regenerated is switched into adsorption mode to achieve continuous opera-
tion. Regeneration of the saturated adsorbent material is performed by a stepwise
depressurization of the adsorber vessel to atmospheric pressure and finally to near
vacuum conditions. Initially, the pressure is reduced by a pressure balance with an
already regenerated adsorber vessel. This is followed by a second depressurization
step to almost atmospheric pressure. The gas leaving the vessel during this step con-
tains significant amounts of CH4 and is recycled to the gas inlet. These significant
amounts of CH4 are trapped within the voids of the adsorbent particles.
Before the adsorption phase starts again, the adsorber vessel is repressurized
stepwise to the final adsorption pressure. After a pressure balance with an adsorber
that has been in adsorption mode before, the final pressure build-up is achieved with
feed gas. A complete cycle is completed in approximately 3–5 minutes (Refer Figure
5.21). The advantages of the PSA-process are the high CH4-enrichment of more than
97%, the low power demand and the low level of emission. The waste stream of
the PSA-plant consists of N2, O2, H2O, H2S and CO2. The main disadvantage is the
H2S-removal step. This is a complex step in the process, which is necessary.
Waste Stream: The PSA-plant has a final product stream, the upgraded LFG,
which contains more than 97% CH4. Next to the product stream, a waste stream is
produced. The waste stream leaves the adsorber vessels at the bottom and contains
all the adsorbed material from the carbon molecular sieves. Also, some significant
Figure 5.21 Principle of pressure swing adsorption
amounts of CH4 are found in this waste stream (among other things the remaining
3% CH4). CH4 is more damaging than CO2, so it is of most importance to make
sure that CH4 is not emitted into the air. Burning the CH4 is less harmful to the
environment in comparison with emitting CH4 directly into the air. Therefore, the
waste stream can be led to a gas engine linked to a generator. Increasing the yield
of CH4 in the product stream can be achieved by recycling the waste stream. This
has also a positive effect on the amount of CH4 in the waste stream, which will
decrease.

ISET TECHNOLOGY
Activated carbon or molecular sieves are used to adsorb the CO2 in the ISET tech-
nology. The mesh size defines which gaseous components are adsorbed. First the
biogas is compressed to 6 bar and the water vapour is removed because the process
needs dry biogas. Hydrogen sulphide also has to be removed before the biogas is fed
into the adsorption columns. This is normally done in an additional vessel with acti-
vated carbon. The activated carbon is designed to react mainly with the hydrogen
sulphide; it is exchanged when it is saturated.
The compressed and dried biogas is fed from the bottom into the first adsorption
tower, as presented in Figure 5.22. When the adsorption material is saturated the
first tower reduces the pressure by linking with a regenerated empty tower to recover
some of the pressure and afterwards the pressure is further reduced to atmospheric
pressure. At lower pressure the carbon dioxide desorbs from the material inside.
The last step of the regeneration is supported by a vacuum pump that reduces
the pressure from 1 bar to around 0.1 bar. Quite common are PSA’s with four or
Figure 5.22 Flow sheet of a pressure swing adsorption (ISET) 2008
sometimes six adsorption towers. One adsorption tower is always in use to clean
the biogas, another saturated releases its pressure to an empty one and the fourth is
regenerated by the vacuum pump. If there are 6 adsorption towers the pressurizing/
depressurizing is done in two steps. Changing the pressure all the time this process is
called the pressure swing adsorption. The resulting biomethane is continuously mon-
itored for the methane content. If it is not sufficient the gas flows back to the inlet.
The released gas from depressurizing one tank to another still contains some meth-
ane and is also led back to the PSA for recovery. The desorbed gas by the vacuum
pump consists primarily of carbon dioxide and is released to the atmosphere.

GMBH TECHNOLOGY
The pressure swing adsorption (PSA) using GmBH technology is an adsorp-

tive upgrading technology. In pressure swing adsorption (PSA), carbon dioxide is
adsorbed on a material like activated carbon or molecular sieves (Refer Figure 5.23).
The selectivity of the adsorption depends on the mesh sizes. PSA takes place at ele-
vated pressure and the material is regenerated through reducing the pressure. For the
central unit there are mostly used carbon molecular sieves. Besides CO2, other com-
pounds like H2O, H2S, N2 and O2 can also be separated from the gas stream. In a
practical use it’s required to do a desulfurization and drying of the raw biogas before
it enters the molecular sieve. Typical pressures are in the range from 4 to 7 bars.
Typical CH4 concentrations in the product gas stream are 96%. Because the
exhaust gas stream includes 1% CH4 (related to the CH4 mass flow of the biogas)
Figure 5.23 Steps in LFG Upgradation Process
an exhaust gas cleaning is required. Because the exhaust gas does not include any
sulphur the following exhaust gas treatment technologies are possible:
• Catalytic Oxidation
• Regenerative Thermal Oxidation
• Flameless Oxidation.
5.15 CHEMICAL ABSORPTION OF CO 2
CO2 absorption using aqueous amino acid salt solutions is discussed. The process
flow diagram of the CO2 absorption process is shown in Figure 5.24.
An amino acid dissolved in water exists as a zwitter ion. A zwitter ion can have
a positive and a negative charge depending on the pH of the solution. The amino
group has to be deprotonated before it reacts with CO2.
The only process stream next to LFG needed in the absorption process is a liq-
uid water phase in which amines are dissolved. The biogas flows through a column
filled with the amine solution. In this column, the CO2 is split from the biogas and
the biogas leaves the absorption column. The amine solution including the captured
CO2 leaves the column and will be generated in the generation column. During this
process, the CO2 is split off and is emitted in the atmosphere as a waste stream. The
amine solution will be regenerated and flows back into the column to capture CO2
again. This solution must be replaced a few times a year and then it becomes a waste
Figure 5.24 Process flow diagram for chemical absorption of CO2
stream too. This solution can be separated into a water phase and the amines using a
membrane. The clean water phase can then be purged to a river. The only real waste
streams are the CO2 stream and the amines.
5.16 CHEMICAL ABSORPTION USING DMT TECHNOLOGY
The process of chemical absorption of H2S into iron-chelated solutions offers a

highly efficient H2S-removal, a selective removal of H2S and a low consumption of
chemicals, because the iron-chelated solutions function as a pseudo-catalyst that can
be regenerated. In this process, the sulphur produced can be removed easily from the
slurry by sedimentation or filtration operations. Next to that, the whole process can
be carried out at ambient temperature.
Figure 5.25 shows an overview of the units that are used to remove the H2S
from the biogas stream. The complete system consists of an absorber column, a par-
ticle separator or filter, and a regeneration column.
Under continuous operating conditions, LFG is introduced as small bub-
bles at the bottom of the absorber of the column. These bubbles pass through the
Fe EDTA solution flowing downwards to the particle separator. In the absorber
column the H2S will be absorbed and transformed into S. In the particle separator,
the small particles of S that have formed are separated from the product stream. After
this separation, the outgoing product stream is regenerated from Fe2 EDTA into
Fe3 EDTA in a bubbling air column. The last step in this purification is washing
the treated LFG with water in a packed column to remove residual traces of H2S.
The advantages of this absorption process are the almost complete removal of
H2S from the biogas. The removed H2S is also converted into its elemental form,
so it can be sold to other companies. A big disadvantage is that after the absorption
Figure 5.25 Process flow diagram for chemical absorption of H2S
process a scrubber is still needed to remove the CO2. It is not possible with this
absorption process to remove the CO2.
For the H2S absorption process only the removal of H2S is taken into account.
The biogas stream can be seen and in the regeneration part also some other streams
are added to the process. The biogas flows through the absorption column and the
H2S is captured in the liquid phase. The liquid phase consists of water in which
Fe EDTA is dissolved. The LFG leaves the column containing almost no H2S. The
Fe EDTA solution flows to the regeneration part in which the sulphur is separated
from the solution. After this step, the Fe is regenerated from Fe2 to Fe3. This aque-
ous solution is again used in the absorber column to capture H2S. The separated
elemental sulphur is collected. This sulphur is mostly treated as a waste stream and
has to be put away as chemical waste. Another waste stream is the Fe EDTA solu-
tion. This solution has to be replaced a few times a year. The solution can be filtered
using a membrane, to separate the water phase and the Fe EDTA complexes. These
components are another waste stream of the absorption process and need to be dis-
posed of as chemical waste.
The purity of the obtained LFG is approximately 98%. In both processes the
yield for CH4 is 90%. The CH4 waste stream is best handled by sending the stream
to a flare. Burning CH4 is better for the atmosphere than emitting the gas. Looking
at the two absorption processes the absorption of CO2 seems to have less waste
streams than the absorption of H2S, at least less harmful waste streams.
5.17 CHEMICAL ABSORPTION USING ISET TECHNOLOGY
The chemical absorption technology using organic solvents (mostly MEA or DEA) is
a combination of a physisorption and a chemisorption. Besides CO2, H2S and NH3
can also be theoretically separated. In practical use, a desulfurization step before the
biogas enters the absorption column is required to avoid unwanted reactions in the
process. The pressure in the absorption column is normally only a few mbar. For
Figure 5.26 Flow sheet of an amine scrubber (ISET) 2008
regeneration in the desorption column a temperature level of 120–160C is required.

Typical CH4 concentrations in the product gas stream are in the range from ⬃99%
if there is no N2 and/or O2 in the biogas flow. An exhaust gas treatment is not neces-
sary. Figure 5.26 describes the process.
The basic principle of polyethylene glycol scrubbers is physical absorption, same
as for water scrubbers, but the solvent is an organic fluid. The solvent in is poly-
ethylene glycol. Two well known trade names exist: Selexol® and Genosorb®. The
solubility of CO2 in polyethylene glycol is much higher than in pure water. Hence
as with the amine scrubbers a smaller upgrading plant is possible. The regeneration
process is more energy intensive compared to a water scrubber but not as high as for
an amine scrubber (Refer Figure 5.26).
5.18 CHEMICAL ABSORPTION USING GMBH TECHNOLOGY
In a chemical amine scrubber, biogas is cleaned through absorption on a chemical

washing solution – similar to the process of water scrubbing.
Amine scrubbers (Refer Figure 5.27) harness a similar principle like water scrub-
bers. The difference is basically the solvent and the absorption/release mechanism.
In a water scrubber the CO2 is physically washed out because the CO2 is more solu-
ble in water than in methane. In an amine scrubber the CO2 chemically reacts with
the amine. The solubility of CO2 Two commonly used amine solvents are mono-
ethanolamine (MEA) or dimethylethanolamine (DMEA). In a standard MEA process
Figure 5.27 Amine Scrubbing
hydrogen sulphide is removed before the biogas enters the absorption tower. In the
adsorption tower the biogas enters from the bottom and the fluid flows from the top.
Afterwards the fluid has to be regenerated, which happens in a desorption tower by
reversing the chemical reaction and release the CO in amine is around 9 times higher
than in water. For the regeneration heating with steam is necessary, which is very
energy intensive. One advantage compared to water scrubbers is that smaller adsorp-
tion towers are sufficient due to better solubility. The disadvantage is the higher energy
consumption.
5.19 MEMBRANE SEPARATION NATCOGROUP TECHNOLOGY
CH4 and CO2 can also be separated using a membrane. Because of the difference in
particle size or affinity, certain molecules pass through a membrane whilst others do
not. The driving force behind this process is a difference in partial pressure between
gases. The properties of this separation technique are highly dependent on the type
of membrane used. Many different membranes are available each with its particular
specifications. The general principle however is basically the same and is explained
below on the basis of a membrane from the Natcogroup.
The Natcogroup uses membrane gas separation modules which operate on the
basis of selective permeation. The technology takes advantage of the fact that gases
dissolve and diffuse into polymeric materials. If a pressure differential is set up on
opposing sides of a polymeric film, a membrane, transport across the film (permeation)
Figure 5.28 Schematic representation of membrane separation
will occur. The rate of permeation is determined by the product of a solubility coef-
ficient and a diffusion coefficient. Very small molecules and highly soluble molecules
(such as He, H2, CO2 and H2S), permeate faster than large molecules (such as N2,
C1, C2 and heavier hydrocarbons including CH4). When a biogas stream contain-
ing CO2 is fed to a membrane, the CO2 will permeate the membrane at a faster rate
than the natural gas components. Thus, the pressurized feed stream (refer Figure) is
separated into a CO2 rich, low pressure permeate stream on the right hand side and
a CO2-depleted, high pressure CH4 gas stream (Refer Figure 5.28).
Any polymeric material will separate gases to some extent. Proper selection of
the polymeric material comprising the membrane is extremely important. It deter-
mines the ultimate performance of the gas separation module. Membranes made of
polymers and copolymers in the form of a flat film or a hollow fibre have been used
for gas separation. Several different membranes have been found in literature. The
Natcogroup uses cellulose acetate as a base membrane material. Cellulose acetate is
very inert and stable in CO2/hydrocarbon environments. Application of polyimide
membranes has also been found. For this type of membrane a single stage unit is suf-
ficient to achieve 94% enrichment from gas with a common concentration of CH4.
Using a liquid as a membrane is also possible making it possible to replace the mem-
brane in situ by circulating the liquid.
The permeation of H2S depends on the choice of membrane. If H2S permeates
only partly both exit streams contain H2S. Either the input stream or the output
streams can be cleaned. Since the CO2 rich stream still contains a relatively high con-
centration of CH4 (10–15%) this stream is best used in a gas engine to produce elec-
tricity or heat. For that, the H2S does not have to be removed. This will result in more
wear of the engine but maintaining an engine is cheaper than the removal of H2S.
The cheapest option therefore is only cleaning the CH4 stream which constitutes a
significantly smaller amount of gas than the input. A membrane which fully removes
the H2S from the biogas would be a great improvement. The need for other pre-treat-
ment such as drying or heating is fully dependent on the membrane used. A higher
pressure gives a higher gas flux through the membrane. However, the maximum
CH4 CO2
Mainly CO2
small amount of CH4
Mainly CO2
small amount of CO2
Figure 5.29 Schematic representation of an internally staged membrane separator
pressure is determined again by the membrane. For this reason, high strength hollow
fibre membranes have been developed.
Overall, the efficiency of the entire process mainly depends on the membrane
used. Its selectivity towards the gases having to be separated, membrane flux or per-
meability, lifetime, operational temperature and humidity range, maintenance and
replacement costs are all factors that determine the overall performance of such a
biogas upgrading technique. Membranes, especially hollow fibre membranes, are
very compact, light weight and allow for a modular design making expansion and
replacement very easy. However, well maintained membranes hardly need any main-
tenance and can last as long as 10 to 15 years. Other equipment such as the compres-
sor and pumps do need maintenance but this is also true for the other techniques.
The total energy needs are very low since the membrane itself is passive. Because the
membrane is passive the entire process is easy to operate and simple to understand.
Membranes however can be expensive and also very fragile. Certain solvents or fine
colloidal solids such as graphite can permanently destroy or foul the membrane.
A major disadvantage of this technique is the low methane yield. The waste gas
still contains CH4 which is highly polluting. Part of it can be fed back into the inlet
or, as mentioned above, the waste gas can be burnt in a gas engine linked to a gen-
erator. Using a multistage setup also increases the yield. Positive results have been
found using an internally staged permeator, depicted in Figure 5.29.
Electrical costs are low since only a compressor has to be powered. The genera-
tor can power the compressor which results in an even higher CH4 efficiency. The
CO2 stream is then of no further use.
If the waste stream is not burned in an engine it is very polluting since CH4 is
far more harmful than just CO2.
5.20 MEMBRANE SEPARATION ISET TECHNOLOGY
Two common systems of LFG upgrading with membranes exist today: gas phases
on both sides at high pressure or gas/liquid absorption at low pressure. The working
Gas drying system

Desulfurization
Waste gas Biomethane

Compressor Gas cooler
Biogas
Deshydrator
Condensate
Membrane module
Figure 5.30 Flow sheet of a membrane separation (ISET) 2008
principles are similar (see Figure 5.30). In both processes a membrane divides the
two flows. This membrane is designed to allow only specific gas components to
permeate.
In the high pressure process, the LFG is compressed to around 36 bars. The
compressed LFG is first passed through activated carbon to remove (halogenated)
hydrocarbons, hydrogen sulphide and oil vapour from the compressors. It then flows
through a particle filter and is heated. The membranes are made of cellulose acetate
and are able to separate small polar molecules like carbon dioxide, moisture and
hydrogen sulphide from the biogas. These membranes are not able to separate the
nitrogen from the biomethane.
This whole process is carried out as a three step process with three mem-
branes in a row. The captured gas from the first two steps is recycled to recover the
biomethane. The waste gas from the third step is normally flared or burned in a
steam boiler as it still contains 10–20% methane.
The other membrane technology that is often used is a biogas-liquid absorp-
tion membrane. This relatively new technology was invented specifically for biogas
upgrading. The main point is the mircroporous hydrophobic membrane separating
the LFG and the liquid phase. The biogas flows in one direction counter current
to the liquid. The H2S and CO2 molecules diffuse through the membrane and are
dissolved in the liquid. The process runs at approximately atmospheric pressure, so
operating costs are rather low. Despite the fact that it is a low cost process, efficiency
is very high. The LFG is upgraded from 55% CH4 to above 96%. The concentration
of hydrogen sulphide is reduced from 2% to less than 250 ppm either by Sodium
hydroxide (NaOH) or lime as an absorbent.
The effluent water can be treated to remove heavy metals with the H2S-saturated
NaOH. If lime is used for hydrogen sulphide removal this can be regenerated by
heating. Amine is used to remove carbon dioxide. The amine solution could also be
regenerated by heating. The recovered carbon dioxide is very pure and can be sold for
industrial applications (Refer Figure 5.30).
Figure 5.31 A simple model of cryogenic separation of biogas. Streams 1, 2 and 3 respectively are the
crude biogas (inlet gas), the upgraded biogas (product) and the impurities
5.21 CRYOGENIC SEPARATION
The name cryogenic separation already reveals the fact that this technique makes
use of low temperatures, close to 90°C, and high pressure, approximately 40 bars.
Because CO2, CH4 and all other biogas contaminants liquefy at different tempera-
ture-pressure domains, it is possible to obtain CH4 from biogas by cooling and com-
pressing the crude biogas to liquefy CO2 which is then easily separated from the
remaining gas.
Among the existing techniques for biogas upgrading, cryogenic separation of
impurities from biogas is still in the early stages of research and development. In
order to investigate the feasibility of this technique, in the first designing steps, the
focus has been only on the separation under low temperature and high pressure.
When the desired purity of the upgraded gas is achieved, the designing of the cooling
and compressing unit in this technique can be continued. Finally these two models,
for compressing and separating of biogas, is put together to achieve the final separa-
tion model. Figure 5.31 shows this primary model for the cryogenic separation of
biogas. The inlet gas is assumed to be dried, under atmospheric pressure and has an
ambient temperature.
The model in Figure 5.31 has been created by using the Aspen Plus software
package. In this model, the impurities from crude biogas are separated using a dis-
tillation column which operates at a temperature of 90°C and a pressure of 40
bars. The product stream, upgraded biogas (stream 2), has a CH4 purity of 91%.
However, it should be possible to upgrade biogas to a higher purity of CH4. Another
demand for the upgrading of biogas is the reduction of H2S quality with a factor
1000 which is achieved as well. Knowing these demands are achieved, the second
step in the process design will be designing of the cooling and compressing units.
Figure 5.32 shows these process units.
In these process units the crude inlet biogas goes through the first heat exchanger
in which it is cooled down to 70C. This heat exchanger uses the product stream
as a cooling medium, which has the advantage of preheating the upgraded biogas
Figure 5.32 Cooling and compressing units in cryogenic separation
Figure 5.33 Shows the complete PFD for the cryogenic separation process
before leaving the plant as well as the energy efficiency benefit of the process. The
first cooling step is followed by a cascade of compressors and heat exchangers which
cool the inlet gas down to 10C and compress up to 40 bars before entering the
distillation column. To defrost frozen water each heat exchanger needs a parallel heat
exchanger.
Figure 5.33 shows the complete PFD for the cryogenic separation process.
Waste Streams: Cryogenic separation uses no chemicals and is an environmental
friendly technology. It has one waste stream mainly consisting of a high percentage
of CO2 but also contains traces of H2S and CH4 which needs to be treated.
5.22 CRYOGENIC CONDENSATION TECHNOLOGY
First the condensate and impurities are removed in module 1 as seen in Figure 5.34.
Therefore the gas is cooled to 6C. Most of the moisture condensates here and
many of the impurities solve in the condensate. After the condensate is drained, the
gas flows to module 2 where it is further cooled to 25C. Here the remaining con-
densate as well as hydrogen sulphide and siloxanes are removed. The hydrogen sul-
phide and the siloxanes are than removed by a SOXSIA® Filter. This filter uses iron
Figure 5.34 Scheme of the cryogenic condensation (Scandinavian GtS AB 2010)
oxide (Fe2O3) and reacts with the hydrogen sulphide to iron sulphide. In the next
step the iron sulphide is reduced by oxygen to iron oxide and elementary sulphur.
Then, the gas is further cooled up to the boiling point of carbon dioxide.
Depending on the surroundings the liquid carbon dioxide is either used as a val-
uable by-product or as a refrigerant within the process. In most of the cases, except
landfill gas, where the nitrogen content is high, it is already possible to use the
upgraded biomethane. The biomethane has a methane content of more than 99%.
However, normally the gas is further cooled to around 190C to be able to sepa-
rate the methane in its liquid phase. In the liquid phase it is easier possible to distrib-
ute the biomethane.
5.23 MIXED REFRIGERANT LIQUEFACTION TECHNOLOGY
If cryogenic upgrading is applied, the biomethane can be directly produced as liquid

biomethane. Another possibility is to conventionally upgrade and liquefy biometh-
ane in a small scale liquefaction plant. There are various possibilities how to liquefy
the biomethane. (Liss, et al., 2010) gives an overview about different technologies
with a short description. In the present study two technologies are examined. These
are the Mixed- Refrigerant-Cycle (refer Figure 5.35) and the Nitrogen-Reversed-
Brayton-Cycle. The technologies are assessed as there exist pilot plants and data is
available. The refrigerant is either pure nitrogen or a mixture of nitrogen, methane
and other hydrocarbons. The cooling curve of the nitrogen does not match the curve
of the biomethane perfectly but it is a stable and safe technology as it is already
in use on LNG tankers. The mixed refrigerant is designed to suit the cooling curve
of the biomethane. This mixture of refrigerants provides a variable boiling tem-
perature. As the cooling curve suits the cooling curve of the biomethane only one
Figure 5.35 Scheme of the Mixed Refrigerant liquefaction plant
heat exchanger is sufficient. Other liquefaction technologies use a cascade of heat

exchangers and therefore they need several compressors, while here also only one
compressor is sufficient.
5.24 SAGTM TECHNOLOGY
The SAGTM technology has been developed by Applied Filter Technology (AFT) for
the removal of siloxanes in landfill. The technology is effective regardless of the gas
being saturated or chilled. The SAGTM Process uses a novel form of polymorphous
graphite developed by AFT to remove siloxanes from methane. The SAGTM Media
uses an innovated application of physical sieving to remove the siloxanes in the pres-
ence of other organics in the gas, thereby allowing the beneficial fuel constituents to
pass through.
The technology consists of porous pelletized or granular media contained in a
vessel specifically sized for the gas flow, pressure, temperature, siloxanes and organic
species. There are many types of SAGTM media (approximately 120) that can be
loaded into the vessels. The siloxane removal media has a preferential affinity for
siloxanes over most other contaminants in the gas. Additional types of SAGTM
media have affinities for other species and can be incorporated into the same vessel(s).
The SAGTM media loaded into the vessels corresponds to the gas stream analysis
characteristics and removal requirements. A properly engineered SAGTM system can
economically reduce siloxanes to non-detectable levels for extended periods of time.
The cost of installing and operating SAG Technology on the same engine and
siloxane level is 2/10 to 3/10 of a cent per KwH. The maintenance and power pro-
duction benefit associated with cleaner gas going to the engine is the difference
between these two sets of numbers and can be as high as 2 cents per KwH.
Richland, SC Landfill – 2500 SCFM
Dublin San Ramon, CA 250 SCFM

5.25 SWOP™ TECHNOLOGY
SWOP™ technology claims reduction of VOC by a factor of 10 and “polishing”

media by a factor of 5. The process is fully automated with low power consumption.
The SWOP™ technology utilizes some of the purified LFG (around 0.5% to
1.5%) for continuous self-regeneration. VOCs and siloxanes are removed and con-
centrated into a small gas stream that can be sent to a flaring system for destruction.
There are five separate process operations comprising the SWOP™ Process.
1 The first of these is the process where the LFG contaminants are concentrated
onto regenerable media in the Concentrator vessel.
2 The second process is the pneumatic conveyance of the media from the
Concentrator vessel to the stripper vessel and back to the Concentrator vessel.
3 The third process is thermal stripping of regenerable media containing the
removed and concentrated contaminants.
4 The fourth process is the production of hot regenerant gas by the inert gas gen-
erator for use by the stripper.
5 The fifth process is the destruction of the spent regenerant gas stream in a small
enclosed ground flare.
Figure 5.36 shows the schematic of the SWOP™ technology including final VOC
polishing Process.
Total electrical consumption is less than 40 kW. The newer SWOP™ technology
is controlled by 3 PLCs – a main PLC, one for the hot inert gas generator, and one
for the enclosed ground flare.
The complete landfill gas treatment system includes:
1 Gas chilling to 38F (3 to 4C)
2 Water condensate removal
3 Gas reheat to approximately 77F. (25C)
4 Removal of siloxanes, organosilicons, and most VOCs by SWOP™ Process
5 Removal of any organosilicons and VOCs in SWOP™ Process effluent by SAG™
Process
6 99% Destruction of VOCs stripped from landfill gas by enclosed ground flare
(the flare utilizes the energy in the stripped VOCs for their destruction, drawing
supplemental energy from the purified landfill gas as needed).
The energy required (parasitics) to operate the SWOP™ Process is:
1 Electricity – about 8 kW/h

2 Treated LFG – about 30 to 45 SCFM or around 0.7% to 1.0%)
The SWOP™ process, is an innovative LFG treatment technology that can pro-
duce organosilicon-free and VOC free gas for power generation equipment. It not
only purifies the LFG, but also destroys the contaminants after they are removed;
thus, avoiding a future environmental cleanup problem. The contaminants them-
selves provide a large portion of the energy for their own destruction.
Legend
1. Raw LFG from moisture reduction processes

2. Contaminant concentrator vessel (siloxane and VOC removal)
3. Purified LFG to downstream processes
4. First SAG™ LFG polishing vessel
5. Second SAG™ LFG polishing vessel
6. Purified LFG for compression and conveyance to turbine
7. Spent media containing concentrated VOCs
8. VOC stripping column (media cleaning)
9. Cleaned media cooling column
10. Cleaned media returned to contaminant concentrator vessel
11. Purified LFG gas stream to hot inert gas generator
12. Hot inert gas generator (uses about 0.25% to 0.5% of purified gas flow)
13. Hot inert gas enters VOC stripping column
14. Hot waste gas stream containing stripped VOCs
15. Enclosed ground flare (uses about 0.5% to 1.0% of purified gas flow)
16. Purified LFG gas stream to ground flare (uses about 0.5 to 1.0% of purified gas flow)
Figure 5.36 SWOP™ Technology
Frequent regenerations drive up the cost of operation of these systems to a point

where they can become uneconomical.
5.26 ISET TECHNOLOGY
ISET process was developed by CGPL, IISc, Bangalore. It is a modified liquid red-ox
process using chelated polyvalent metal ion with a stabilizing agent. The process utilizes
the oxidation reduction potential of chelated iron in aqueous medium, for scrubbing
hydrogen sulfide from the biogas. In this particular process iron in aqueous medium,
which exists in both Fe3 and Fe2 form, is used for scrubbing hydrogen sulfide from
the biogas. The sulfur present in the hydrogen sulfide is precipitated as elemental sulfur.
The process uses the counter current gas liquid contacting with the gas being
taken from the bottom of the packed scrubber column and the scrubbed liquid is
pumped form the top in a two stage scrubbing operation. The gas coming out of the
scrubber column, which is free of hydrogen sulfide, is then scrubbed with water for
cleaning any minute quantities of chemical carried over. The clean gas thus obtained
is fit for the end application. The scrubbed solution containing sulfur is then passed
through filter press for sulfur removal. The clear filtrate is then regenerated in a
countercurrent with air in a packed re-generation column.
5.27 COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT LFG TREATMENT AND

UPGRADING TECHNOLOGIES
Chemical absorption of H2S and CO2 into iron-chelated cq. amine solutions is gen-
erally an efficient method to remove H2S from LFG. The H2S is converted to elemen-
tal sulphur. The CO2 is removed and treated as a waste stream.
High pressure water scrubbing is based on dissolution of gases in liquids. In high
pressure water scrubbing, CO2 and H2S are both dissolved in water, CO2 gets dis-
solved while CH4 does not, because of its solubility difference.
Pressure swing adsorption (PSA) separates certain gas species from LFG under
pressure, according to the species molecular characteristics and affinity for an adsorp-
tion material. The adsorption material adsorbs H2S either irreversibly or reversibly. A
complex H2S removal step or regeneration phase is needed for this process.
In cryogenic separation, the different constituents in LFG liquefy at different
temperature-pressure realm. This is followed by distillation process. Typically a tem-
perature of 100°C and a pressure of 40 bars is used.
CO2 and H2S can be separated from CH4 using a membrane. Because of selec-
tive permeation, CO2 and H2S will pass through a certain membrane while CH4
does not.
Tables 5.11 and 5.12 gives a comparison of various LFG treatment and upgrad-
ing technologies.
Table 5.11 Comparison of different LFG upgradation Technologies
S. No. Technology Advantages Disadvantages

1. Chemical – The chemical absorbents – Regeneration of the solvent requires a
Absorption are more efficient in low relatively high energy input. Solvent may
(e.g., amine pressure and can remove be dangerous to handle
process) CO2 to low partial pressures – Disposal of by-product formed due to
in treated gas chemical reactions is a problem. Risk of
– Almost complete H2S pollution by chemical contamination
removal – Only removal of one component in
– Cost effective on larger scale column
– Good energy efficiency and – Expensive catalyst
operating costs on large scale – Uneconomical capital and energy costs
for gas streams with high CO2 loadings
(20%)
– Does not remove inerts (e.g., O2 and N2)
(Continued)
Table 5.11 Continued
S. No. Technology Advantages Disadvantages

2. High Pressure – One of the economical – Limitation of H2S absorption due to
Water and safe methods for CO2 varying pH
Scrubbing removal. – H2S may damage equipment
– Removes gases and – Requires a lot of water
particulate matter – Does not remove inerts (e.g., O2 and N2)
– High purity and good yield
– Simple technique, no special
chemicals or equipments
required, easy maintenance
– Neutralization of corrosive
gases
– Low capital and operating cost
– Siloxanes effectively removed
3. Pressure – By proper choice of the – Adsorption is accomplished at high
Swing adsorbent, this process can temperature and pressure. Regeneration
Adsorption remove CO2, H2S, moisture is carried out by vacuum. It is a costly
and other impurities. process
– Can remove some inert – Additional complex H2S removal step
gases, but requires additional needed
process module – Media becomes poisoned and needs
– More than 97% CH4 replacement
enrichment – Process difficult to control-problems
– Low power consumption maintaining high CH4 recovery
– Low level of emissions – Upstream H2S removal required
– Adsorption of N2 & O2
– Cost effective on small scale
4. Cryogenic – Allows recovery of pure – Complex plant, high capital and operating
Separation component in the form of costs makes it impractical for LFG
liquid applications
– Can produce large quantities – A lot of equipments are required
of CH4 with high purity – Operational problems due to solid CO2
– Easy scaling up formation on heat exchangers
– Cost effective on very large – Very low temperatures and high pressures
scale create potentially hazardous plants
– No chemicals used in the
process
5. Membrane – Modular in nature and – High pressure requirement. The
Separation separate CO2 and CH4 processing cost is also high.
effectively – Relatively low CH4 yield
– Compact and light in weight – H2S removal step needed
– Low maintenance – Membrane can be expensive
– Low energy requirements – High energy consumption
– Simple process – CH4 92% difficult to achieve alone; H2S
not removed
– Membranes foul and require replacement
– Does not remove inerts (e.g., O2 and N2)
Source: Flotech/Greenlane
Table 5.12 Comparison of yield and purity of different LFG treatment techniques
S. No. Technique Yield (in %) Purity (in %)

1. Chemical Absorption 90 98
2. High Pressure Water Scrubbing 94 98
3. Pressure Swing Adsorption 91 98
4. Cryogenic Separation 98 91
5. Membrane Separation 78 89
Source: DMT, 2008
5.27.1 Impact on the environment

• Chemical absorption has several waste streams, one containing CO2 and two
different streams containing amines or Fe EDTA complexes. These are the
catalysts used in the absorption processes. All streams need to be disposed as
chemical waste.
• High pressure water scrubbing has two waste streams. The water waste stream
contains such a low concentration of H2S and CO2 that it does not need further
treatment. The second waste stream is a gas stream which also contains H2S and
CO2 but also some CH4. Because H2S is rather poisonous, this stream should be
treated and the CH4 should be burned.
• Pressure swing adsorption and membrane separation both have one waste
stream that mostly contains CH4 and has to be burned.
• Cryogenics has also one waste stream containing mostly CO2 and some traces of
H2S and CH4. This waste stream needs treatment.
5.27.2 Ease of operation

Membrane separation and high pressure water scrubbing technologies are simple to
operate because they do not need special chemicals or equipment. The operation of
the pressure swing adsorption and chemical absorption needs replacement of cata-
lysts. Cryogenics is difficult to operate because it works on high pressure and low
temperatures.
5.28 CONCLUSION
A combination of technologies is used for the removal of H2S and CO2. However,
the relevance, feasibility and sequence of the different cleaning and upgrading proc-
esses depend on the specific gas composition and pipeline specifications. The choice
of a suitable LFG treatment and up gradation technology depends on several specific
parameters, a particular technology cannot generally be recommended. The choice
of technology should be based upon techno-economic considerations.
High pressure water scrubbing may be considered as the easiest process to oper-
ate considering ease in operation. No catalysts or chemicals are required. Cryogenic
separation is sensitive as it works at very low temperatures and high pressures.
Therefore, it requires a controlled system with safety aspects, because of the high
possibility of explosion. Chemical absorption and pressure swing adsorption both

need a catalyst in order to upgrade LFG. High pressure water scrubbing can perform
suitably; with its low cost, high purity and yield it is a promising LFG upgrading
technology.
REFERENCES
Applied Filter Technology (n.d) Guaranteed Removal of Siloxanes from digester and landfill
gas, Snohomish, WA USA.
Beil, M. and Hoffstede, U. (2010) Technical success of the applied biogas upgrading methods,
Fraunhofer IWES.
Michael Beil and Uwe Hoffstede. (2010) Technical success of the applied biogas upgrading
methods, Fraunhofer IWES.
Clearstone Engineering Ltd. (2008) CEL Technical Report Guidelines on Flare and Vent
Measurement, Alberta, Canada.
CSANR (2010) Purification technologies for biogas generated by anaerobic digestion, CSANR
Research Report.
Eindhoven University of Technology (2010) Liquefaction of carbon dioxide from biogas
upgrading, Final report MDP2.
Environmental Protection Agency Ireland. (2010) Estimates of Methane Recovery in Landfill
Gas Flaring and Utilization, Climate Change Research Programme (CCRP) 2007-2013
Report Series No. 3.
GHD Pty Ltd. (2008) Assessment of Australian Biogas Flaring Standards, RIRDC Publication
No. 08/024, April 2008.
GmbH. (2009) Brochure on “biogas utilization chains” Redubar WP09 D35.
Greer, D. (2010) Fundamentals of biogas conditioning and upgrading, Biocycle, February,
2010
Hullu, P. J. and Maassen, J.I.W., DMT (2008) Comparing different biogas upgrading tech-
niques, Final report.
Intelligent Energy. (n.d) Reinforcing investments in biogas technologies for small scale
RES applications in islands, Report on biogas to energy technologies at European level/
D2.3.
International Energy Agency. (2000) IEA Biogas Flares State of the Art and Market Review –
Topic report of IEA Bioenergy Agreement.
Johnson, B.S. (2005) Specifying a cost effective landfill flare system, SWANA’s Annual Landfill
Gas Symposium San Diego, California.
Lems, R. and Dirkse, E. (n.d) Making pressurized water scrubbing the ultimate biogas upgrad-
ing technology with the DMT TS-PWS system.
Lems, R. and Dirkse, E.H.M, (n.d) Small scale biogas upgrading: Green gas with the DMT
Carborex-MS System, 15th European biosolids and organic resources conference.
Lindner, J.P., Lozanovski, A. and Ulrike B. (2010) Evaluation of cryogenic transport of
biomethane compared to gaseous transport by truck and pipeline, University of Stuttgart
(USTUTT).
Lindner, J.P., Lozanovski, A. and Ulrike, B. (2010) Analysis of the site evaluation activities
(cross site results, analysis and recommendations), Final evaluation report University of
Stuttgart (USTUTT).
Locke, T.W. (1998) Ultra Low Emission Enclosed Landfill Gas Flare – A Full Scale Factory
Test, Swana’s Annual Landfill Gas Symposium, Austin, Texas.
Nagly, G.J., Technical analysis of landfill gas recovery systems for the production of high BTU
gas, Gas Technology Products.
Persson, M. (2003) Evaluation of Upgrading techniques for biogas, Swedish Gas Center.
Petersson, A. and Wellinger, A. (2009) IEA Bioenergy, Biogas upgrading technologies – devel-
opments and innovations, October, 2009.
Rehnlund, B. and Rahm, L. (n.d) Report on Technological Applicability of Existing Biogas
Upgrading Processes, Biogasmax -Integrated Project No 019795
Scottish Environment Protection Agency. (2004) SEPA Guidance for monitoring enclosed
landfill gas flares.
Scottish Environment Protection Agency. (2004) SEPA Guidance for monitoring trace compo-
nents in landfill gas
Scottish Environment Protection Agency. (2004) SEPA Guidance on landfill gas flaring.
SCS Engineers. (n.d) Guidance Fact Sheet: Landfill Gas Collection, Flaring and Energy
Recovery Design.
Subbukrishna, D.N., Dasappa, S., Paul P.J. and Rajan NKS (n.d) Hydrogen sulphide removal
from biogas by ISET Process, Combustion Gasification Propulsion Laboratory, Indian
Institute of Science, Bangalore.
Tower P. and Wetzel J. (n.d) New Landfill Gas Treatment Technology Dramatically Lowers
Energy Production Costs Applied Filter Technology, Inc., Snohomish, WA, X. Lombard,
Verdesis, Brussels, Belgium
Chapter 6
Landfill gas utilization technologies
6.1 INTRODUCTION
The continual increase in the price of non-renewables and associated GHG

emissions, makes LFG utilization technologies for energy production an important
alternative energy source for economically developing countries. It is therefore fun-
damental to develop and implement LFG utilization technologies that involve low
investment, operational and maintenance costs, are relatively labour intensive with
low energy consumption in order to yield a highly positive energy balance. The list
of innovative uses for LFG continues to grow; currently there are at least 30 differ-
ent applications for LFG:
1 Gas engine
2 Vehicle fuel
3 Compressed natural gas
4 Gas turbine
5 Boiler
6 Infrared tube heater
7 Microturbine
8 Steam turbine
9 Thermal oxidizer
10 Cogeneration
11 Brick kiln
12 Paint shop oven burner
13 Combined cycle
14 Incinerator fuel
15 Paint evaporator
16 Leachate evaporator
17 Asphalt heater
18 Blacksmith forge
19 Condensate evaporator
20 Lime kiln
21 Greenhouse heat
22 Sludge dryer
23 Clay dryer
24 Glass kiln
25 Cement kiln
26 Ceramic kiln
27 Fuel cell
28 Metal furnace
29 Pipeline gas
30 Liquefied natural gas
6.2 LFG TO ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES
The utilization of LFG for power generation, or processing to natural gas, or fuel for
boilers and furnaces are considered as a renewable energy sources which can com-
pensate for the shortage of fossil-fuel-based energy generation. However, the feasibil-
ity of LFG utilization technologies depends on the economic viability, site conditions
and end-use markets. Power generation from LFG and processing of LFG to pipe-
line-quality natural gas as fuel for vehicles has become more common in recent
years. The beneficial use of LFG is highly dependent on the quantity, quality and
efficiency of the LFG collection system. The key LFG to energy utilization technolo-
gies discussed in detail in this chapter are:
1 Microturbines
2 Reciprocating Internal-combustion engines (ICEs)
3 Stirling Cycle Engines
4 Steam turbines
5 Direct use of LFG
6 Alternative Fuel (CNG/LNG)
7 Power generation using LFG-driven engines
8 Boilers
9 Fuel Cells
The LFG collection system should be designed and operated for consistent and
steady supply of LFG to the utilization system. The key factors that should be con-
sidered while selecting an LFG utilization technology includes:
1 The expected landfill closure year,

2 The economics of the LFG project i.e., the capital and Operation & Maintenance
costs and revenue from energy sales,
3 Size requirements for the LFG utilization equipments for the project.
The raw LFG needs to be processed upto a certain extent before application of
LFG utilization technologies. The extent of LFG pre-treatment required depends on
the constituents and concentration of traces compounds in the raw LFG, the utiliza-
tion option to be considered, and the extent to which these constituents can impact
the capital and O&M costs. The main constituents in raw LFG that requires pre-
treatment include:
• Free moisture/water vapour

• Particulates
Landfill gas utilization technologies 211
• Sulphur compounds (e.g., Hydrogen sulphide)

• Siloxanes
• Halogenated organic compounds
• Carbon dioxide
These have already been discussed in detail in Chapter 5.

Most LFG utilization technologies require the removal of moisture and particu-
lates using physical processes. The removal of Hydrogen sulphide, siloxanes, halo-
genated hydrocarbons, and carbon dioxide generally require advanced treatment
technologies. Table 6.1 summarizes these parameters corresponding to their sources,
concentration limits and their impacts.
Since the composition of MSW placed in a landfill generally varies, it is important
to assess the actual LFG trace constituents to determine the level of pre-treatment
required. The baseline concentration of trace compounds should be established
through field measurement before selection of a LFG utilization technology.
6.3 MICROTURBINES
Microturbines are one of the promising LFG utilization technologies for power
generation or combined heat and power (CHP). Microturbines are well-suited for
distributed generation applications due to their flexibility in operation, ability to
be arranged in parallel modules in order to provide stable and reliable power. They
have low emissions and are tolerant to trace compounds in LFG.
Microturbines can use low-grade LFG with a heating capacity of as low as
217.4 kJ/m3/hr. Microturbines can typically produce 10 to 1000 (kW) of electri-
cal power output and are best suited for smaller applications. They are designed
to produce electricity for onsite energy requirements and for end users resid-
ing near landfills. An individual microturbine unit size is typically between
25–250 kW which can be grouped into larger units.
A microturbines operate by mixing compressed air with the fuel source and
combusting the mixture under constant pressure, with the resultant gas used to
power a turbine. A heat exchanger is also used for heat recovery and recirculation of
this heat to the influent air stream.
Microturbine systems consist of a compressor, recuperator, combustor, turbine,
and generator. The whole system requires a small area for its operation. The opera-
tion of micro turbines is based on the ideal Brayton Cycle. The LFG and compressed
air are combusted in an external combustion chamber. The resulting hot combustion
gas expands and moves a turbine which drives a compressor and a generator to pro-
vide electrical power. The thermal energy remaining in the exhaust flue gas can be
passed through a heat-exchanger to recover heat.
Microturbine technology is based on the design of much larger combustion
turbines employed in the power plants. They differ from traditional combustion
turbines in that they spin at much faster speeds. The electrical efficiency of a micro-
turbine plant is relatively low (15–25%) because of its small size. The overall effi-
ciency is around 80%. The overall efficiency is calculated including the potential for
recovery of thermal energy output by the microturbines. The properties of micro
turbines are given in Table 6.2.
Table 6.1 LFG Constituents, sources, limits and their impacts
S. No. Parameter Source Level Remarks

1. Moisture • • Reduces efficiency of LFG utilization technologies
• Forms corrosive mixture with other contaminants
• Condensed water vapour can accumulate in piping network
• Increases pressure losses and creates blockage in piping system
2. Particulates • • Can cause wear and tear of LFG equipments due to its abrasive
properties
• Water droplets often condense on particulates and get deposited on
pipe walls
3. Sulphur • Gypsum (A major 10,000 ppm • They are corrosive in the presence of free water or moisture
Compounds component of • They can be absorbed by water present in engine oil to form sulphuric
(e.g., Hydrogen drywall) when acid
Sulphide) wetted in landfill • Sulphuric acid causes corrosion in LFG utilization technologies
• Input of compost • Sulphuric acid damages engine parts and causes excessive wear and tear
that has turned of piston rings and cylinder linings
anaerobic in landfill • Sulphuric acid also causes acidification of engine oil leading to increased
maintenance costs and frequent oil changes
4. Siloxanes • Cosmetic residues 0.5 to 15 mg/m3 • They cause deposition of siliceous materials on LFG equipments
in landfills Manufacturers’ siloxane • They are abrasive and get deposited in the interior surfaces during
• Input of wastewater limits range from 0.03 to combustion or heating process
sludge rich in 28 mg/m3, according to • These deposits increase wear and tear of LFG equipments and also act as
siloxanes one study a thermal insulator adding to overheating of engine parts
• Once deposits are formed, LFG equipment must be stripped down and
the solids scraped from affected surfaces like pistons, cylinder heads, and
valves in reciprocating engines
5. Halogenated – 100 mg/m3 • They form acid gases like hydrochloric acid and hydrofluoric acid during
organic combustion. These acids cause corrosion and acidification
compounds • Halogen removal is generally required for producing high-grade energy
from LFG such as conversion to pipeline-quality natural gas
Table 6.2 Overview of micro turbine properties

Micro turbines engines properties
Commercially Status Yes (Limited)
Size Range 25 kW–500 kW
Fuel LFG, hydrogen, diesel, natural gas, propane
Efficiency 25–30% (Recuperated)
Environmental factors Low (9–50 ppm) NOx
Other features Cogeneration (50–80oC water)
Figure 6.1 General schematic of the CHP microturbine process
In order to achieve better electrical efficiency, a heat exchanger (recuperator) is

usually used for preheating the combustion air with the help of hot turbine exhaust
gas, as shown in Figure 6.1. Microturbine system needs to be equipped with a fuel
pretreatment system that removes moisture and in some cases also siloxanes before
LFG enters the turbines. Combusting LFG containing siloxanes produces a fine silica
powder that can form harmful deposits on interior machine surfaces and may erode
the microturbine components.
Another heat exchanger can be used for obtaining process heat in combined
heat and power (CHP) applications. If the first heat exchanger can be switched off
the released process heat can be increased at the expense of electrical efficiency if
required. This enables an optimum adjustment to variable heat requirements.
The advantages and disadvantages of micro turbine in comparison to other LFG
to energy utilization technologies are given in Table 6.3.
The smaller capacity of these units makes them most suitable for landfills hav-
ing low LFG generation rates. The small unit sizes are ideal for modular applications
that can respond to changes in LFG volumes.
Table 6.3 Advantages and disadvantages of micro turbines
Advantages Disadvantages
Utilization of a range of fuels Low LFG to electricity efficiencies
Work with low LFG flow rates with methane High pressure gas or high compressor fuel
content (30–35%) (LFG) is required
Easy installation and can be done close to load High capital cost
Simple lubrication system and no cooling water Not suitable for varying LFG flow rates
required
Low operating cost Information on the long-term reliability and
maintenance costs of LFG micro turbines not
available
Low emissions and noise pollution Sensitive to silicates deposits and siloxane
contamination
Low maintenance cost because of few moving Sensitive to ambient air temperature variation
parts, corrosion resistant and long maintenance
intervals (less wear and tear)
Compact in design and light weight. It is available Full market maturity of the technology for LFG
in incremental capacities (Modules) has not yet achieved
High efficiencies with heat recovery (85%) No long period operating information available
Trigeneration opportunity
6.4 RECIPROCATING INTERNAL-COMBUSTION ENGINES
Medium-grade LFG may be used as a fuel for reciprocating gas engines that in turn
drive generators to produce electricity. Reciprocating engines that use medium-
grade LFG as a fuel are readily available as modular units or complete parallel gen-
erator packages with electrical outputs ranging from less than 0.5 MW to more than
3.0 MW per unit. Installations have been constructed of greater than 30 MW in size.
A typical reciprocating gas engine LFG utilization system is presented in Figure 6.2.
Reciprocating engines have a comparatively low capital cost per kW and a
higher efficiency than most gas turbines. A general rule-of-thumb for capital costs
of reciprocating engine facilities is $2.0 to $3.0 million/MW. The modular nature
of reciprocating engine systems provides flexibility for incremental expansion that
may be required due to future LFG generation. These units can be added in smaller
incremental stages than gas turbines. The disadvantages of this technology include a
requirement for skilled maintenance personnel to ensure continued efficient opera-
tion, and relatively high maintenance costs. Additional disadvantages include neces-
sity for cooling, exhaust gases that may contain products of incomplete combustion,
high lubricating oil consumption, and possible classification of the waste lubricat-
ing oil as hazardous for disposal purposes. Another benefit to using reciprocating
engines is the potential to use the waste heat from the engines for a greenhouse using
heat exchangers and for local space heating on the site.
Technological refinements by some engine manufacturers have continuously
improved the performance and durability of gas-fuelled reciprocating engines for
LFG and biogas applications. These engines are specifically designed to resist cor-
Figure 6.2 General schematic of the CHP gas engine process
rosion and deliver higher performance from low-BTU fuels such as LFG. Critical
engine components have been modified to help mitigate the affect of contaminants
found in LFG on the engine. Such design improvements decrease the level of fuel
pre-treatment that may be necessary and reduce unscheduled downtime, extend serv-
ice intervals, and provide a more consistent power output with lower emissions.
Reciprocating IC engines are a widespread and well known technology.
Combustion engines are available for power generation applications in size ranging
from a few kilowatts to over 5 MW. There are two basic types of combustion engines:
• spark ignition (Otto-cycle engine) and
• compression ignition (Diesel engine).
The essential mechanical components of the otto cycle and diesel cycle are the
same. In landfill gas utilization systems both types of engines can be used.
Gas engines have higher electrical efficiencies than gas turbines of comparable
size. The electric efficiencies of gas engines range from 30% for small stoichiometric
engines (100 kW) to over 40% for large lean burn engines (3 MW). The waste
heat recovered from the hot engine exhaust and from the engine cooling systems
produce either hot water or low pressure steam for CHP applications in which the
overall efficiencies range from 70 to 80%.
The capital costs of gas engine installations are generally lower than gas turbine
installations upto 3–5 MW in size, but gas engine maintenance costs are higher than
comparable gas turbines.
The investment costs for a complete CHP gas engine plant range from 450 to
1400 e/kWel for upto 10 MWel plants.
Table 6.4 Advantages and disadvantages of a IC engine
Proven reliability when properly Gas engines are sensitive to siloxane
maintained contamination
Low first costs The methane content of the LFG has to
be more than 38%
Excellent load following characteristics Corrosion of engine parts and catalyst
Good electric efficiencies Pollutant emissions
Easy installation
Table 6.4 shows the advantages and disadvantages of landfill gas fed reciprocat-
ing internal combustion engines when compared to other types of LFG utilization
technologies.
6.5 STIRLING CYCLE ENGINES
A Stirling Cycle engine is an external combustion engine that produces power by

alternately expanding and compressing a working gas within a closed vessel. The
internal volume of the closed vessel is typically separated into hot and cold regions
by a displacer piston. The piston shuffles the working gas back and forth between the
hot and cold regions. A power piston is used to vary the internal volume of the closed
vessel. Movement of the displacer piston and the power piston are sequenced to cause
the expanding working gas to push against the power piston when the working gas is
being heated and to pull the power piston in the opposite direction when the working
gas is being cooled. The idealized Stirling Cycle consists of the following:
• Isothermally compressing the working gas.

• Adding heat at constant gas volume.
• Isothermally expanding the working gas.
• Rejecting the heat at constant gas volume.
• Repeating the process.
In the Stirling engine, gas is contained in a continuous, closed volume that is

divided into hot and cold regions. The size of the volume is periodically varied to
compress and expand the gas. Heating and cooling are accomplished by periodically
transferring working gas between the hot and cold regions. Since the engine derives
its heat from an external source, almost any type of fuel (e.g., landfill gas) or com-
bustible material can be used.
Stirling engines have several advantages including: fuel versatility as any fuel can
be used to run the engine, quiet operation without vibrations and low emissions.
However this technology is not fully commercial for wide application. An proper-
ties and process diagram for a Stirling engine are given in Table 6.5 and Figure 6.3
respectively.
Besides engines built for research, the only Stirling engines that have made an
impact are those used as cryocoolers, those used to power small submarines, and
Table 6.5 Stirling Engines properties
Stirling Engines Properties

Commercially available No (Expected Commercial available 2003–2005)
Size Range 1 kW–25 kW
Fuel LFG, flexible to wide range of fuels
Efficiency 20–40% (Target: 50%)
Environmental factors Very low emissions
Other features Cogen (some models)
Figure 6.3 Flow diagram of LFG driven Stirling Engine
Table 6.6 Advantages and Disadvantages of Stirling engines
Lower emissions Technology not fully developed
Durable and reliable Low efficiencies
Low noise and vibration High capital cost levels requirements
Fuel flexibility Long-term performance data not available
Few moving parts Low power to weight ratio
Clean engine performance
those used in the classrooms for demonstration purposes. The advantages and disad-
vantages of stirling engines are given in Table 6.6.
Since January 2003, the first successful demonstrations of 2–25 kW and
10–25 kW Stirling-Cycle engines using landfill gas are operational at two landfills
in Michigan. Demonstration of the first thermal hybrid electric sundish (combines
solar and Stirling cycle engine using landfill gas) has been running successfully since
1999.
6.6 STEAM TURBINES
Power generation using steam turbines have been in use for many years, since they
replaced reciprocating steam engines because of their higher efficiencies and lower
costs. The capacity of steam turbines ranges from 50 kW to several hundred MWs
for large utility power plants. Steam turbines are also widely used in CHP applica-
tions. The characteristics of steam turbines is given in Table 6.7.
Steam turbine power plants run on a Rankine cycle. High-pressure steam raised
in a conventional boiler is expanded within the turbine to produce mechanical
energy, which may then be used to drive an electric generator (Figure 6.4). This pro-
duces less electrical energy per unit of fuel than a gas turbine or reciprocating engine-
driven cogeneration system, although it’s overall efficiency may be higher, achieving
up to 84% (based on fuel gross calorific value). The use of an external boiler enables
Table 6.7 Characteristics of steam turbines
Steam Turbines Overview

Commercially Status Yes
Size Range 50 kW to 500 MW
Fuel LFG, fuel oil, biomass natural gas, coal, nuclear
Efficiency 40–45%
Environmental factors low when control measures are used
Other features Cogeneration
Figure 6.4 Direct combustion of LFG to produce electricity

steam turbines to operate with a wide range of fuels, including: natural gas, MSW,
LFG, all types of coal, wood, wood waste, and agricultural by-products.
Steam turbine plants have many advantages including high availability (up to
95%) and can operate for more than a year between shutdowns for maintenance
and inspections. Their unplanned or forced outage rates are less than 2% or less
than one week per year.
Steam turbines are the most versatile (not affected by contaminants in LFG,
formation of deposits nor inherent particulates) and oldest prime mover technology
used for electricity generation and have capabilities for CHP applications. Unlike
internal combustion engines and combustion gas turbines, they can also directly uti-
lize solid fuels (backup fuels) such as coal and biomass in boilers to create steam.
6.7 DIRECT USE
The direct applications of LFG can be in boilers, dryers, kilns and other thermal
applications like leachate evaporation. Innovative direct uses include firing pottery,
glass blowing kilns, heating water for aquaculture operation. LFG can also be used
as a supplement to meet a portion of the total demand. The direct use of LFG in
applications such as cement kilns, asphalt hot mix plants, brick kilns, glass furnaces,
incinerators or steam raising may be the more economic option. The favorable fac-
tors for direct use are:
• Energy demand similar to LFG production rate

• Relatively constant energy demand
• Geographical proximity to landfill
• Use of boilers, kilns, and other thermal devices
• Lower cost than current energy supply
• Use of the LFG as fuel in furnace for the treatment of medical wastes
The following case study demonstrates the production of high quality lime from
waste limestone by extracting, purifying and utilising LFG in a fluidised bed kiln by
cross-flow multistage calcination process. The LFG is produced by two landfill sites,
and after collection it is pumped to the limestone calciner plant with a 1.8 km pipeline.
Exhausted limestone quarries are widely used for controlled landfill with domes-
tic waste. Rather than flaring of LFG, the production of lime is possible using LFG
as energy source. The Wimpey Hobbs’ limestone quarries produce up to 10% of
non-commercial limestone grades e.g., minus 4 mm, which can be calcined using an
appropriate kiln. Only the fluidised bed technique can handle such particle sizes. To
demonstrate the viability of a combined LFG-fired fluidised bed calciner Wimpey
Hobbs built and operates this demonstration plant in South Wales.
The production of quicklime is a highly energy intensive process, fuel being typ-
ically 60% of the primary cost when using commercially available gas. However,
use of LFG from Wimpey Waste at their Stormy West site was possible. The output
of this source will be sufficient to produce the projected annual supply of 20,000
tonnes and will, together with the new site at Stormy Down, provide fuel for at least
15–20 years.
Figure 6.5 Schematic of the fluidized bed calciner
Conversion of limestone into quicklime takes place in a refractory lined rectan-

gular fluidized bed reactor. In order to achieve high thermal efficiency a system of
heat recovery is used to transfer energy from the exhaust gas to the incoming air, so
producing fuel usage similar to the best of the conventional plants.
In LFG Fired Fluidised Bed Limestone Calciner, Heat is transferred with air as
transfer medium from the produced lime to the limestone fed into the kiln. Fluidised
bed air is preheated in an Incoloy tubular heat exchanger with kiln flue gas. The
schematic of the calciner is shown in Figure 6.5.
The LFG is of excellent quality (45% CH4) and supplied in sufficient quantity.
The combustion of LFG in the fluidized bed is almost complete. The quality of the
lime produced is good and the energy consumption figures are low. When the plant
will reach its full operational capacity, it is estimated that the energy consumption
will be 1100 kcal/kg CaO at 2–2.5 t/h. At full capacity of 20,000 tonnes CaO per
year, the project aims at saving approximately 100.48 TJ.
The investment cost excluding the landfill site development and LFG pumping
is approximately £2,000,000. The operating costs are based on a thermal balance of
1100–1200 kcal/kg CaO and amount to some £25–30/tonne CaO.
The project utilises LFG and the process residues of limestone quarrying, thus its
raw material costs are very low. On the other hand the lime has a very high reactiv-
ity and hence a high market price. The simple payback period of this project is about
3 years.
6.8 ALTERNATIVE FUELS
LFG-based natural gas has negative GHG emissions since its conversion to vehicle
fuel displaces GHG emissions that would have occurred if the LFG had been oxi-
dized into CO2 in the landfill flare. The benefits of LFG as an alternative fuel are:
• Reduced air emissions

• Lower cost than liquid fuel
• Safer than liquid fuel
• Lower engine maintenance costs.
Low to medium Btu LFG contains significant amounts of nitrogen, carbon diox-
ide, and oxygen. If these gases can be selectively removed from the LFG, a high-
Btu product would result. High-Btu LFG can be injected into a natural gas pipeline,
used for vehicle fuel, fuel cells, and methanol production. The upgrading of LFG
requires relatively extensive treatment using either membrane separation process or
molecular sieve (pressure swing adsorption) or separation by solvents or separation
by refrigeration. As the price of natural gas increases, the production of high-Btu gas
from LFG becomes more competitive.
6.8.1 High Btu LFG

Development of high-Btu gas from LFG requires near zero air infiltration into the
LFG well field. Air intrusion into the well field reduces the Btu content of the LFG
and can cause the LFG to exceed oxygen and nitrogen content limits. Near-zero air
infiltration typically requires that LFG wells only draw from the core of the landfill.
Near zero air infiltration can be a concern for landfill owners due to the contradic-
tion between the need to maintain medium-Btu LFG to support a processing plant’s
requirements, and the need to control surface emissions and gas migration. This is
because pulling some air into the landfill reduces surface emissions and gas migra-
tion, but it also dilutes the LFG with nitrogen and oxygen. For landfills without a
highly impenetrable cover, it would be difficult to maintain a LFG composition that
would support a processing plant’s requirements, even if the LFG came from just
core wells.
The current technology has proven to be effective for the separation of carbon
dioxide, membranes, and pressure swing adsorbers (PSA) have been shown to reduce
oxygen by 45 percent and nitrogen by 10 percent. A small portion of the methane
loss is minimal and methane recovery for a PSA is as high as 88 percent. The pres-
ence of oxygen often prohibits the processed gas from meeting the strict natural gas
pipeline specifications. High Btu gas can be blended with natural gas for piping for
high Btu applications if a high Btu customer is within a close proximity.
6.8.2 LFG to Compressed Natural Gas

A major advantage of CNG production is that LFG could be utilized as a resource
to produce clean vehicle fuels that provide significantly lower emissions relative to
gasoline and diesel fuels. An advantage of CNG is that the tanks are smaller than
LNG tanks. Five CNG tanks are required to achieve a 150-mile range. The conver-
sion of the methane contained in LFG to CNG for vehicle fuel use or other pur-
poses has been commercially demonstrated by the Los Angeles County Sanitation
Districts (LACSD). The LACSD has been operating a LFG to CNG fueling facility at
the Puente Hills Landfill in the City of Industry, California, since 1992. The landfill
gas is dewatered, pressurized and purified using membrane technology. The feed gas
flow of 250 CFM at 55 percent methane is used to produce a fuel quality CNG flow
of 100 CFM at 97.5 percent methane. The gas has a diesel fuel equivalent of 1000
gallons/day. A dedicated pipeline was installed at the Puente Hills landfill to collect
gas from the interior, or core of the landfill. The LFG from these core wells has a
higher methane content and lower nitrogen and oxygen content than other collec-
tion wells.
The CNG Process: As shown in Figure 6.6, the system primarily consists of
compressors, activated carbon for pre-treatment, semi-permeable membranes to
remove carbon dioxide and water vapor, CLG storage, and a CLG dispenser.
The compressors are the most expensive part of producing CNG both in terms
of capital and operating costs. The fraction of hydrocarbons that dissolve in CNG
is a function of pressure. This dissolving of heavy hydrocarbons in compressed
methane severely limits filters in stopping oil carryover. A filter can be placed at the
3,600 psi dispenser to remove liquefied oil in the stream, but it is far less effective in
removing oil that has solubilized into the gas.
Water
Knockout
Tank
Landfill Gas In Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
Compression Compression Compression
250 SCFM
55% CH4
40 psi 150 psi 525 psi
Rotary Vane Heat

Reciprocating Compressors
Compressor Exchanger
Condensate
Recycle
Stage 5 35 SCFM 0 psi 80 % CH4

Stage 4
Compression Compression
Carbon
1560 psi Guard
Beds
Membranes
520 psi
Waste Gas 140° F Heater
Dispenser/Storage 96% CH4

Control panel 3000 psi
Dispenser
Storage Tanks
Figure 6.6 CNG Facility Process Schematic

The need to minimize the nitrogen content in the LFG is an important consider-
ation. A second process to remove the excess nitrogen would need to be added to the
LFG to CNG plant design, which would significantly increase the cost of the plant.
6.8.3 LFG to Liquefied Natural Gas

Another option would be to convert LFG to LNG. Technologies have been devel-
oped to produce high-purity LNG and liquid CO2 from LFG. Companies that have
developed processes for treating and compressing LFG to manufacture LNG include
Acrion Technologies (membrane and liquid CO2 solvent wash), Applied LNG
Technologies (proprietary process), Cryofuels Systems (proprietary process), Dow
Chemical Company (Selexol solvent) and Kryos Energy Inc. (Kryosol solvent). Few
of these are described below.
CO2 WASH™ Process: The CO2 washTM process has been developed by Acrion
Technologies to clean contaminants from LFG in order to produce clean CH4 as well
as food-grade CO2. The wash process has been used with success to produce cleaned
gas that can be used for various purposes. Figure 6.7 shows the schematic diagram
shows the CO2 wash process.
LFG is saturated with water vapor at atmospheric temperature and pressure,
which is typically considered to be 70F and 1 atmosphere (101.325 kPa). The water
vapor is removed in a knockout chamber by a condensation process. In this process,
the water vapor is condensed after it contacts a surface that is below its saturation
temperature. This gas is passed on to a blower, which increases the pressure of the
gas from negative to positive.
The gas then enters a reciprocating three-stage compressor that gradually
increases the pressure to 400 pounds-force per square inch gauge (psig). After each
stage of compression, the gas is cooled down. This helps remove the condensate from
the gas at every stage of compression. The gas is further passed into a chamber filled
with iron-based solid granular material that specifically absorbs H2S. This removes
Figure 6.7 Overview of CO2 WASHTM Process

Source: http://www.acrion.com/
the odor from the gas and reduces its corrosive ability. The gas is further allowed
to flow into the drying chamber that is composed of alumina beads. The gas at high
pressure is absorbed by the alumina beads in one vessel and then another vessel
regenerates the gas at atmospheric pressure. These vessels operate on a cyclic basis.
After the H2S removal and drying the gas, the gas enters the bottom of the CO2
WASH™ absorber. The inner surface of this six-inch diameter vessel is designed
in such a way that it promotes better contact between the LFG and liquid CO2
absorbent. The LFG is refrigerated as it moves upwards causing the CO2 to liquefy.
This chilled liquid CO2 flows down the chamber and, as it moves down, it further
strips the upward moving LFG of its contaminants thus purifying it further. There
is a valve at the bottom of the absorber that helps maintain the level of liquid CO2
in the chamber. A tray may also be provided to withdraw the liquid CO2 from the
chamber for commercial purposes.
The cleaner LFG (70 percent CH4, 30 percent CO2) is electrically heated to 70F
before it is allowed to enter a chamber with two membranes. The pressure of the
gas is also lowered to 200 psig. The membranes separate the CO2 and O2 from CH4
providing clean LFG with high CH4 content that can be liquefied and used as an
LNG fuel.
Figures 6.8 and 6.9 shows a more details of this process. Pre-treatment is done
before the gas enters the CO2 WASH™ chamber is extremely essential and constitutes
Figure 6.8 Flow diagram of CO2 WASHTM Process

Figure 6.9 Description of CO2 WASHTM Process
a substantial part of the entire process. The impurities obtained from the CO2
WASH™ chamber are eliminated through flaring. The output of the process is
natural gas that can either be liquefied for use as a vehicle fuel or can be directly
introduced into a natural gas pipeline network.
LFG to Methanol: Acrion has also developed technology to remove contami-
nants from LFG with in-situ cold liquid carbon dioxide obtained directly from LFG.
A stream of contaminant-free methane and carbon dioxide is produced as feedstock
for methanol synthesis; with further processing to separate carbon dioxide, pipeline
methane and liquid carbon dioxide are produced.
Acrion’s technology converts LFG to a high pressure mixture of contami-
nant-free methane and carbon dioxide for methanol synthesis feedstock. The LFG
recovery process, for the most part conventional compression, cooling and conden-
sation, relies on solvent properties of cold liquid carbon dioxide to remove contami-
nants. The absorber temperature and pressure are selected to provide a product gas
containing methane and carbon dioxide in the desired ratio for reforming to
methanol synthesis gas, about 2.3 CH4 per CO2. The contaminant-free methane-carbon
dioxide recovered from LFG in the mole ratio about 2.3:1 is mixed with steam and
reformed to carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Methanol synthesis is by conventional
low pressure (about 1,000 psia) technology. Figure 6.10 is a simple schematic of the
entire process, from raw LFG to methanol.
Figure 6.10 LFG to Methanol Process Schematic
Methanol production from LFG requires that trace contaminants be removed to

low levels, but not CO2; the feedgas for methanol synthesis preferably contains 30%
CO2. This contrasts with LNG production from LFG wherein not only trace con-
taminants must be removed to low levels, but CO2 also must be removed to 50 ppm
or less to prevent solidification during methane liquefaction. Process energy require-
ments for methanol synthesis are largely thermal rather than mechanical as in the
refrigeration-based LNG production. Finally, methanol is stored and transported
in conventional tanks, rail cars, and barges as a liquid at normal ambient pressure
and temperature (b.p. 64.5C), whereas storage and transport of LNG require well-
insulated cryogenic vessels rated for modest internal pressures (b.p. 161.7C).
Selexol Process: Selexol is the most common amine used in LFG service. A
typical Selexol-based plant employs the following steps:
• Landfill gas compression (using electric drive, LFG fired engine drive, or product
gas fired engine drive);
• Moisture removal (using refrigeration);
• Hydrogen sulfide removal in a solid media bed (using an iron sponge or a pro-
prietary media (such as Sulfatreat);
• NMOC removal in a primary Selexol absorber; and
• Carbon dioxide removal in a secondary Selexol absorber.
In the Selexol absorber tower, the LFG is placed in intimate contact with
the Selexol liquid. Selexol is a physical solvent which preferentially absorbs gases
into the liquid phase. NMOC’s are generally hundreds to thousands of times more
soluble than methane. Carbon dioxide is about 15 more times soluble than meth-
ane. Solubility is also enhanced with pressure. The above principles are exploited
to remove NMOC’s and carbon dioxide from the landfill gas to yield a purified
methane stream. The Selexol vessels operate at pressures in the range of 500 psi. The
Selexol liquid is regenerated by lowering its pressure (flashing) and then running air
through the depressurized Selexol to strip off the NMOC’s and carbon dioxide. The
stripper air from the NMOC removal step is normally sent to a thermal oxidizer
where all or part of the thermal energy required to support combustion is supplied
by the NMOC’s and methane in the stripper air. The stripper air from the carbon
dioxide removal step is normally vented to the atmosphere.
A typical molecular sieve plant employs the above-described compression,
moisture removal and hydrogen sulfide removal steps, but relies on vapor phase
activated carbon and a molecular sieve for NMOC and carbon dioxide removal,
respectively. The activated carbon removes NMOC’s and protects the molecular
sieve. The molecular sieve is a vessel which contains a media which preferentially
adsorbs certain molecules (in this case, carbon dioxide) when contacted with a gas
stream which is under pressure. When the media is exhausted, the vessel is brought
offline and is regenerated through a depressurization and purge cycle. The acti-
vated carbon can also be regenerated on site through a depressurization and purge
cycle. For this reason, the process is often called pressure swing adsorption. The
purge streams are generally disposed of in a thermal oxidizer. The thermal oxidizer
generally requires some supplemental energy which can be provided by LFG or
product gas.
Kryosol Process: The Kryosol process is a refrigerated physical absorption proc-
ess where commercial grade methanol is used as a physical solvent. Methanol has
the required solvent properties because it can readily remove the water and conden-
sates from the LFG irrespective of CO2 removal. Additionally, methanol is readily
available in the market.
In the Kryosol process, the raw LFG is collected and compressed to about 20
pounds per square inch (psi) higher than its pipeline pressure. This compression
causes the temperature of the gas to increase substantially. The gas is then cooled
and methanol is injected into the gas stream. This lowers the temperature of the gas
to 23F. The cooling of the gas causes the water and condensates to dissolve in the
solvent and is thus removed from the gas. The methanol along with water and HC
is removed as a liquid for treatment in the methanol recovery section (23). The semi-
clean LFG is further passed into a scrubbing tower where chilled methanol is again
used as a solvent to remove the CO2 from the landfill gas. The product of this proc-
ess is dry and clean LFG, which can be directly inserted into the pipeline network as
natural gas.
The CO2 that dissolves in the methanol can be recovered by degasification of the
methanol solvent. It may contain traces of methanol, which can be removed by com-
pressing the gas to 250 psi and chilling it until it reaches its dew point. This recov-
ered methanol can be redirected to the processing chamber as a solvent. The CO2
produced at the end of this process can be classified as “food grade.” (23) The pipe-
line quality gas produced from this process has a heating value of 960–980 Btu/scf
and has a recovery rate of 97–98 percent.
SRI International Process: If higher recovery rates are used especially at the
periphery of the landfills, there may be intrusion of air into the landfill. This results
in the addition of O2 and N2 into the LFG. The LFG with high N2 content (above
4 percent) is not desirable for most applications. It is either left in the ground or
inserted into the pipelines at a very slow rate, which may cause the N2 to dilute. It is
therefore, desirable to remove the N2 from the LFG to increase the efficiency of the
recovery system.
A process developed by SRI International uses an N2 selective absorbent. The
agent is designed to selectively absorb/desorb the N2 from the gas stream so that
it absorbs the N2 at high pressure and releases or desorbs it at low pressure (23).
The agent used by SRI International is a “non aqueous complex,” which absorbs
the N2 at pressures of 200–400 psi and precipitates out of the solution. After the N2
is removed from the precipitate, the agent re-dissolves into the gas stream at atmos-
pheric pressure.
The Selexol process is perhaps the oldest and requires LFG compression and
removal of hydrogen sulfide in a solid media bed, volatile organic compound (VOCs)
in a primary Selexol absorber, and CO2 in a secondary Selexol absorber. The Kryosol
technology is similar to the Selexol process but it requires the use of the Kryosol
solvent. The Acrion Technologies process is also similar to the Selexol process but
requires the use of liquid CO2 as the solvent.
Two companies, Applied LNG Technologies and Cryofuels Systems, have oper-
ated pilot-scale plants demonstrating that LFG can be directly converted to LNG.
Because only pilot plants have been operating on LFG, this technology is considered
to be an emerging technology. Only general cost information on this option would
be released by the companies.
Applied LNG Technologies
• A 5,000 gallon per day LFG to LNG plant would have a capital cost $5 million
dollars.
• Required flow rate of 1,600 scfm of LFG at 40 percent methane.
• O&M on the plant would be approximately $0.10 per gallon of LNG.
• LFG contaminates and LNG product would be used to power the LNG manu-
facturing plant; total power requirement is estimated to be 3,000 horsepower.
• Approximately half of the energy from the LFG would be used to power the
plant or lost in the LFG to LNG process.
• One LFG-powered 750 kW electrical generator would be required to run the
plant (fueled by LFG that was partially cleaned but not liquefied).
• LNG product would have an approximate composition of 97 percent methane
and 3 percent nitrogen (assuming total nitrogen in the LFG can be held below
10 percent).
Applied LNG Technologies (now Prometheus Energy Company) has a large

scale plant at the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill in Orange County, California to con-
vert LFG to LNG.
The plant started producing LNG in January 2008. Information about plant
operation is proprietary. The plant is designed to produce 5,000 gallons per day
of LNG. Although the plant is now operational, startup issues caused the opera-
tional date to be delayed for one year. The plant is currently operating at near full
capacity.
Production of LNG from LFG is not currently being done on a large scale in the
U.S. Two pilot scale plants have proved that the technology is viable. Because only
pilot plants have been operating on LFG, this technology is considered emerging and
is still undergoing research and development.
A case study of Puente Hills Landfill CNG Project of Los Angeles County
Sanitation Districts is described. About 250 scfm of 55 percent methane landfill
gas is converted to 100 scfm of 96 percent methane CNG which is 1,000 gallons of
gasoline equivalent per day. 70 percent of raw methane is transformed to final prod-
uct and 30 percent of raw methane is discharges as waste. The construction cost
of the project in 2006 was $1.6 million. The treatment system included landfill gas
compression and moisture removal alongwith Activated carbon. The gas is heated
to 140ºF. Membranes are used for carbon dioxide removal. The compression of the
product gas is done to 3,600 psig. There are compressed gas storage facilities; and a
fuel dispenser to dispense 3,000 psig CNG.
Another case study is of Sonoma County CNG Project. The Sonoma County
Transit currently fuels its bus fleet with CNG. A 100 scfm (inlet) pilot scale project is
currently being implemented. The Project is located at the County’s Central Landfill.
100 scfm (inlet) and 40 scfm (outlet). The gas is compressed to 125 psig, chilled, and
treated using activated carbon treatment. Membranes are used for carbon dioxide
removal. The compression is done to 3,900 psig. The waste gas is sent to engines or
flared. The CNG production cost is about $9.30/mmBtu
The Sonoma Full Scale Project is of 860 scfm (inlet) and 360 scfm (outlet). There
is Hydrogen sulfide removal system. The gas is compressed to 145 psig, chilled, and
treated using activated carbon. Membranes are used for carbon dioxide removal.
The compression is done to 3,900 psig. The waste gas is flared. The production cost
is about $6.60/mmBtu.
A typical LFG/LNG Module (Refer Figure 6.11) consists of 5,000 gal/day of LNG
from 900 scfm of landfill gas. LNG is 97% methane/20 psig/250ºF. About 750 kW of
power is required. The production cost is around $1.00/gallon.
6.8.4 Application of LFG as a vehicle fuel

Using LFG for vehicle fuel applications has been a more recent application as com-
pared to other applications. The LFG can be used to produce LNG, which can fuel
refuse trucks and other forms of transportation vehicles. Several tests have been
performed to compare performances of vehicles running on LNG versus regular die-
sel and the results have been promising. Some of the projects for this application
follow.
1 The Arden Landfill in Washington, PA teamed up with Mack Trucks Inc., Waste
Management, and others to perform field tests with the LNG-powered trucks to
document the comparisons with diesel-powered trucks. During the field tests,
much attention was given to the fuel consumption, maintenance, and over-
Figure 6.11 A Typical LFG to LNG flow diagram
all emissions. The fuel consumption was observed to be higher for the LNG-
powered trucks as compared to diesel trucks. Despite higher fuel consumption,
the drivers favored the LNG trucks since there were no diesel odors, less engine
noise, and more power for heavy payloads. The LNG trucks had per-mile main-
tenance costs that were 63 percent higher and per-engine-hour costs that were
23 percent higher. The emissions, however, showed much better results for the
LNG trucks. The LNG trucks had 16 percent lower NOx than the diesel trucks
on the Central Business District (CBD) cycle and 32 percent lower NOx than the
diesel trucks on the Waste Management Duty (WMD) cycle.
2 Acrion Technologies, Mack Trucks Inc., DOE Brookhaven, and other team
members are working on the process to provide an alternative fuel to diesel and
to ultimately lower GHGs. The Burlington County, NJ, Landfill was the first to
use LFG to produce and use LNG for fueling refuse trucks. Workers collected
the gas from the landfill and put it through a CO2 WASH™ process, which
removed the non-CH4 organic contaminants from the LFG. Ultimately, work-
ers produced the first demonstration of LNG from LFG. The Burlington County
LNG production rate consisted of 350 gallons of liquefied CH4/day, which
supplied fuel for two refuse trucks for 600 hours each.
3 The Bowerman landfill in Orange County, CA teamed with Prometheus Energy
and Montauk Energy Capital to implement an LFG to LNG operation. The
initial 5000 gallon per day plant was installed in 2006 and is currently in the
commissioning phase to reach full capacity. There are future plans for expand-
ing production up to 40,000 gallons per day. This would have environmental
benefits equivalent to removing the emissions from over 125,000 vehicles or
displacing over 72 million gallons of gasoline.
Although the use of LFG as a LNG fuel for refuse trucks has been limited, using
conventional LNG for fueling refuse trucks is not a new concept.
6.8.5 LFG/LNG issues

Fuel specification for methane percentage at 97 percent limits nitrogen and oxygen
in the raw LFG to about 1.5 percent combined (unless process employed can also
strip nitrogen and oxygen). High oxygen in feed stock may represent an explosion
risk. Requires ultra low carbon dioxide prior to liquefaction. Whilst there are many
advantages of the LFG engine, obviously because of the low specific power out-
put of equivalent engines, the capital cost for a gas engine system is considerably
greater.
If we compare CNG with LNG, LNG has a higher energy density. It is less
expensive to store and transport and requires less onboard storage volume. However
LNG vehicles are more complex and expensive. LNG also costs more to produce.
LNG can be converted to CNG at a fueling station.
Typically the price of gas per unit energy is one third of the equivalent price of
diesel. Further the LFG engines produce the lowest harmful unburnt hydrocarbons,
the majority being methane as opposed to more complex hydrocarbons emitted by
the diesel.
6.9 POWER GENERATION USING LFG-DRIVEN ENGINES
The LFG driven engines run on a power generator that produces electricity and is
connected to a transformer station from where electricity is driven to the grid. The
main components of LFG engine are:
• Landfill gas engine and accessories

• Generator and genset accessories
• Exhaust gas ducting system and chimney
• Ventilation system
• Radiator and exhaust silence
• Oil replacement system consisting of tanks, pumps, piping, valves
• Cooling water system
• Landfill gas piping
• H2S scrubbing system
• Condensate trap
• Genset control panel
• Facility for synchronization with grid power.
A typical schematic of LFG to energy power plant is given in Figure 6.12.

The general requirements for the determination of the feasibility of a LFG to
power generation technologies are as follows:
• Assess the waste composition, with an indication of the expected proportion of

organic components.
• Compute and predict the annual landfill gas yield.
• Determine the anticipated methane content in the landfill gas and the calorific
value and calculate the potential power to be generated.
Figure 6.12 Schematic diagram of LFG to electricity plant

• Identify potential buyers of the power produced and the distance to the distribu-
tion network.
• Assess the potential buyer’s willingness to enter into a long term contract for
buying power.
• Determine the sales price for the energy to be sold, the conditions for selling the
energy and the means to secure the selling price.
• Assess private partnership involvement.
• Calculate the feasibility of LFG recovery, where environmental benefits (e.g.,
reduction of green house gases emissions, replacement of fossil fuels) may be
included.
6.9.1 Design considerations

Determining the optimum size for a LFG power project require a careful balance
between maximizing electricity production and LFG use and minimizing the risk
of insufficient gas supplies in later years. The challenge arises because LFG produc-
tion rates change over time. LFG generation may be increasing at an open landfill or
decreasing at a closed landfill. System designers must also consider factors such as
current and future electricity payments, equipment costs and any penalties for short-
falls in electricity output.
The optimum design and operating scenario for a particular LFG project
is likely to fall somewhere between two general scenarios: (1) minimum gas flow
design; and (2) maximum gas flow design. However, a third design scenario-a modu-
lar approach-may be used at landfills where gas flow rates are expected to change
substantially over time.
1 Minimum Gas Flow Design: In this scenario, the electric generation equipment
is sized based on the minimum expected gas flows over the life of the project.
This ensures that LFG supply is never limited and the electric generation system
always runs at or near its maximum availability. This is a more conservative
design, which puts a premium on constant and reliable electrical output over the
project life. The disadvantage of this design is that some LFG will go unused in
years when the gas is plentiful; a loss of opportunity to generate electricity and
earn revenues. This may be a good design choice when project economics are
robust and substantial contract penalties exist for shortfalls in electrical deliv-
eries from the project. Capacity factors for this type of project are determined
mainly by the generating equipment outage rates, which are approximately 6%
to 10% for IC engine systems and 4% to 6% for combustion turbine based
systems.
2 Maximum Gas Flow Design: In this scenario, the electric generating equipment
is sized based on maximum LFG flows over the life of the project. LFG usage
and electrical output are generally maximized, but there may be occasions when
there is insufficient LFG supply to run the generating equipment at its rated
capacity. This is a more aggressive design which puts a premium on full utiliza-
tion of LFG and it has the advantage of higher electrical generating capacity,
revenues and LFG utilization than the first scenario. However, the disadvantages
are that the project may suffer from periods when electrical output is below the
Table 6.8 LFG Technology options for Electric Power Generation
Technology Typical Preferred Electrical Conversion

Flow Range Plant Size Efficiency
Microturbines 100 cfm 100 kW 25–30%
Reciprocating Engines 150 to 5,000 cfm 0.5 to 12 MW 32–40%
Gas Turbine 4,000 to 20,000 cfm 3 to 18 MW 26–32%
Steam Turbines 6,000 to 25,000 cfm 10 to 50 MW 24–29%
Combined Cycle Systems 5,000 to 25,000 fm 10 MW 38–45%
rated capacity because of intermittent gas supply shortages or declining LFG

production. This is an acceptable design if maximizing early-year revenues is
critical, the power purchase contract is short term, shortfall penalties are non
existent and/or alternate or augmented fuel supplies exist. Capacity factors for
this type of project are determined by generating equipment outage rates and
expected periods when fuel supply is limited. Part-load generating efficiency is a
consideration in this type of project; IC engines and fuel cells generally exhibit
better part-load performance (e.g. efficiency, wear) than CT-based systems.
3 Changing Gas Flow Design: In this scenario, a series of smaller electric gener-
ating units is installed (or removed) over time as LFG flow rate increases (or
decreases). This modular approach helps ensure that LFG output is properly
matched to equipment size, even when LFG flow rates change. This approach
has the dual benefit of maximizing LFG use and electric output over time.
However, a modular approach may also produce higher installation costs and
lower efficiencies than other approaches. If LFG flow is decreasing over time,
designers must consider what to do with units that are no longer useful.
Table 6.8 shows LFG Technology options for Electric Power Generation.
6.9.2 LFG power potential

1 Estimate the Gross Power Generation Potential. This is the installed power gen-
eration capacity that the gas flow can support. It does not account for parasitic
loads from auxiliary systems and equipment, or for system down time. Gross
Power Generation Potential is estimated using the following formula: kW
Landfill Gas Flow (cf/d) energy Content (Btu/cf) 1/Heat Rate (kWh/Btu)
1 d/24 hr where: Landfill Gas Flow is the net quantity of landfill gas per day that
is captured by the collection system, processed and delivered to the power gener-
ation equipment (usually 75% to 85% of the total gas produced in the landfill)
Energy content of landfill gas is approximately 500 Btu per cubic foot Example
Heat Rates are: 12,000 Btu/kWh for IC engines and combustion turbines (above
5 MW); and 8,500 Btu/kWh for combined cycle combustion turbines.
2 Estimate the Net Power Generation Potential. This is the Gross Power
Generation Potential less parasitic loads from compressors and other auxiliary
equipment. Parasitic loads are estimated to be 2% for IC engines and 6% or
higher for combustion turbines.
3 Estimate the Annual Capacity Factor. This is the share of hours in a year that
the power generating equipment is producing electricity at its rated capacity.
Typical Annual Capacity Factors for landfill gas projects range between 80%
and 95% and are based upon generator outage rates (4% to 10% of annual
hours), landfill gas availability and plant design. The assumed Annual Capacity
Factor in the equation found in 4 is 90%.
4. Estimate the Annual Electricity Generated. This is the amount of electricity gen-
erated per year, measured in kWh, taking into account likely energy recovery
equipment downtime. It is calculated by multiplying the Net Power Generation
Potential by the number of operational hours in a year. Annual operational
hours are estimated as the number of hours in a year multiplied by the Annual
Capacity Factor Thus: Annual Electricity Generated (kWh) Net Power
Generation Potential (kW) 24 hr/day 365 days/yr 90%.
6.9.3 Electricity generation using internal combustion

engines
The most prevalent use of LFG is as fuel for a reciprocating internal combustion (IC)
engine generating electrical power. The advantages of the IC engine option include
relatively low costs, relatively high efficiency, and use of a widely used technology.
Common IC engine range in size from 500 to 3,000 kW. IC engines can operate on
LFG with a methane content as low as 40 percent.
Process Description: The equipment required for IC engine installations include
gas compressors, interconnection piping, heat exchangers, knockout vessels, and filters.
The type of equipment required depends on the composition of the LFG and the
location of the project. Additional processing equipment may be required if the LFG
contains excess sulfur, halide, or silicon compounds. Additional compression of the
LFG may be required if the existing blowers cannot achieve the required engine
intake pressure, along with a heat exchanger, and additional filtering of the LFG
before it enters the IC engine.
In order to minimize up-front capital expenditures, some LFGTE developers
have chosen not to pre-treat or to minimally pre-treat the LFG prior to combus-
tion in IC engines. After LFG exits the exhaust side of the primary centrifugal blow-
ers that supply vacuum to the extraction wells, the LFG may be further compressed
with a second compressor to achieve necessary fuel pressure requirements. The
LFG is then routed through a coalescing filter and fed directly into the IC engines.
While this process is not recommended by IC engine manufacturers and will cause
increased IC engine maintenance over time, the costs of the increased maintenance
can be offset by the pre-treatment operating and maintenance costs.
Compression of the fuel is generally required to bring the LFG up to the pressure
range of 2 to 5 psi (56 to 139 inches of water column) at the intake of the IC engine
turbocharger. Other fuel specifications are a maximum relative humidity of 80 per-
cent (LFG from the field is 100 percent), and a maximum temperature of 1,040F.
Of the various electrical generation technologies, reciprocating engines are by
far the most common. Reciprocating engines have been selected for over 75 percent
of the operating LFGTE projects in the U.S. This is because the cost, on a price per
installed kW basis, is low relative to the other technologies. Possible constraints
include electricity quantity specifications, electricity pricing variations depending on

the time the electricity is being produced, and delivery conditions (where the electric-
ity is inserted into the grid).
6.9.4 Electricity generation using large turbines

Large LFG turbines are generally only economically viable for larger LFGTE
projects. Large LFG turbines have advantages since they are able to operate on
lower Btu LFG (down to 20 percent methane), have lower maintenance costs (more
resistant to corrosion damage), and have lower nitrous oxide (NOx) emission rates.
Disadvantages include lower overall efficiency (unless the waste heat is utilized in
a cogeneration application), the need to run at full load, and high parasitic losses.
Common large LFG turbine units are in the 2.5 to 5 megawatt output range.
Process Description: As with IC engines, a turbine installation will require gas
compressors, interconnection piping, heat exchangers, knockout vessels, and filters.
Turbines require compression of the intake fuel to 250 psi compared to 2 psi for IC
engines. Fuel compression results in the majority of the parasitic loss in the over-
all system. Additional processing equipment may be required if the LFG has excess
sulfur, halide, or silicon compounds; however some large LFG turbines have less
stringent intake fuel specifications. The LFG relative humidity and inlet fuel temper-
ature are less critical for large LFG turbines than for IC engines. Turbine efficiency
is adversely impacted by elevated ambient temperatures and may require inlet air
cooling.
The efficiency of a large LFG turbine can be increased by combined-cycle tech-
nology. Combined-cycle technology refers to the combined use of hot combustion
gas turbines and steam turbines to generate electricity. The arrangement of the two
turbine types can increase the thermal efficiency of the project beyond the efficiency
of conventional turbines. Thermal efficiency of a combined-cycle plant can exceed
50 percent. However, the initial capital cost of a combined-cycle plant is proportion-
ate to the efficiency increase.
Simple cycle gas turbines are operating at approximately 13 percent of the oper-
ational LFGTE projects in the U.S. The cost, on a price per installed kW basis, is
slightly higher than IC engines.
The costs of maintaining a gas turbine can be lower than for an IC engine.
However, the operation and maintenance costs of the processing equipment must be
included. The operating costs of the processing equipment are considered parasitic
losses and reduce the overall efficiency of the system. Operations and maintenance
costs for a gas turbine project include routine costs associated with the turbine and
the more complex LFG processing equipment, and non-routine costs associated with
major overhauls of the turbine.
Possible constraints include stringent electricity quantity specifications, electric-
ity pricing variations depending on the time the electricity is being produced, and
delivery conditions (where the electricity is inserted into the grid). Project expenses
are similar to the IC engine economic analysis. An economic analysis would include
siloxane and sulfur removal, which will be required because gas turbines are more
sensitive to these constituents than IC engines. Solar Turbine has recently introduced
a new 5 MW turbine that is designed to run on low Btu LFG.
6.9.5 Electricity generation using microturbines

Process Description: There are at least two manufacturers of microturbines that
can be fueled with LFG: Ingersoll-Rand and Capstone. Microturbines are ideal for
a changing gas flow design because they are small and modular. Microturbines can
also be placed close to the electricity user if a LFG pipeline is less expensive to install
than an electrical transmission line. Microturbines have many of the advantages of
large LFG turbines.
They are able to operate on lower Btu LFG, have lower maintenance costs
(more resistant to corrosion damage), have lower NOx emission rates, and can run
on a variety of fuels (LFG, natural gas, propane, diesel, biodiesel). Disadvantages are
also similar to large turbines. They have lower overall efficiency than an IC engine
(unless the waste heat is utilized), they need to run at full load, have higher parasitic
losses (primarily fuel compression), and are more sensitive to the presence of silicon
compounds in the LFG.
Common microturbine unit sizes are 70 kW and 250 kW for Ingersoll-Rand, and
30 kW, 65 kW and 200 kW for Capstone. For microturbines to reliably operate, the
LFG needs to be compressed and processed. The amount of processing depends on
the LFG quality. A microturbine installation requires gas compressors, refrigeration
equipment, interconnection piping, heat exchangers, knockout vessels, and filters.
Microturbines require compression of the intake fuel to a minimum of 75 psi, based on
350 Btu/standard cubic feet (scf) of fuel.
Performance: The minimum microturbine fuel quality, per both Ingersoll- Rand
and Capstone, is approximately 350 Btu/scf high heat value (HHV). This is equiva-
lent to a landfill gas concentration of approximately 35 percent methane, by volume.
Parasitic losses in compression and microturbine operation total about 30 percent of
the rated electrical output.
A cogeneration option could be added in order to utilize the waste heat from the
turbine to produce hot water.
Microturbines have been selected for less than 3 percent of the operating landfill
gas to energy projects in the U.S. This is because the cost, on a price per installed
kW basis, is higher relative to the other technologies.
Possible constraints include electricity quantity specifications, electricity pricing
variations depending on the time the electricity is being produced, and delivery con-
ditions (where the electricity is inserted into the grid).
Project expenses are similar to those identified in the previous options, with the
exception that operations and maintenance of the microturbines and gas processing
skids are higher than for IC engines. An economic analysis would include siloxane
and sulfur removal, which is required for microturbines.
6.9.6 Organic rankine cycle power plant

Closed loop organic rankine cycle technology uses a temperature differential to
evaporate a process fluid (pentane). The heat source could be exhaust gases from
a simple cycle gas turbine, low pressure steam, medium temperature liquid found
in the process industry, or heat generated by flaring landfill gas. In all cases, a heat
exchanger is used to transfer the waste heat to the closed loop of the plant. The
plants working fluid is vaporized and feed through a turbine to generate electricity.
After the fluid exits the turbine it is cooled until it condenses back into a liquid. The
process will work with temperature differentials as low as 125F.
Currently, closed loop organic rankine cycle plants are only economic is sizes
ranging from 15 to 20 MW. However, Ormat Technologies is developing a “standard
unit” plant that has an output of 2 MW. The cost of this standard unit plant has not
been announced. Published costs of this technology range from $2,000 to $4,000
per kilowatt.
6.10 BOILERS
The use of LFG in place of natural gas in boilers is an established and well-tested
technology. LFG-fired power boilers and steam turbines is the technology that can be
used for large (10 to 50 MW) electricity-producing plants utilizing LFG. The steam
from a boiler may be used for process or space-heating applications. Steam gener-
ated by boilers can also generate electricity in steam turbines. LFG can be used in
boilers depending on the requirement. The size of an LFG based boiler is relatively
small due to the low LFG flowrate. A boiler/steam turbine configuration fuelled only
with LFG may be applicable in large LFG to energy utilization projects, where LFG
flow support systems of around 10 MW. However, small boilers if already exist near
landfills can be an interesting option for retrofitting the boiler to use on LFG.
The most typical boiler technology suitable for retrofitting to LFG is the natural
gas or oil fuelled package boiler used in a variety of commercial and industrial appli-
cations. The three most common types of package boilers are fire tube boilers, water
tube boilers and packaged boilers. Each of them is briefly described below:
• Fire tube or “fire in tube” boilers; contain long steel tubes through which the
hot gasses from a furnace pass and around which the water to be converted to
steam circulates. Fire tube boilers, typically have a lower initial cost, are more
fuel efficient and easier to operate, but they are limited generally to capacities of
25 tons/hr and pressures of 17.5 kg/cm2.
• Water tube or “water in tube” boilers in which the conditions are reversed with the
water passing through the tubes and the hot gasses passing outside the tubes. These
boilers can be of single- or multiple-drum type. These boilers can be built to any
steam capacities and pressures, and have higher efficiencies than fire tube boilers.
• Packaged Boiler: The packaged boiler is so called because it comes as a complete
package. Once delivered to site, it requires only the steam, water pipe work,
fuel supply and electrical connections to be made for it to become operational.
Package boilers are generally of shell type with fire tube design so as to achieve
high heat transfer rates by both radiation and convection.
6.10.1 LFG utilization for boilers

The effects of LFG combustion from a landfill can be divided into the following four
main categories:
1 Effects on boiler efficiency,

2 Effect on maximum boiler output capacity or production,
3 Effects due to individual compounds in LFG stream, and

4 Design changes needed to accommodate using LFG.
Effects on Boiler Efficiency: Converting a boiler from natural gas to LFG will
reduce the boiler efficiency by approximately 1%. This theoretical drop in efficiency
is partially offset by a decreased exhaust gas temperature due to the increased radia-
tive heat transfer coefficient of the combustion gases due to the increased levels of
CO2 in the fuel gas. This decrease in efficiency is less than the change to other fuels
(i.e., changing from fuel oil to natural gas is a reduction of over 3% in efficiency).
Effect on Maximum Boiler Output Capacity or Production: Because of the
lower heating value of LFG, a higher volume of fuel introduction to the burner is
required for equal heat input. Typically twice of LFG must be fed as natural gas
to get the same energy input to the burner. The net effect of this is to increase the
total volume of exhaust gas in the stack. This is an increase of roughly 10% volume
flow of gas in the stack. On a boiler where the combustion air fan is exactly sized
for the burner rated input this would have the net effect of reducing the maximum
energy input by 10% when firing LFG. However, properly sized burners typically
have combustion air fans, which are oversized by 20% or more to account for vari-
ations in stack design and installation. In addition, boilers normally operate at 75%
or less of capacity and 100% capacity are only used during warm-up from light off
and this decrease in capacity is usually not detectable in operation. During the typi-
cal boiler tuning the boiler maximum firing rate is reduced to 85% to 90% of name
plate capacity in order to achieve optimal firing at the lower firing rates. Because the
fuel component of both LFG and natural gas is methane the amount of combustion
air required to burn 1 unit of methane gas is equal to the amount required to burn 1
unit of natural gas so that there is no net increase in combustion air required when
changing fuels for equal heat input.
Effects Due to Individual Compounds in LFG Stream: The combustion process
is carefully regulated and is required to be controlled in such a manner that combus-
tion products such as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrous oxides (NOx), and unburned
hydrocarbons (CH4 and NMOC) are minimized. The carbon dioxide and nitrogen in
the gas stream are inert and have no effect on the combustion process other than to:
i) cool the theoretical flame temperature thereby decreasing efficiency, and;

ii) increase the total volume of exhaust gases, which must be removed by the com-
bustion air fan thereby decreasing maximum input.
1 A total NOx reduction of up to 30% can be achieved when burning LFG versus
natural gas. This reduction is due to the cooler flame temperatures in the com-
bustion zone, which has the same effect as flue gas recirculation (FGR).
2 Because of the nature of gas recovery at a landfill there is always trace amounts
of water vapor present (from 0.3% to 3% by volume) in the fuel gas stream.
While the water has no effect on combustion and is negligible when com-
pared to the approximately 15% water vapor present in the exhaust gas due to
the combustion of the hydrogen component of the methane contained in the
LFG there is no net effect on the boiler proper. However, care must be taken to
prevent water accumulation in the gas delivery piping and gas train especially
when this piping is located out of doors in cold environments.
3 In the gas stream from a typical landfill there are varying amounts of NMOCs,
which can vary from as little as 100 ppmv to over 2,000 ppmv. Since all the spe-
cies that may be found in LFG are hydrocarbons they are nearly completely
destroyed in the combustion process. There are no significant detrimental effects
due to the presence of NMOCs in the LFG stream.
4 Typical levels of H2S in methane gas streams are close to 10 ppmv, which is
high enough to be detectable by its distinct sour (rotten egg) odor. Typical natu-
ral gas has up to 3 ppmv of H2S, which puts both fuels on roughly equal footing
as to the potential for harm. H2S is converted to SO2 during the combustion
process.
5 Siloxane often is found in LFG and can vary from a few parts per billion to many
parts per million. Siloxane is a gas that contains bound silicon. Upon reaching
typical combustion temperatures it is converted into silicon dioxide, which forms
a very light non-toxic dust that typically passes through the boiler. In most appli-
cations small accumulations of this dust are removed annually and disposed of.
The only problems noted with this dust are on boilers with serrated fin or tight
spaced fin economizers, which act as particulate filters and can become plugged
with the silica dust. The silica dust does not adhere to most surfaces and is
removed by light brushing or air pressure. Economizers with wide fin spacing
(i.e., less than 3 fins per inch) typically do not plug with the silica dust.
6.10.2 Design modifications

Minor equipment modifications are needed to adapt a boiler to use LFG. Changes
that have to be taken into consideration are caused by the greater gas flow, higher
corrosivity, and lower flame temperature associated with LFG.
In most situations LFG will be introduced to a boiler that already exists. The
following are design changes or modifications that should be examined. Not all of
these will be required on any given installation and it is possible that very minimal
modifications will be required. When new equipment is purchased to burn LFG, the
manufacturer will be responsible for the required design to adequately burn LFG. It
should be noted that the following assume that the LFG is being used in a existing
gaseous fuel (typically natural gas) fired boiler or process burner, in cases where the
burner is used with liquid or solid fuels then the manufacturer of the burner should
be contacted for specific recommendations.
1 Because of the increased volume of fuel required to match energy input, LFG is
normally introduced into an existing burner through a separate gas train with
separate modulating gas control valve. Typically, if the same burner ring is to be
used then the feed pressure of the gas to the ring is increased a factor of 1.5 to 4
times that of natural gas.
2 Since the energy content of LFG can vary by as much as 20%, an oxygen trim
system should be considered for larger burners and boilers. In these larger instal-
lations the increase in efficiency due to oxygen trim will normally pay for itself
in less than a year due to increased boiler efficiency.
3 Installations where there is less LFG available than the maximum required input
of the boiler, a co-fire system can be employed. Co-fire systems have oxygen trim
and will allow for maximum consumption of LFG while allowing for the boiler
to reach full fire when needed.
4 In installation where continuity of service is desired, minimal control modifica-
tions can be made so that loss of LFG availability will cause an automatic trans-
fer to natural gas or other back up fuel.
5 In some burners (particularly larger or liquid fueled burners), a new gas-firing
ring will need to be added specifically for LFG.
6 On newer installations, many manufacturers have experience with burning
LFG due to its similarity to sewage treatment plant digester gas. Most boiler
manufacturers have an existing design for digester gas. Digester gas differs from
LFG only in its much higher concentration of H2S.
7 Typically the pilot will continue to be fired with natural gas. In installations
where LFG is the only fuel a propane pilot is normally used.
Table 6.9 presents challenges and solutions when retrofitting a boiler to use LFG.
In addition boiler conversion, LFG transportation from the landfill to the burner
often requires construction of a long pipeline. The feasible piping distance depends
on the flow rate of LFG, being typically less than 2–3 km. This is often a problem
because landfills are often situated rather far from settlements or industry.
The advantages and disadvantages of retrofitted boilers are listed in Table 6.10.
Table 6.9 Challenges and solutions when retrofitting a boiler to use LFG (EPA, 2001)
Challenges in LFG conversions Solutions

Greater volume of gas flow Use larger orifices on fuel control valves
Flame stability Equip ultraviolet sensors with redundant scanners
Employ dual fuel burners
Lower flame temperature Increase superheater size (heat exchanger surface area)
Corrosion Insulate preheater and flue stack
Preheat combustion air with steam coils.
Ensure that the water circulation meets the manufacturer’s
specifications
Deposits Remove deposits during routine maintenance
Source: EPA, 2001
Table 6.10 Advantages and disadvantages of a boiler converted to use LFG
Low cost of retrofitting Long pipeline for LFG transporting often needed
Substitutes fossil fuels directly Inefficient electricity production at smaller sizes
Dual fuel capability. The boiler can operate also
using one of the fuels
Can handle gas composition and flow variation
changes
Capable of combusting low-methane content
LFG (30%) using dual fuel
Corrosion resistant
6.11 FUEL CELLS
Fuel cells are a relatively new technology that directly converts hydrogen to energy.
Fuel cells create electricity by combining hydrogen and oxygen in an electrochemical
reaction. The electricity is produced with efficiency as high as 50 percent. Similar in
principle to batteries, an electrolytic solution is used to generate an electro-chemi-
cal reaction from an influent fuel supply. As compared to the other LFG utilization
options, combustion mechanisms are not included. Fuel cell systems have a higher
level of energy conversion efficiency (approximately 40 percent) and lower emissions
than other methods of electrical generation from LFG.
Use of LFG for fuel cells requires the use of a high-grade fuel processor, includ-
ing a fuel cell stack power transformer and cooling tower for waste heat treatment.
A fuel cell-based power generation plant can be constructed using a number of
individual fuel cells, making the system incremental and allowing for expansion to
coincide with the fuel resource.
Fuel cells are available in small incremental capacities, have short lead times
from planning to construction, and have lower air emissions than other, larger-scale,
power generation technologies. The modularity of these technologies makes them
ideal for use on LFG; by adding or removing units, project size can be adjusted to
match LFG production.
Several types of fuel cells using different electrolytes are either available or under
development. The four basic electrolyte types are: (1) phosphoric acid, which is
commercially available and has been demonstrated commercially on landfill gas;
(2) molten carbonate, which has also shown promise for landfill gas use; (3) solid
oxide; and (4) proton exchange membrane (polymer-membrane).
A fuel cell system generally is configured in three major sections: a reforming
section, the fuel cell stack, and the power conditioning section. These sections can
be skid-mounted, which allows for rapid installation in the field. These sections are
often enclosed.
The most common type of system is the phosphoric acid fuel cell (PAFC) which
can use reformed methanol as a fuel source. A 200-kW PAFC plant has been tested
by the EPA at the Penrose Landfill in Sun Valley, California.
Nickel/Carbon fuel cells that run on LFG are currently being sold by Empire
Equipment. These fuel cells are manufactured by Fuel Cell Energy in the state of
Connecticut. The fuel cells have nickel plates surrounded by semi-molten carbonate.
The operating temperature is 1,2000F, which must be accurately regulated within
a tight temperature range. Unlike PAFC’s, nickel/carbon fuel cells operate directly
on readily available fuels such as LFG. There is no need to first produce hydrogen
externally and then send the hydrogen to the fuel cell. Direct fuel cells (DFCs) are
the most efficient type of fuel cells. The net efficiency of the DFC 300A fuel cell is
47 percent. One drawback of the nickel/carbon DFC is that it needs a water source
to regulate the cell’s internal temperature.
Fuel cell advantages include modularity, high efficiency, quiet operation and low
emissions. If fuel cells were used to convert LFG to electricity, the LFG would have
to be cleaned before it enters the fuel cell. The specifications for LFG use in a fuel
cell are restrictive and would be costly to comply with because the LFG would have
to be upgraded to near pipeline natural gas quality.
Table 6.11 Advantages and disadvantages of Fuel Cells
• High efficiency • High capital cost
• Low emissions • New technology
• Low noise • Requires complex LFG pre-treatment system
• Suitable in urban area • LFG cleanup is an important issue as fuel cells
• Modular construction employ catalysts that could be fouled by trace
• Low water requirement compounds in LFG
• High grade waste heat for co-generation
• Remote operation
• Few moving parts
Like other high-grade LFG applications, fuel cells require extensive pre-treat-
ment. Hydrogen sulphide and halogenated hydrocarbons can cause problems for
fuel cells at low levels (Reinhart, 1994).
Currently, the price of this technology is much higher than other utilization tech-
nologies because fuel cells are not produced in commercial quantities. As the number
of cells produced increases, it is expected that the price will drop, increasing the eco-
nomic viability of fuel cell-based utilization projects. The advantages and disadvan-
tages of fuel cells for using LFG are given in Table 6.11.
REFERENCES
[Online] Available from: www.energymanagertraining.com.

[Online] Available from: www.globalmethane.org.
Alex, M.A. (2009) Sustainable Waste-to-Energy Production: Performance Evaluation of
Distributed Generation Fuelled by Landfill Gas, Lappeenranta.
Argonne National Laboratory (2010) Well-to-Wheels analysis of landfill gas based pathways
and their addition to greet Model.
Bryan A. Stirrat & Associates. (2010) Master Plan of Sustainable Opportunities at the Paso
Robles Landfill.
Clarkson, D. (2007) Fuelling new ideas – Conversion of biogas into LNG becomes reality,
Waste Management World.
Cook, W. J., Siwajek, L. A. and Brown, W. R., Landfill Gas Conversion to a Contaminant-
Free Methane-Carbon Dioxide Reformer Feedstock for Methanol Synthesis, Acrion
Technologies, Inc, Ohio.
Demonstration of a Landfill Gas-Fired Limestone Calciner.
Ed Wheless, (n.d) Converting Landfill Gas to Vehicle Fuel: The Results of Over 30 Months of
Operation, Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
Kelcy and Edwards. (2005) Franklin County Sanitary Landfill Gas to Liquefied Natural Gas
Project, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Colorado.
Krakow, (2010) Landfill gas energy technologies.
Lappalainen, S. and Kouvo, P. (2004) Evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions from land-
fills in the St Petersburg area – utilization of methane in energy production, Metgas,
Lappeenranta.
Lewis, G. (2008) Analyzing the potential of utilizing the Methane emissions from the Western
Corridor Waste Landfill sites for electrical energy generation, Progress report, March,
2008.
Pierce, SCS Engineers, (n.d) Conversion of landfill gas to vehicle fuel: current status,
SCS Engineers. (1997) Comparative Analysis of Landfill Gas Utilization technologies.
SHAW EMCON/OWT Inc. (2004) Landfill Gas Utilization Economic Evaluation for
Anchorage Regional Landfill, Anchorage, Alaska.
Sullivan. P., SCS Engineers. (2007) CNG, LNG, and Other Fuels from Landfill Gas-Prospects
for Future Development, California Biomass Collaborative, 4th Annual Forum, March 28,
2007, Sacramento, California.
Texas Transportation Institute. (2009) TTI Application of Landfill Gas as a liquefied
natural gas fuel for refuse trucks in Texas, Texas State Energy Conservation Office.
US Environmental Protection Agency. (1979) USEPA Recovery, Processing, and Utilization of
Gas from Sanitary Landfills, February, 1979, EPA-600/2-79-001.
US Environmental Protection Agency. (1995) USEPA Landfill Gas Energy Utilization
Experience: Discussion of Technical and Non-Technical Issues, Solutions, and Trends,
EPA-600/R-95-035.
US Environmental Protection Agency. (1998) USEPA Emerging Technologies for the
Management and Utilization of Landfill Gas, EPA-600/R-98-021.
US Environmental Protection Agency. (2001) USEPA Adapting boilers to utilize landfill gas:
feasible and cost effective, 430-F-01-006.
Wegrzyn J. (2003) Opportunities for clean fuel from landfill gas, Fuel chem., 2003, 48(2), 917
Chapter 7
Remediation of landfill sites
7.1 INTRODUCTION
Landfills take a lot of valuable space in our urban areas, and as the city grows, there
is bound to be conflict with other uses in the area surrounding the landfill. Societies
have been using land disposal of waste for many centuries and old cities have many
landfills that have to be remediated or reclaimed for other higher uses. Landfill owners
decide to close landfills under the following circumstances:
• The height of the landfill has reached an unstable height or the areal limits have
been reached;
• The cost of transporting the waste or operating the landfill is uneconomic;
• The local opposition to the landfill due to environmental or safety violations
cannot be surmounted;
• The land values around the landfill make reclaiming the landfill economic.
The procedure for closing a landfill involves the following minimum steps:
• Assess the LFG potential from the landfill;

• If there is sufficient gas to make gas extraction and use economical, install a gas
extraction system and use the gas;
• Plan the future use of the landfill and install the appropriate cover;
• Operate and maintain the landfill to prevent environmental degradation and
maximize revenues from the landfill.
This section will detail the planning for landfill remediation, assessment of the
LFG potential in a landfill, remediation of the landfill to planned future uses, and
operation and maintenance of the landfill closure. In addition, mining and process-
ing of the waste to reclaim the land for a higher value use will be described.
7.2 PLANNING FOR LANDFILL REMEDIATION
Landfilling is a temporary use of the land and once it is decided to close a landfill,
the landfill owner works with the community to develop future land uses for the site.
The highest value use, compatible with site conditions and community needs, has
246 From Landfill gas to energy – Technologies and challenges
to be determined and implemented. For example, if a landfill is situated in a large

community where a community park will benefit the residents, the landfill should be
remediated into a community park. Many landfills around the world have been con-
verted into parks, golf courses and sources of solar energy by placing solar panels on
the surface.
Population pressures in many parts of the world are forcing municipalities to
look at reclaiming the land for other higher value purposes. Remining the landfill
and processing the organic material as fuel for boilers or for biomethanation is being
done in European cities and is being considered in New Delhi. Other options include
partial remining and closure of the landfill to make it available for future land uses.
In Surat, India, the municipality is planning to convert part of the landfill into an
industrial park (which is in the vicinity of an existing industrial area) and the other
part into an ecological park. Such innovative planning and design is required to
remediate existing landfills and convert them to the highest value land use.
7.3 MULTIPLE USES OF LANDFILLS
After we install the LFG extraction system and recover gas over a 20 to 30-year
period, we need to use the land surface for other uses. Over the last several decades,
communities have used the land surface from closed landfills as parks, golf courses,
and for producing solar energy. A landfill in Chicago, Illinois, USA, has been oper-
ating a golf course which produces revenue while the gas from the landfill is being
converted to 6 megawatts (MW) of energy. A landfill in a military base in the US is
covered with solar panels and produces solar energy. Many landfills have been con-
verted to beautiful parks which serve the urban populations.
A 20-year old landfill in New Delhi, India’s capital, has been converted to a
beautiful park called the Indraprastha Park. The park was developed by the Delhi
Development Authority. The Indraprastha Park is uniquely situated on the Ring
Road in Delhi. It has a railway line in the rear and historical monuments in the
western side. The park not only utilizes the monuments presence but enhances their
setting. A combination of hard and soft landscape interspersed with planting and
pedestrian plazas maintain a continuous interest throughout the 2.7 kilometer (km)
length of the park, for both visitors and travelers on the high traffic road adja-
cent to the landfill. The park has been divided into five zones to enhance its value.
These are:
• Smriti Van;
• Fragrant garden;
• Bougainvillea garden;
• Topiary Garden; and
• Foliage Garden.
Smriti Van has trees planted by people from all walks of life, in memory of their
beloved ones. The area behind Smriti Van has been developed into an active zone
with playfields, exercise area and team sports facilities. The Fragrant Garden serves
as an immediate foreground to an important monument called Humayun’s Tomb,
Remediation of landfill sites 247
and so a pedestrian plaza has been placed on its central axis to enjoy the view of the
monument. It has been abundantly planted with trees and shrubs of white scented
flowers and many other fragrant evergreen trees and shrubs.
In the center of the park is the Bougainvillea garden which has activity spaces
for a children’s park, food kiosks, and an amphitheater. It is a riot of colors with
practically all varieties of bougainvilleas. Many cultural programs are held at the
amphitheater and it is heavily used part of the park. The fourth zone is the Topiary
garden which offers a glimpse of an old fort, called Purana Quilla. Various green
terraces separated by planting beds have been created to take advantage of the site
topography. Bamboo and other trees screen the railway sheds at the rear of this area.
The last zone is the foliage garden which is planted with the foliage colors of indig-
enous plants culminating with a system of circular fountains at varied levels.
Landscaping of parks on landfills should take advantage of the unique features
of the site, as the Indraprastha park example demonstrates. However, conversion of
a landfill into a park requires site clearing, earthwork, seeding with grass and plant-
ing of trees and shrubs in accordance with the landscape design.
7.4 RECOVERY OF LANDFILLS FOR HIGHER LAND USES
In many of our cities, landfills occupy land which can be used for housing, offices
and infrastructure needed for living in cities. For example, the Central Public Works
Department in Delhi found that a large landfill was in the path of a large highway
interchange that they were constructing. They had to mine the waste and prepare the
foundation for construction of the interchange. They had to deal with the methane
gas emissions from the site and take several safety precautions while completing the
interchange.
The value of land is increasing in many cities and in cities like Delhi, the gov-
ernment has decided that there is no additional land available for landfilling with
waste. Ghazipur is a 70-acre landfill in Delhi where the municipal corporation of
Delhi (MCD) is planning to extract gas from a portion of the landfill and mine the
remaining portion of the landfill to separate the organics in the waste for reuse and
increasing the life of the landfill.
7.5 PROCEDURE FOR REMEDIATION OF LANDFILL SITES

WITH LOW LFG POTENTIAL
Landfill mining (LFM) and reclamation is a process whereby solid wastes which
have previously been landfilled are excavated and processed typically from an active
or closed landfill. Refer Figure 7.1 to 7.4.
The function of landfill mining is to reduce the amount of landfill mass encap-
sulated within the closed landfill and/or temporarily remove hazardous material to
allow protective measures to be taken before the landfill mass is replaced. In the
process mining recovers valuable recyclable materials, a combustible fraction, soil,
and landfill space.
The aeration of the landfill soil is a secondary benefit regarding the landfills
future use. The overall appearance of the landfill mining procedure is a sequence of
Figure 7.1 Schematic of a landfill mining process
Figure 7.2 Process scheme for a landfill mining plant

Figure 7.3 Landfill Mining in India
Active Reclaim
Working Cell Empty Cell Cell Future Reclaim
Sorting Conveyor
Rotary Trommel
Daily Cover
Storage
Incoming
Waste
Shredder
Recyclables
Ash
Power
Out
Shredded Waste
Fuel for Gasifier Storage
Gasifiers
Source: Thermogenics, 1999
Power Generators
Figure 7.4 Thermogenics Landfill Reclamation Process

processing machines laid out in a functional conveyor system. The operating princi-
ple is to excavate, sieve and sort the landfill material.
Processing typically involves a series of mechanical processing operations designed
to recover one or all of the following: recyclable materials, a combustible fraction, soil,
and landfill space. In addition, LFM can be used as a measure to remediate poorly
designed or improperly operated landfills and to upgrade landfills that do not meet
environmental and public health specifications.
Typical equipment used in simple LFM operations are excavators, screens, and
conveyors. Complex LFM operations recover additional materials and improve the
purity of recovered materials, and therefore have equipment in addition to that of
simple operations.
The main purpose of LFM has been:
1 Conservation of landfill space

2 Reduction in landfill area
3 Expanding landfill lifetime
4 Elimination of a potential source of contamination
5 Mitigation of an existing contaminated source
6 Energy recovery
7 Recycling of recovered materials
8 Reduction in management system costs
9 Site redevelopment.
Before initiating a landfill reclamation project, facility operators should carefully

assess all aspects of such an effort. The following is a recommended approach:
1 Conduct a site characterization study

2 Assess potential economic benefits
3 Investigate regulatory requirements
4 Establish preliminary worker health and safety plan
5 Assess project costs.
7.5.1 Site characterization study

The first step in a landfill reclamation project calls for a thorough site assessment
to establish the portion of the landfill that will undergo reclamation and estimate a
material processing rate. The site characterization should assess facility aspects, such
as geological features, stability of the surrounding area, and proximity of ground
water, and should determine the fractions of usable soil, recyclable material, com-
bustible waste, and hazardous waste at the site.
Site-specific conditions will determine whether or not LFM is feasible for a given
location. Key conditions include:
1 Composition of the waste initially put in place in the landfill

2 Historic operating procedures
3 Extent of degradation of the waste
4 Types of markets (price) and uses for the recovered materials.
7.5.2 Potential economic benefits

Information collected in the site characterization provides project planners with a
basis for assessing the potential economic benefits of a reclamation project. If the
planners identify likely financial benefits for the undertaking, then the assessment
will provide support for further investing in project planning. Although economics
are likely to serve as the principal incentive for a reclamation project, other consid-
erations may also come into play, such as a communitywide commitment to recy-
cling and environmental management.
The environmental and economic benefits of landfill mining include the
following:
1 Use of recovered soil fraction as landfill cover material;

2 Recovery of secondary materials;
3 Reduction of landfill footprint and, therefore, reduction in costs of closure and
post-closure;
4 Reclamation of landfill volume for reuse.
Most potential economic benefits associated with landfill reclamation are indi-
rect; however, a project can generate revenues if markets exist for recovered materials.
Although the economic benefits from reclamation projects are facility-specific, they
may include any or all of the following:
• Increased disposal capacity

• Avoided or reduced costs of:
– Landfill closure.
– Post closure care and monitoring.
– Purchase of additional capacity or sophisticated systems.
– Liability for remediation of surrounding areas.
• Revenues from:
– Recyclable and reusable materials (e.g., ferrous metals, aluminum, plastic,
and glass).
– Combustible waste sold as fuel.
– Reclaimed soil used as cover material, sold as construction fill, or sold for
other uses.
• Land value of sites reclaimed for other purposes.
• Current landfill capacity and projected demand.
• Projected costs for landfill closure or expansion of the site.
• Current and projected costs of future liabilities.
• Projected markets for recycled and recovered materials.
• Projected value of land reclaimed for other uses.
7.5.3 Investigate Regulatory requirements

Before undertaking a reclamation project, however, local authorities should be con-
sulted regarding any special regulatory requirements or permits.
7.5.4 Health and safety plan

Drawing up a safety and health plan can be particularly challenging given the dif-
ficulty of accurately characterizing the nature of material buried in a landfill. Project
workers are likely to encounter some hazardous materials; therefore, the health and
safety program should account for a variety of materials handling and response
scenarios.
7.5.5 Project costs

Planners can use information collected from the preceding steps to analyze the esti-
mated capital and operational costs of a landfill reclamation operation. Along with the
expenses incurred in project planning, project costs may also include the following:
Capital costs:
• Site preparation.
• Rental or purchase of reclamation equipment.
• Rental or purchase of personnel safety equipment.
• Construction or expansion of materials handling facilities.
• Rental or purchase of hauling equipment.
Operational costs:
• Labor (e.g., equipment operation and materials handling).
• Equipment fuel and maintenance.
• Landfilling non-reclaimed waste or noncombustible fly and bottom ash if waste
material is sent off site for final disposal.
• Administrative and regulatory compliance expenses (e.g., recordkeeping).
• Worker training in safety procedures.
• Hauling costs.
Part of the cost analysis involves determining whether the various aspects of the
reclamation effort will result in reasonable costs relative to the anticipated economic
benefits. If the combustible portion of the reclaimed waste will be sent to an offsite
MWC Municipal Waste Combustor, for example, planners should assess whether
transportation costs will be offset by the energy recovery benefits. Planners also need
to consider whether capital costs can be minimized by renting or borrowing heavy
equipment, such as excavating and trommel machinery, from other departments of
municipal or county governments. Long-term reclamation projects may benefit from
equipment purchases.
Factors affecting the economic feasibility of reclamation differ for each site and
each reclamation goal. It is usually believed that the recyclables recovered provide
economic revenue which is a fact depending on several aspects, such as the quality
of the separated fractions, local situation and the market price, In specific circum-
stances, recovery focused on ferrous metals, aluminum, plastic and glass as well as
fine organic and inorganic material can have economic significance if they represent
significant enough volume for recovery.
The costs are often offset by the sale or use of recovered materials, such as recy-
clables, soil, and waste, which can be burned as fuel. Other important benefits may
include avoided liability through site remediation, reductions in closure costs, and
reclamation of land for other uses.
Facility operators considering the establishment of a landfill reclamation pro-
gram must weigh several benefits and drawbacks associated with this waste manage-
ment approach before getting started.
7.6 RECOVERING LAND THROUGH WASTE MINING AND

PROCESSING
Landfill mining and rehabilitation projects are common throughout the world.
Landfill mining may involve recovering the soil fraction to improve the soil qual-
ity as soil amendment or obtain fuel for incineration or energy recovery. It may
also involve processing of waste to recover steel containers or composting landfilled
waste.
Sustainable landfill management could be achieved by an integrated approach
as illustrated in Figure 7.5. Dumpsite rehabilitation would be a paramount option
to rehabilitate existing open dumps through landfill mining where the resource
Figure 7.5 Integrated approaches to sustainable landfill management

recovery might serve as a source of energy, recycle and reuse of metals, plastic and
glass ware, use of compost as fertilizer for agriculture and as a cover material for
future landfills.
Because land close to the origin of the domestic waste is hard to find dump site
rehabilitation might benefit in regaining a suitable site for an engineered landfill.
7.6.1 Landfill mining process

Landfill mining is the process of excavating from operational or closed municipal
waste landfills, and sorting the materials for recycling and processing. It is the proc-
ess wherby the dumped waste is excavated and processed.
Landfill mining segregates the mixed waste material from the landfill according
to their size by using a screening machine. The oversized materials are prescreened by
another sorting machine which separates the larger objects like tyres and rocks from
cardboards and other smaller unearthed materials. The objectives of landfill mining are:
• Conservation of landfill space.

• Reduction in landfill area.
• Elimination of potential contamination source.
• Rehabilitation of dump sites.
• Energy recovery from recovered wastes.
• Reuse of recovered materials.
• Reduction in waste management costs.
• Redevelopment of landfill sites.
Landfill Mining (LFM) is a relatively new approach used typically to expand

municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill capacity and avoid the high cost of acquiring
additional land or other environmental purposes. Projects are typical not done just
for an economic point of view.
Landfill reclamation is conducted in a number of ways, with the specific
approach based on project goals and objectives and site specific characteristics.
The equipment used for reclamation projects is adapted primarily from technol-
ogies already in use in the mining industry, as well as in construction and other solid
waste management operations such as:
• Excavators
• Moving floor and elevator conveyor belts
• A coarse rotating trommel screen
• A fine rotating trommel screen
• A magnet
• Front end loader
• Odour control sprayer.
7.6.2 Excavation and separation

Excavators dig up waste mass and transport it, with the help of front end loaders,
onto elevator and moving floor conveyor belts. The conveyor belts empty into a
coarse, rotating trommel (i.e., a revolving cylindrical sieve) or vibrating screens sepa-
rate soil (including the cover material) from solid waste in the excavated material.
The size and type of screen used depends on the end use of the recovered material.
Depending on the level of resource recovery, material can be put through an air
classifier which separates light organic material from heavy organic material. The
separate streams are then loaded, by front end loaders, onto trucks either for further
processing or for sale. Further manual processing can be done on site if processing
facilities are too far away to justify the transportation costs.
7.6.3 Processing for reclamation of recyclable

material
Depending on local conditions, either the soil or the waste may be reclaimed. The
separated soil can be used as fill material or as daily cover in a sanitary landfill. The
excavated waste can be processed at a materials recovery facility to remove valuable
components (e.g., steel and aluminum) or burned in a (MWC) to produce heat and
energy.
The percentage recovery of a landfilled resource depends upon:
• The physical and chemical properties of the resource

• The effectiveness of the type of mining technology
• The efficiency with which the technology is applied.
The types of materials recovered from an LFM project are determined by the
goals of the project, the characteristics of the landfilled wastes, and the process design.
In a typical LFM operation, once the oversize non-processibles, the dirt fraction, and
the ferrous metals are removed, the remaining material may be recovered as fuel for
a waste-to-energy facility, processed for recovery of other recyclables, or landfilled as
residue.
The soil fraction recovered by mining typical landfilled MSW will probably
comprise the largest percentage by weight of all materials. The ratio of soil to other
materials depends upon the type of waste landfilled, landfill operating procedures,
and the extent of degradation of the landfilled wastes.
7.6.4 Material recovery

The material recovered from the excavation of the landfill can be used in many ways
to improve the economics of landfill mining. These include:
• Segregated on the spot and use of the segregated materials as appropriate

• If reuse is not possible, it can be moved to another location where land is
inexpensive
• Incinerated to produce heat and energy.
After mining or recycling the landfill materials, the area can be used for different
purposes. Landfilling new waste for commercial or residential purposes or parks for
recreation. It is important to note, that moving of pre-landfilled material contains a
potential environmental risk. However, the advantages may be various and depend
on local conditions:
• Material removal for area or volume reduction for continued operation

– Alternative landuse for commercial or industrial uses
– Creating landfill capacity
– Reduce the negative influence on the environment
– Reduce the aftercare and monitoring costs
• Removal of contaminated waste and upgrading of the contaminated area.
• Inspection/Installation of gas, drainage pipes and establishing bottom layer.
• Recycling of pre landfilled material
– Daily cover material/other useful uses
– Energy production
– Metals.
7.6.5 Composition of waste

The level of recovery depends on the chemical and physical conditions in the
landfill, and the efficiency of the equipment used. The soil to waste ratio reported
at various excavated landfills differs due to the amount of daily and final cover
material employed, the size of the openings of the screens, type of landfill and
waste., degree of compaction, age of landfill, and local conditions like moisture
content in waste and degree of composition. Ratios in the range between 20:80 to
75:25 were found in different projects depending on moisture content and decom-
position rate.
The most important variable in LFM is the amount of recovered fine soil fraction
which could be used as cover or lining of new landfill or backfilled in a more sustain-
able way. It’s suggested that a landfill needs to be 15 years old before a successful
mining project can be performed.
Although the research indicates, that large amounts of soil can be extracted, the
chemical composition must be carefully investigated. Geusebroek (2001) reported
contamination of etc. mineral oil and PAH, but Hull (2001) emphasized the impor-
tance of analyzing of material for VOC’s, metals, pesticides and PCB’s.
The non-recyclable part of the intermediate-sized and oversized materials is typi-
cally reburied in the mined area of the landfill. If this portion is reburied without
further processing, this landfill mining operation typically achieves about 70% vol-
ume reduction. Facility operators considering the establishment of a landfill mining
and reclamation program must weigh the several benefits and drawbacks associated
with this waste management approach.
7.6.6 Waste recovery efficiency

Judging from available information and mechanical processing efficiencies, recovery of
soil could be expected to fluctuate between 85% and 95%, ferrous metals from 70%
to 90%, and plastic from 50% to 75%. Purity of these materials could be expected
to be 90% to 95% for soil, 80% to 95% for ferrous metals, and 70% to 90% for
plastic. The higher percentage of purity for each material category would generally be
attributed to relatively complex processing designs.
7.6.7 Potential for energy recovery

The coarse fraction (50 mm) of the recovered organic mass can be directly incin-
erated and sometimes the medium fraction (18 to 50 mm) can be incinerated using
additional fuel. Cossu et al (1995) found the energy value of excavated waste in
Italy varied between 3.4–8.7 MJ/kg with a mean value of 4.5 MJ/kg. Hogland, et al.,
(1995) described during an excavation in Sweden the energy value to vary between
6.9–7.9 MJ/kg for the light fraction and less than 2 MJ/kg for the fine fraction.
Obermaier and Saure (1995) obtained a value of 11 MJ/kg and Cossu, et al., (1995),
Rettenberger (1995) and Schilinger, et al., (1994) found values up to 20 MJ/kg in the
unsorted light fraction, being 84 TJ equivalent to 2000 ton of oil or 13.500 barrels of
oil to value of about 100 USD pr.barrel (2008 data).
7.6.8 Benefits of landfill mining

Reclamation costs are often offset by the sale or use of recovered materials, such as
recyclables, soil, and waste, which can be burned as fuel. Other important benefits
may include avoided liability through site remediation, reductions in closure costs,
and reclamation of land for other uses.
LFM extends the life of the current landfill facility by removing recoverable
materials and reducing waste volume through combustion and compaction. The
potential benefits of landfill mining are summarized below:
– Recovered materials such as metals, aluminum, plastic, and glass can be sold if
markets exist for these materials.
– Reclaimed soil can be used on site as daily cover material on other landfill cells,
thus avoiding the cost of importing cover material. Also a market might exist
for reclaimed soil use in other applications such as compost.
– Combustible reclaimed waste can be mixed with fresh waste and burned to pro-
duce heat and energy.
– By reducing the size of the landfill “footprint” through cell reclamation, the
facility operator may be able to either lower the cost of closing the landfill or
make land available for other uses.
– Hazardous wastes if uncovered during LFM, especially at older landfills could
be managed in an environmental sound manner.
7.6.9 Limitations of landfill mining

Despite its many benefits, some potential drawbacks exist to landfill reclamation.
Facility operators considering the establishment of a landfill reclamation program
must weigh several benefits and drawbacks associated with this waste manage-
ment approach. One major limitation of dumpsite mining is that it requires a lot of
machinery and manpower.
Other limitations include odor and air emissions at the reclamation site,
increased traffic on roads between the dumpsite and resource recovery facility, extra
mixing and handling of waste at the resource recovery facility, and the handling of
additional inert materials. Reclamation activities shorten the useful life of equip-
ment, such as excavators and loaders, because of the high density of waste being
handled. Moreover, the high particulate content and abrasive nature of reclaimed
waste can increase wear of equipment. Lack of knowledge about the nature of waste
buried might be a limitation regarding safety issues.
Other safety issues include physical injury from rolling stock or rotating equip-
ment; exposure to leachate, and hazardous material or pathogens during mining or
processing; subsurface fires and LFG emissions. Health risks to the general public
appear to be minimal.
Cell excavation may raise a number of potential problems related to the release
of landfill gases such as methane and sulphur dioxide. Excavation of one dumpsite
area can undermine the integrity of adjacent cells, which can sink or collapse into
the excavated area. There is considerable concern about the personal hazards to
workers as part of dumpsite mining because of the burial of hazardous materials in
many dumpsites and the presence of explosive gases such as methane.
The limitations of landfill mining are summarized below:
– Poor quality of recovered materials

– Ineffectiveness of substituting recovered material
– Low-value and limited applications of recovered materials
– Poor separation of recovered materials
– Emission of LFG
– Health hazards
– Bad logistics at the excavation and sorting area
– Increasing wear on excavation and MWC equipment.
7.6.10 Economic aspects of landfill mining

This section addresses the environmental and financial aspects associated to landfill
mining. It is well known that landfill mining reduce or eliminate closure costs and in
most cases reduce the long term environmental problems.
Traditionally, the economics of landfill mining often is dependent on the depth
of the waste material and the ratio soil-to-waste due to the fact that as deeper the
waste is buried the more expensive a site is to reclaim per hectare Furthermore, the
lower the soil-to-waste ratio is, the more material will need to be either reburied or
transported for disposal off site., It is usually believed that the recyclables recovered
might provide economic revenue which is a fact depending on several aspects, such
as the quality of the separated fractions, local situation and the market price, In spe-
cific circumstances, recovery focused on ferrous metals, aluminum, plastic and glass
as well as fine organic and inorganic material can have economic significance if they
represent significant enough volume for recovery. Factors affecting the economic fea-
sibility of reclamation differ for each site and each reclamation goal.
The accounting of economic benefits of a landfill mining project must be com-
prehensive and include reduction or elimination of the need of capping, long-term
monitoring and after case, maintenance and potential remediation costs, effective
use and logistics of machinery, increased value of the reclaimed land and avoidance
of finding a new site and infrastructure costs in the case the reclaimed land is used
for constructing a new landfill. A positive aspect only recently appreciated related to
landfill mining is that companies are able to earn carbon credits stopping methane
and carbon dioxide escaping to the atmosphere.
7.6.11 Cost and benefits of landfill mining

The costs and benefits of landfill mining vary considerably depending on the objec-
tives (closure, remediation, new landfill etc.) of the project, site-specific land-
fill characteristics (material disposed, waste decomposition, burial practices, age
and depth of fill) and local economics (value of land, cost of closure materials and
monitoring).
In general, the economics of landfill mining depend on the depth of the waste
material and the ratio of wastes to soil. The deeper the waste is buried, the more
expensive it is to reclaim a landfill, per unit area. In most cases, the presence of haz-
ardous materials will also affect the economic feasibility. A description of the plan
for mining a landfill in Belgium is given in the next section.
7.7 LANDFILL MINING CASE STUDY
To foster more mature Sustainable Materials and Energy Management, it is of par-

amount importance to develop and implement more innovative concepts such as
Enhanced Waste Management (EWM) and Enhanced Landfill Mining (ELFM).
The Closing the Circle project is a first concrete case of ELFM, targeting the
landfill site of Group Machiels in Houthalen-Helchteren (Belgium), which con-
tains both municipal solid waste and industrial waste. Specific for the Closing the
Circle project is that the reclaimed land will be transformed into a natural zone. For
Closing the Circle the economic profits are thus only based on the valorisation of
the mined materials and energy from the landfill. Therefore, an integrated approach
using different and highly efficient techniques for valorisation is required.
The proposed flow diagram for Closing the Circle (CtC) (Figure 7.6) starts with
the capturing and the valorisation of the LFG, and the processing of the leachate
offering clean water to the site and its environment. After re-opening the landfill,
waste is mined and fed to the material recuperation process. A decision tool, which
has to decide if a recuperated fraction goes towards the Waste-to-Material (WtM)
or towards the Waste-to-Energy (WtE) process is being developed by the ELFM
Consortium (see Van Acker, et al. in this volume). WtM targets to recuperate glass,
ceramics, ferrous and non-ferrous metals, plastics, paper, wood, textiles, aggregate
fractions and fines. The latter two are processed to ELFM building materials through
a combination of processes. WtE valorises the recycling residue from the material
recuperation process, the so called Refused Derived Fuel (RDF), containing mostly
organics. After screening several potential thermochemical conversion technologies
(see Helsen and Bosmans in this volume), the Gasplasma™ technology was selected
for further trial runs.
This paper elaborates on the most important feasibility analyses and validation
tests, i.e., characterisation of the landfilled waste, validation of the envisaged material
Figure 7.6 General ELFM process flow diagram for Closing the Circle project
recuperation and thermal valorisation technologies, a sustainable nature conserva-

tion analysis and the establishment of the project’s carbon footprint.
7.7.1 Closing the circle project

More than 16 million tons of waste has been stored at the landfill site. The type,
amount and location of the stored waste are well documented, allowing its effec-
tive and efficient mining. A first calculation estimates that around 45% of the stored
waste can be recycled as material. The recycling residue can be valorised as energy
by firing a 75 to 100 MW electrical power plant based on plasma technology. CO2
from the WtE plant is intended to be captured through various carbon sequestration
methodologies (see further). A very limited amount of the waste for which no valori-
sation potential is yet identified, will have to be restored in a state of the art landfill.
This renewed storage will only be temporarily, as it is envisioned that with the fur-
ther development of recycling and energy technologies, the restored waste can be
valorised in the future. Hence, Closing the Circle becomes part of closed materials
loop, albeit with a prolonged time loop.
Closing the Circle was initiated in 2007, ending its concept phase at the end of
2008. Valorisation tests, engineering and more detailed elaboration of the project
will take most of 2009 and 2010. These valorisation tests are intended to validate
the assumptions made during the concept phase and are described in this Chapter.
The installations will be built to become operational by the end of 2013. The WtM
and WtE plants will be operational for 20 years to realise the total valorisation of
the waste stored. Over that period the landfill site will be developed into a sustain-
able nature park. Realising the project requires an investment of well over 230 M€.
It is expected to generate 800 direct jobs during 20 years.
7.7.2 Characterisation of landfilled waste

The goal of this characterisation study (see also Quaghebeur, et al. in this volume)
as to validate a number of assumptions made during the concept phase of the CtC
project, concerning the landfilled waste based on the available landfill inventory and
associated data. These assumptions include:
• Type, amount and location of the landfilled waste;

• Potential for material recuperation;
• Potential for energetic valorisation.
The validation of this concept analysis was performed with the primary objectives:
• To establish the reliability of the existing reports of the waste inventory;

• To establish more accurately the potential of the different waste streams for
material recuperation or energetic valorisation;
• To define routes for research to elaborate on or improve the valorisation poten-
tial of certain waste streams.
The characterisation is based on a number of trial excavations and the examination

of the waste samples both visually, as well as through manual sorting tests. During
these sorting tests the samples were, after drying, screened at 10 mm and weighed.
The amount of wood, paper/cardboard, textile, plastics, metal, glass, ceramics, stone
and ‘unidentified’ were determined for every fraction 10 mm. The individual frac-
tions were subsequently sampled and further analysed. The calorific value, the ash
content, the elementary composition (C, H and N) and the halogens (S, Cl, F and
Br) were determined for a well chosen selection of samples.
To obtain samples of the landfilled waste as representative as possible, both as
a function of waste type (municipal and industrial waste) and as a function of the
storage period, a limited but well chosen number of excavations were conducted.
This sampling methodology secured that at least 75% of the landfilled waste was
assessed both in type and age.
Based on the inventory, the total amount of stored wasted is estimated at 11.3
million ton of dry matter. This includes a correction for the moisture content of the
initially stored waste and the degradation of the municipal waste over time. The
total amount of waste stored at the Remo landfill site adds up to 16.5 million ton
(including moisture) as established from the weighing bridge data. The total amount
of dry waste is estimated at 12.8 million ton, taking into account average mois-
ture contents of municipal and industrial waste on the composition of biomass and
waste. The degradation of the municipal waste is estimated based on a TOC Total
organic Carbon degradation model and results in a remaining 11.3 million ton of
dry matter. Hence, this validation calculation matches well with the estimate estab-
lished during the concept phase.
The characteristics, relevant to the material and energetic valorisation of the
mined waste were calculated based on the chemical and energetic characterisation
of the individual fractions. The amount of fines (10 mm) is 44 12% for munici-
pal waste and 64 16% for industrial waste. The fines fraction (10 mm) forms
a major part of the total amount of stored waste. Their valorisation possibilities
(material, energy) are being further researched.
A summary of the mass balance of the landfilled waste as a function of the val-
orisation possibilities, which have been identified so far, is shown in Table 7.1. The
first column shows the assumptions of the concept phase. The second column lists
the results of the characterisation study. The results match well for both WtM (38%
versus 44.7%) and WtE (55% versus 47.1%). The difference between the fractions
without any valorisation opportunity yet identified is negligible (7% versus 8.2%).
Table 7.1 Summary of the mass balance of Remo landfill site as a function of the valorisation
possibilities
Concept phase estimates Characterisation study

Direct material recuperation 16% 12.1%
Recuperation of material after further 22% 32.6%
treatment
Energetic valorisation 55% 47.1%
Fraction without a valorisation possibility 7% 8.2%
identified so far
The gross calorific value of the fraction intended for energetic valorisation was
determined to be 19.4 MJ/kg (15.5–21.6 MJ/kg) dry matter which is very similar to
the initial estimate of 16 MJ/kg as calculated at a moisture level of 12%. The valida-
tion analysis takes account of a correction for the material not suited for thermal
valorisation.
An important objective of this characterisation study was to validate the reli-
ability of the existing landfill inventory. The characterisation study corroborated
the accuracy of the inventory, allowing it to be used as the basis for the conceptual
analysis of the material and energy recuperation potential and hence for the elab-
oration of the business plan. The valorisation potential of the available fractions,
for both material recuperation and thermal valorisation, was established more pre-
cisely. The estimates of the concept phase and the characterisation study performed
are in line and exhibit promising opportunities towards both material and thermal
valorisation.
7.7.3 Material Recovery

The goal of this validation study was to assess if an implementation of the proposed
material recovery flow sheet, based on the characterisation test as discussed above,
is able to perform the material recovery planned. This material recovery flow sheet
is shown in Figure 7.6. The material recuperation testing establishes a full mass bal-
ance with the physical and chemical characteristics of the separated fractions, includ-
ing the fraction for thermal valorisation. Finally, this material recuperation test also
intended to produce a high calorific recycling residue also called as Refuse Derived
Fuel (RDF) for a Gasplasma™ test, which is discussed in the next section.
The material mined from the landfill consisted of a batch of municipal waste
and a batch of industrial waste and originates from the same zones where the sam-
ples for the characterisation study were taken. Both batches of waste were processed
separately in a commercial facility, which implemented the required process steps as
depicted in Figure 7.6.
The results from the material recovery tests are summarised in Table 7.2.
This table compares the results from the material recovery on the industrial
waste with the results from a mass balance of the characterisation study of the
Table 7.2 Results* of material recovery tests compared with characterisation
Material recuperation test Characterisation study of

landfilled waste
Fraction for thermal valorisation 37.6% 36.7%
Recuperated materials (metals, plastics) 6.0% 3.4%
Recuperated materials (inerts) 17.1% 9.4%
Fines (0–4 mm, 0–10 mm) 39.3% 50.4%
*This table is based on the sorted fractions as generated by the material recovery test. Therefore, it can’t be
directly compared with Table 7.1, as it already implements a scenario for all fractions. Instead, intermediate
results from the characterisation study have been used to compare the results with the results from the material
recuperation test.
landfilled waste. The results show that the fraction designated for thermal valorisa-
tion is almost identical. The gross calorific value of the fraction intended for ener-
getic valorisation is estimated at 21.0 MJ/kg dry matter for the particular zones,
which were mined to generate input material for the material recovery test. The
average gross calorific value of the total fraction intended for thermal valorisation of
all zones was calculated at 19.4 MJ/kg (15.5–21.6 MJ/kg) dry matter. The analysis of
the recycling residue (Refuse Derived Fuel), used during the plasma tests, showed a
gross calorific value of 24.6 MJ/kg dry matter. This indicates that the recycling resi-
due will probably supersede the average value of the characterisation study and that
upper limit values are likely to be obtained.
The amount of fines, as determined during the material recovery tests, is lower
than the amount in the characterisation study. The main reason for this is that the
material recovery tests screened at 0–4 mm while the characterisation study screened
at 0–10 mm. This also clarifies why more materials (inerts, metals and plastics) have
been recovered. It can be concluded that the fraction 4–10 mm contains material
that is a proper candidate for material recovery. The material recovery tests showed
that it is feasible to recover materials from this fraction. Further research is planned
by the ELFM Consortium to identify valorisation possibilities for the fines fraction
(0–4 mm).
7.7.4 Energy recuperation

A theoretical analysis and testing programme has been undertaken to assess if the
Gasplasma™ technology of Advanced Plasma Power is an appropriate candidate for
the thermal valorisation technology within the CtC project. Figure 7.7 shows the
summary flow sheet of the Gasplasma™ process (see also Chapman in this volume).
A theoretical model was developed to assess the behaviour of the Gasplasma™ sys-
tem on the recycling residue of the mined waste. This allowed the construction of a
full mass and energy balance over the process as a whole, which are the two main
elements in the analysis of the application potential of the technology within CtC.
To validate and verify this theoretical model, a test was defined. This test con-
sisted of two sets of trials (campaign 1 and campaign 2). For those two sets of trials
two different kinds of recycling residues (RDF) were used. Both constitute the recy-
cling residue from material recovery tests on municipal waste and industrial waste.
The characteristics of both types of RDF are representative for the fraction intended
for thermal valorisation as indicated by the characterisation study of the landfilled
waste. The first trial run (campaign 1) only uses RDF1, while the second trial run
(campaign 2) uses a mixture of both RDF types.
Based on several measurements of the Net Calorific Value (NCV) of the recycling
residues, the NCV is established to be 19.36 1.15 MJ/kg (RDF 1) and 21.49 MJ/kg
(RDF 2), both at a moisture content of 12 wt%. The net electrical efficiency takes
into account the parasitic load of the Gasplasma™ components.
The theoretical model uses the HSC Chemistry for Windows supplied by
Outokumpu Research Oy, Finland. This modelling package uses proven metallur-
gic data, chemical reactions and equilibrium conditions. For certain inputs required
by the model, real test plant data was used, e.g., presence and behaviour of trace
species.
Figure 7.7 Overview of the Gasplasma™ process
The full scale theoretical model predicted a net electrical efficiency ranging from
25% (based on conditions of campaign 1) to 30% (based on conditions of cam-
paign 2). During the pilot trial runs, net electrical efficiencies of 20% (campaign 1)
and 23,0% (campaign 2) were measured. Given a number of operational and meas-
urement constraints of the pilot plant, the measured values are established to be
representative for the full scale modelling. Even higher energy conversion efficien-
cies are expected to be possible in future plasma converter designs currently being
elaborated.
Table 7.3 shows the complete mass balance of the GasplasmaTM process for the
current design. Approximately 90% of the ash in the RDF will be melted, tapped
from the plasma converter and cooled to form a vitrified slag. This 90% capture
efficiency by the plasma converter is based on CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics)
modelling. From the analysis of the vitrified slag, through e.g., leaching tests, it can
be concluded that the material is a proper candidate for use as building aggregate or
gravel replacement for the construction industry.
The stability of the Gasplasma™ technology for the intended application within
the CtC project was demonstrated by a number of long runs of up to 75 hours.
During those runs, both batches of RDF were used. The alternating feeding of the two
types of RDF during the test runs demonstrated the satisfactory level of robustness.
It is established that the Gasplasma™ technology is a sound candidate for the
thermal valorisation technology within the CtC project (see also contributions by
Chapman, and Helsen and Bosmans in this volume). Mass and energy balance were
Table 7.3 Mass balance of the current design of the GasplasmaTM

process
Process stage Mass in (tons) Mass out (tons)

Gasplasma
Refuse derived fuel 1.000
Oxygen 0.549
Water for steam 0.272
Nitrogen 0.043
Natural gas 0.001
Plasmarok 0.183
Metals 0.005
Gas clean up
Sodium bicarbonate 0.004
Activated carbon 0.000
Nitrogen 0.009
Water 0.002
Gas clean-up reagents 0.011
APC residue 0.024
Aqueous off-take 0.401
Power generation
Air 9.142
Urea 0.001
Exhaust 10.421
Total 11.034 11.034
validated based on theoretical models and pilot tests performed, using the recycling
residue from the material recuperation tests performed on mined waste. Multiple pilot
tests have demonstrated that the Gasplasma™ technology operates in a stable way.
The vitrified slag from the plasma converter is expected to be a promising candidate
for aggregate or gravel replacement.
7.7.5 Recovery of natural land

A feasibility study was conducted to validate if the CtC project is able to meet the
applicable nature conservation goals for the area. The latter was further defined and
elaborated in a report in 2008, within the framework of the nature protocol estab-
lished for the Remo landfill site.
It was examined if the local conservation goals after realisation of the project
can be met in a sustainable way based on the current abiotic conditions of the landfill
cover. This feasibility study also proposed a presumptive phasing of the mining activ-
ities in the project. This phasing enabled a screening on the impact of the habitat dis-
tribution in the project area, as well as the impact on the conservation goals of the
proposed vision during and after the realisation of the project.
The methodology focused on the potential for recovery of dry heath land and
dry siliceous grasslands, which was present on the site in the 1950s and 1960s.
Deciduous and coniferous woodland as well as brushwood were present at that
Table 7.4 Difference in area per habitat type in the different phases of the project based on the
nature conservation vision
Target type 1–2 3–4 5–7 8–9 10–11 12–13 14–15 16–17 18–19 20
(column below)/
Years (row on the
right)
Acidophous 10.64 7.64 3.78 9.16 7.05 7.05 6.51 1.42 9.08 1.05
oak woods
dominated by
birch
Wooded 1.23 2.71 1.29 1.65 1.62 1.07 2.71 1.21 1.21 1.79
heathland
Agrostis 0.00 6.21 0.21 2.09 2.09 2.09 2.09 2.09 2.09 2.09
grassland
Dry heath/ 0.00 0.00 14.06 0.06 0.06 2.34 2.34 2.34 2.34 0.66
Nardo-Galion
grassland
Water/swamp 1.72 1.72 2.59 5.33 0.4 2.69 0.39 0.39 4.64 1.56
Woods 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 1.61
Roughs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 1.23 1.49 1.65 1.65 1.65 0.35
Open sand 0.00 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 1.98 2.47 2.47 2.92 0.08
Total 10.37 14.87 14.87 4.38 8.96 10.65 7.01 7.01 20.14 9.19
time. The potential for realisation of the intended conservation goals during and
after mining of the landfill was judged based on the abiotic conditions of the nature
target types or the habitats which were indicated in the target map. Soil variables
such as texture, pH, organic matter and nutrients (NO
3 , NH4 , and P-PO43) and
ground water level were used to evaluate the potential for habitat rehabilitation.
Soil analysis was carried out on the current top cover of the landfills to determine
the potential of the soils for habitat rehabilitation after Enhanced Landfill Mining.
This cover has a minimal thickness of 1 meter. The soil characteristics of the top
layer, ground water and the seedbank present determine the recovery of the nature
target types.
In total 23 soil samples were taken of the cover layer spread over the differ-
ent landfill zones. Five soil samples were taken as reference in the environment in
areas of heath or on land dunes. The organic matter content was determined besides
pH-H2O and pH-KCl. Ammonium and levels of nitrate were determined with FIA
after extraction with KCl and NaHCO3, extractable phosphor was used as an indi-
cator of phosphate in the soil. The feasibility of the intended habitats was judged
based on these abiotic variables. The current top layer in areas with dry heath and
dry siliceous grasslands vegetation, offers the required potential to restore the habitat
type psammofilic heath, dry heath or dry siliceous grasslands in the mined landfills.
Table 7.4 shows the difference in area, expressed in hectares, per habitat type in
the different phases of the project (from year 1 to year 20) compared with the target.
This exercise shows that besides the temporary loss of habitat, the ecotope balance
can be secured, resulting in a net increase of more than 9 hectare at the end of the
project compared to the current situation.
The feasibility study additionally evaluated a possible location (‘searching zone’)
for the temporary Enhanced Landfill Mining installations at the Remo landfill site.
The criteria for the choice of this location for the construction and operation of the
ELFM installations are:
• Limit the influence on the environment and the surrounding inhabitants;

• Limit the transport distance.
This feasibility study indicated that nature conversation goals can be met based
on the current abiotic situation and the developed plan for the project phases.
During the course of the project an impact on the ecotope balance and the nature
conservation goals can occur. However, those impacts can be mitigated by restoring
10 hectares of dry heathland and acidophous oak woods in the surrounding area.
The feasibility study also evaluated a searching zone for the material and energy
recuperation installations. This location fits best with the landfill site, limits the
transport movements and would probably cause the least impact on the surrounding
environment and its inhabitants. This feasibility study will be validated during the
full project’s Environmental Impact Analysis.
7.7.6 Carbon footprint

The goal of the carbon footprint study by de Gheldere, et al., was to quantitatively
investigate if the CtC project would have a significant net CO2 benefit, compared to
a ‘do-nothing scenario’. This was done using the Bilan Carbone approach, which
compared the CO2 balance of the ‘do-nothing scenario’ with the CtC scenario. The
Bilan Carbone method is designed to estimate the greenhouse gases (described as
CO2-equivalent (CO2e) taking the global warming potential of the different gases
into account) linked to the physical processes necessary for the activity, wherever
these emissions occur. The place of emission is ignored, because of the length of time
that greenhouse gases remain in the atmosphere. Naturally, the first emissions taken
into account are those that occur directly within the legal boundaries of the entity
itself, for example emissions due to combustion of gas or fuel oil in a boiler owned
by the entity. But this method also encompasses emissions that occur elsewhere, as a
result of processes that are required by the company. Figure 6 shows the emissions
that are taken into account in this approach. The method implies that the difference
in energy and materials that are not produced by the CtC scenario will be produced
on the market in the do-nothing scenario. Comparing the footprints of both scenar-
ios gives an idea which scenario is more beneficial towards greenhouse gas mitiga-
tion (see also Van Passel, et al. in this volume).
The final conclusion of the study is that, to produce the same amount of energy
and materials, the total level of greenhouse gas emissions from the Closing the Circle
scenario is significantly lower than for the do-nothing scenario: i.e., 5.3 Mton CO2e
compared to 6.3 Mton CO2e, or 15 percent less greenhouse gas emissions. The sen-
sitivity analysis revealed that this conclusion remains valid upon varying most of the
examined parameters. The benefit is achieved by avoiding the burning of primary

fossil fuels both for electricity and heat generation, and for the production of vari-
ous materials that are recycled in the CtC scenario.
Furthermore, this result is reached without taking into account any form of car-
bon capture and sequestration (CCS). As discussed elsewhere in this volume, mem-
bers of the ELFM Consortium are investigating diverse routes to sequester, use or
offset the produced CO2 emissions from the WtE plant. The following routes are
currently being assessed. An indicative assessment of the weight of the various routes
is given between brackets:
• Offsetting CO2 (medium potential): Development of alkali-activation solutions

from recycled materials can replace regular (carbon intensive OPC based cement),
thereby saving on net CO2 emissions (see Van Gerven, et al. in this volume).
• Using CO2 as a raw material (low to medium potential): CO2 fertilisation of
greenhouses for the production of vegetables. The heat and some of the CO2
produced by the energetic valorisation would be fed to 50 hectares of green-
houses, in which vegetables will be grown. This results in net savings on primary
fossil fuel energy to heat the greenhouses. Concurrently, mineral carbonation of
alkaline ELFM residues is an option.
• Geological Carbon Capture and Storage in the Campine basin (high potential):
the CO2 separated from the off-gas of the energetic valorisation plant can also
be used in the context of Enhanced Coal Bed Methane (ECBM) recovery from
Campine coal layers. In this scenario, CO2 is used to flush methane from the
coal layers. During this process, CO2 is bound on the coal matrix and partly
stored in interbedded sandstone layers. This process would imply a net stor-
age and immobilisation of CO2 within deep subsurface (see Laenen and van
Tongeren in this volume for a detailed description and evaluation).
Hence, a first estimation by de Gheldere, et al. finds that, with respect to busi-
ness as usual, the CtC project shows a net CO2 (equivalent) advantage of 1 Mton
CO2 (eq.) over a period of 20 years. Furthermore, this value is found without
using any of the CO2 mitigation options (i.e., CCS, CO2 fertilisation in green-
houses, CO2 gains achieved by cement replacement and mineral carbonation) tar-
geted in the Enhanced Landfill Mining approach, which tries to achieve carbon
neutrality. To conclude, the Carbon footprint study should be seen as a conserva-
tive estimate for the overall CO2 (eq.) gains of the CtC scenario with respect to
business as usual.
During the CtC project’s concept phase assumptions were made on a number
of aspects from which its feasibility was determined. During its validation phase,
various studies on key areas of Closing the Circle as an Enhanced Landfill Mining
project were performed to validate the initial assumptions. Those studies included a
characterisation study of the landfill residues, material recuperation trials, thermal
valorisation tests using the Gasplasma™ technology, a feasibility study on the nature
conservation potential and, finally, a carbon footprint study. The results of those
studies validated the conceptual assumptions and hence established the feasibility of
the Closing the Circle project.
Additional research is, however, still required in order to allow CtC to become
reality. In a large research project the following interrelated aspects are addressed
(see also Jones, et al. in this volume):
• A robust treatment scheme for aged and heterogeneous waste streams;

• Innovative methodologies to convert waste streams into high-value building
materials (see Van Gerven, et al. in this volume);
• Energetic valorisation of the recycling residue using plasma technology, which
focuses on the integrated optimisation of energy valorisation and material recu-
peration (see Helsen and Bosmans in this volume);
• A decision tool scheme to decide if a material stream should be applied in a WtE
or a WtM conversion process (see Van Acker, et al. in this volume).
In parallel, the Closing the Circle project will progress with:
• Conceptual, planning and detailed engineering;

• Going through the process to obtain the required permits;
• Trying to remove non-technical barriers using a multi actor approach.
The procedure to obtain the required permits consists of two major procedures,
which are run sequentially. The first is the planning Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA) during which the destination for the targeted area is altered for the envisaged
period of operation and the project EIA during which the impact of the specific
project on the environment is assessed. The second one is the procedure to obtain the
environmental and building permits. Both permits can be obtained in parallel as soon
as the planning EIA and project EIA have been concluded successfully. Currently, i.e.,
September 2010, the CtC project is in the middle of the planning EIA process.
The Closing the Circle project of Group Machiels is an ambitious, innovative and
by definition sustainable project. Through the collaboration with its strategic knowledge
partners and research institutes, it holds the potential to be developed in a competence
centre for Enhanced Landfill Mining and Enhanced Waste Management and generate a
major shift in both waste management technologies and national and European waste
management visions, contributing to the transition of linear to circular economies.
7.8 I DENTIFICATION AND CONTROL OF LANDFILL FIRES
LFG is a threat to human health and global warming. LFG is a hazard if methane
reaches levels high enough to cause an explosion or a fire. Landfill fires can occur
even in modern and well run landfills, although with good monitoring and site con-
trols they can be prevented. However, they are especially dangerous as they can emit
dangerous fumes from the combustion of the wide range of materials contained
within the landfill.
Since in most cases the supply of air is likely to be small, the rate of combustion
inevitably will be slow. There are a number of possible sources of ignition. These can
include ignition sources buried within the deposit of waste materials, the deposit of
pyrophoric materials e.g., finely divided metal turnings can initiate ignition, fires lit on
the surface of a site, or self-heating and ignition. Oxidising agents which may be present
in some wastes could provide sufficient oxygen to initiate spontaneous combustion.
A fire hazard can exist by virtue of the presence of un-compacted combustible

waste materials in the landfill, the voids in which can provide sufficient air to sup-
port combustion underground. Since the supply of air is likely to be small, the rate
of combustion inevitably will be slow.
Landfill fires often involve PVC due to the fact that there is commonly PVC
present in all domestic and commercial waste. This makes landfill fires a further
source of dioxin. Dioxin builds up in the environment around the point at which it
is emitted making it of concern when it is generated over a long period.
Landfill fires can also be fuelled by methane gas in the landfill and by every com-
bustible element of waste especially by wood and paper debris. Fire is one of the more
serious risks that a landfill will face through its life. Fires are common at dumpsites,
but serious fires are relatively infrequent at well-managed landfills. Landfill fires, can
cause serious damage to the infrastructure of a landfill and can be a major hazard for
site staff. Additionally, landfill fires can create significant problems (in terms of health,
air quality and social acceptance) with the surrounding community.
Materials that are landfilled can be the source of both surface and subsurface fires
and waste typically has a high fuel energy value. Regional landfills can represent a huge
stockpile of flammable material. Understanding landfill fires requires consideration
of the fire triangle: fuel, air, and ignition source. Combustible materials in the waste
such as paper, plastics and wood represent the main fuel. Oxygen is usually present
in the wastes when deposited, or it can be drawn in through the surface. Finally
there needs to be a source of ignition: sufficient heat to ignite the combustible mate-
rial and sustain the combustion (e.g., hot ash), smouldering material, sparks, sponta-
neous combustion chemical reaction, or even arson.
Fire at the landfill

7.8.1 Characterization of landfill fire

Fires at landfills can be classified into four categories, corresponding to the level of alert:
Level 1 Alerts: Small fires occurring on the landfill property, but not actually involv-
ing landfilled waste, compost or stockpiled recyclables, e.g., car fires, bin fires,
equipment fires, office fires.
Level 2 Alerts: Small waste fires that can be contained by on-site resources within 24
hours and fully extinguished within 48 hours. Level 2 fires will typically involve
less than 200 m3 of burning material.
Level 3 Alerts: Medium size waste fires or large fires at compost facilities that can be
contained in less than one week and that can be fully extinguished in less than
two weeks. Typically, 200 to 5,000 m3 of waste material is involved.
Level 4 Alerts: Large or Deep Seated Landfill Fires that require more than two weeks
to contain typically involving more than 5,000 m3 of burning waste.
Fire at the landfill area is shown as below.
Fire at the landfill area
7.8.2 Immediate actions

Fires at Level 2 or 3 alert level have the potential to turn into a Level 3 or 4 fire if an
immediate and effective response plan is not applied. This is the reason why quick
recognition and spotting of fires is essential. The prevention of the escalation of a fire
is related to the delineation of flammable waste, the application of immediate soil

cover, and the potential for access and immediate excavation of the landfill slopes.
It is very important also, in the case of a Level 4 fire, to have ensured exact spot-
ting of the fire as well as an assessment of the current and potential extent it could
attain. Spotting should be linked to mobilization of fire-fighting resources from the
outset.
In any case, the first actions that must be taken at a landfill, during a fire of level 2
or above are:
• Shut-off of the LFG collection and management system (if present).

• Water services must be available for fire fighting, including treated leachate if
available.
• Standby electricity generators should be available for use, in case of power
failure.
The following actions need to be taken in the case of a landfill fire of level 2 or
above:
• Immediate spotting of the fire

• Call to the fire department
• Characterization of the fire – choice of alert level
• Appointment of an incident commander
• Application of communication plan
Protective Equipment to be used in the vicinity of a fire

• Selection of the most appropriate fire fighting equipment

• Activation of alternative working face
• Monitoring of the air emissions and the course of the fire
• Application of the communication plan for the local community
• Application of the evacuation plan for residential areas if necessary
• Use of soil reserves
• Use of health and safety equipment by staff.
7.8.3 Extinguishment methods

The approach taken to extinguishing a landfill fire depends on the type of fire.
Selection may be dependent on the wind direction and intensity, the location of the
flammable materials and the ability to mobilise personnel, fire department equip-
ment and the potential for impact on local communities.
Water Application: Although water is an effective fire-fighting agent for near sur-
face fires, ensuring that water reaches a deep-seated fire can be problematic. Water
tends to flow along paths of least resistance in the waste such as through poorly com-
pacted pockets. This process of channelling can result in significant short-circuiting,
and inability of the water to reach the active burn zone at depth. Water does not
readily penetrate cover layers composed of low permeability soils, especially if the
cover has been compacted by vehicular traffic.
In situations where soil cover is present at surface or at depth, surface applica-
tion of water is often ineffective. However, stripping of the soil cover should never
be considered because it will facilitate air entry, which will accelerate the burn. To
deliver water beneath cover soils, the preferred approach is to inject water into
wells or other available injection points. Wells can be quickly drilled with a 150
to 300 mm diameter auger rig. Well screens can be dropped into the boreholes to
keep them open. Water can then be deployed into the injection wells from tank
trucks or pumped in directly if a fire hydrant or water body is located nearby.
Large volumes of water may be required as 5000 h of water is required to absorb
the energy released by the full combustion of 1 tonne of garbage. The use of foam
and surfactants can reduce this volume markedly.
The fire fighting team has to consider that the use of large amount of water for
the extinguishing of a fire can produce large amounts of leachate, which may pos-
sibly, overload the leachate treatment facility or require temporary containment or
ponding.
Excavate and Overhaul

For deep-seated fires, where water application may not be an effective fire-fighting
tool the most appropriate method for extinguishing the fire is often to excavate and
“overhaul” the waste. The first step in controlling a fire in such way, is the filling
of parallel trenches previously excavated by the landfill operator. Next, smother the
fire zone with a 2 to 3 m thick lift of refuse or soil and smooth (overhaul) the landfill
surface. These actions reduce the amount of air fanning the burn, reduce the rate of
burn and the amount of smoke that the fire emits, and make the landfill surface a
safer work environment.
Oxygen Suppression: By limiting the amount of oxygen within the burn zone it
is possible to extinguish a landfill fire over time, but this is usually a slow process.
This method is similar to excavating and overhauling, since it is based on the
isolation of the burning section of waste from the rest of the landfill. Isolation is
achieved by excavating around the burning mass, until inflammable material (usu-
ally soil or rock) is found. The excavated trench is filled with low permeability mate-
rial in order to limit the flow of oxygen through the burning waste mass.
After applying this method, long term temperature and gas monitoring data
needs to be collected in order to determine whether the selected method was effec-
tive or not. Also, the collection of the monitoring data indicates when the fire is
extinguished and the materials from the trenches can be removed in order to fill
them with waste.
7.8.4 Monitoring and management

Temperature Monitoring: Monitoring of landfill internal temperature is very useful
for establishing the risk of or extent of a fire, but only if the temperature is measured
at depth. The best way to collect temperature measurements (and gas composition
samples) is to drill a number of monitoring wells in and around the suspected fire
zone. Air rotary rigs should not be considered since injection of large quantities of
air could accelerate the fire and possibly trigger a methane explosion. In any event
safety equipment, including respirators and ventilation fans, must be used by work-
ers during such work.
To keep the holes open, the monitoring wells should be cased, preferably with
slotted steel casing. Thermistors can then be lowered down the holes to measure
temperatures at various depths (e.g., 5 m intervals) within the waste. To prevent con-
vective currents between the various temperature intervals, the installation of foam
baffles on the thermister strings is recommended. A multi-channel read out box is
used to measure temperatures at surface.
Temperature monitoring has proven to be a very useful procedure in pre-
vention of landfill fires as well as in monitoring to confirm that the fire has been
extinguished. In Table 7.5, the relation of landfill conditions and temperature is
presented.
Gas Composition Monitoring: Monitoring of gas composition provides very
useful insight fire conditions at depth and the success of fire fighting measures.
Parameters that must be measured at various times include methane, oxygen, carbon
monoxide and hydrogen sulphide. Of those four gases, the carbon monoxide is the
Table 7.5 The relation between landfill conditions and temperature
S. No. Temperature Landfill Conditions

1. 55C Normal Landfill Temperature
2. 55–60C Elevated Biological Activity
3. 60–70C Abnormally Elevated Biological Activity
4. 70C Likelihood of Landfill Fire
Table 7.6 Relation between CO concentration and Landfill fire
S. No. CO Concentration (ppm) Fire Indication

1. 0–25 No Fire Indication
2. 25–100 Possible Fire in Area
3. 100–500 Potential Smouldering Nearby
4. 500–1000 Fire or Exothermic Reaction Likely
5. 1000 Fire in Area
most useful indicator of a subsurface fire. Table 7.6 shows the relation between CO
concentrations and fire at the landfill.
The presence of oxygen at concentrations above 1% provides an indication that
existing oxygen intrusion barriers (i.e., soil or membrane covers) are not effective in
keeping oxygen out and that additional soil cover is required. On the other hand, a
build-up of methane to levels in excess of 40% is a positive indicator that oxygen is
being successfully excluded and the biological regime is reverting to cooler anaerobic
conditions.
During a landfill fire, sub-surface oxygen levels within the burn area are typi-
cally in the range of 15 to 21% oxygen. As fire fighting and capping efforts progress,
oxygen levels drop consistently and when the fire is extinguished the oxygen levels
typically drop below 1%.
Leachate Management: Application of large quantities of water will invariably
produce leachate. In many cases when extinguishing landfill fires, leachate manage-
ment has proven to be a significant issue.
To minimize the environmental impacts of leachate, recirculation of fire fight-
ing water should be considered on projects where large volumes of water are used.
Recirculation requires that leachate should be directed into settling ponds, prefera-
bly including filtration, and booster pumps may need to be brought on line to enable
recirculated water to augment water supplies from nearby fire hydrants. The use of
foams and surfactants can greatly reduce the use of water for fire control and hence
reduce the potential leachate problem.
7.8.5 Fire prevention and control plan

It is very important for every landfill to have an established and maintained fire pre-
vention and control plan. In this plan, essential issues related to the landfill must
be included such as site characteristics, Fire Fighting Resources, Landfill Fire Alert
Levels, Incident Command Structure, Fire Response Actions and Responsibilities,
Fire Fighting Methods, Landfill Fire Risk Reduction Strategies, Personal Protective
Equipment etc. All site personnel need to be aware of the plan, and trained in its
application.
Checklist to handle LFG Fire: The following checklist can help operators to
assess their readiness to handle a landfill fire and identify possible gaps that have
to be covered. Where “no’s” are ticked in the Table 7.7 remedial action must be
considered.
Table 7.7 Checklist for monitoring landfill area
S. No. Parameters Yes No

Buildings
• Workplace clean and orderly
• Emergency exit signs properly illuminated
• Fire alarms and fire extinguishers are visible and accessible
• Stairway doors are kept closed unless equipped with automatic closing
device
• Appropriate vertical clearance is maintained below all sprinkler heads
• Fire extinguishers are serviced annually
• Corridors and stairways are kept free of obstructions and not used for
storage
• The roads that lead to the buildings are clear and accessible to the fire
engine
Training
• There is a specific training program for fire prevention & extinguishment
• New employees are given basic fire training
• Job-specific fire training held for employees on a regular basis
• Personnel familiar with applicable Material Fire Data Sheets
• All personnel familiar with emergency evacuation plan
• Training documentation current and accessible
• The guests of the landfill are informed that have to follow the staff’s
instructions
Landfill
• There is stockpile of earth close to the working face
• There is on site equipment to move earth
• Alternative working face has been planned
• There is adequate supply of water under pressure for fire-fighting
purposes
• There is a water storage tank for fire-fighting purposes
• Fire-fighting equipment is readily available
• Record-keeping procedures for all fires
• Electricity generators are available for use
• There is suitable access road for the fire engine to reach the working
face and the burning mass
• All the equipment maintenance procedures are followed
• All flammable materials are stored properly
• The most dangerous locations of the landfill for fire, are signed properly
• The emergency telephone numbers (fire department, hospitals, police
etc.) are displayed in approachable places
• There is an adequate network of lightning conductors for protection
from lightning strike
Landfill fires can be prevented and minimised if they begin, when they are
still no more than hot spots in the waste. They cannot occur unless oxygen levels
rise in the landfill. Therefore, action trigger limits for oxygen and methane should
be established as part of the process safety control system and managed by regular
monitoring. In some circumstances this might require alarmed continual monitoring

of critical parts of the LFG field.
If a fire does take place the effectiveness of the fire-fighting measures should
be assessed by long-term monitoring of temperature and carbon monoxide
concentrations.
Landfill fires are usually best be extinguished by smothering with soil, using
heavy equipment and a suppressant agent, or simply temporarily shutting down the
gas extraction system. No one method will work for all conditions.
Subsurface landfill fires also, unlike a typical fire, cannot be put out easily with
water. Very large quantities are needed if any success is likely and it is very hard to
get the water to the seat of the fire before it drains away through the rest of the sur-
rounding waste.
Because landfill fires usually burn slowly and deep within the waste, there is not
normally any visual sign such as smoke. However, knowing where, how many and
the extent of underground fires, is essential to those in charge of containing and/or
extinguishing them once they have started. Infra-red surveys flown at height above
the landfill can be useful to plot the extent of the fire in addition to monitoring the
gas composition inside landfills.
7.9 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF LANDFILL SITE
The successful operation and maintenance of LFG to energy system depends on the
following components:
1 LFG monitoring, using probes typically placed around the landfill perimeter
2 LFG extraction and collection, using wells and piping
3 The collection, pumping, storage, and treatment of LFG condensate
4 The treatment, disposal, or use of LFG using blower, flare, and/or energy recov-
ery equipment.
The system components associated with each of these activities is shown in

Figure 7.8.
Figure 7.8 Typical LFG System Components

The proper management of LFG system components will depend upon factors
such as whether there is energy recovery, the size of the operation, what problems
are encountered, operational objectives, whether a proactive maintenance program
is in place, etc. In general, the following activities should be performed on a regular
basis (i.e., at least annually):
• Monitoring the wellfield

• Monitoring for LFG migration
• Reviewing facility regulatory compliance and permits
• Maintaining the facility
• Minimizing the facility’s environmental impact
• Safety inspections
• Optimizing facility operations (LFG management, energy recovery).
Each LFG operation should also have sufficient personnel to maintain accurate,
timely records of facility performance. Operations and maintenance records should
include the following types of documentation:
• Sheet records (read daily)

• Facility log book (daily input)
• Facility shutdown log records
• Chart recordings records
• Extraction well graphs and logs
• Monitoring probe graphs and logs
• Maintenance schedules and record
• Power sales records
• Calibration records
• Monitoring results for regulatory compliance
• Parts and other supplies inventories
• Purchase orders
• Monthly facility management reports.
The Operation and Maintenance (O&M) manual for LFG to energy system
should include at least the following information:
• Description of the LFG to energy system and its operational aspects

• Spare parts list
• Startup procedures for each piece of equipment, and on-going operating sequence
descriptions for all system components
• Monitoring activities and schedules
• Data recording and reporting
• Maintenance requirements and schedules
• Safety precautions, procedures, and protocols
• Technical support contacts (e.g., equipment manufacturers)
• Alarm conditions and recommended responses (e.g., trouble-shooting, emergency
shutdowns)
• Normal shutdown procedures for all LFG to energy system components.
7.9.1 LFG monitoring system

The monitoring of LFG system is required:
• To determine whether LFG migration exists

• To assess the degree to which LFG migration has occurred
• To figure out whether there is any potential for a gas explosion
• To document how well the LFG system is operating
• To be in compliance with environmental regulations.
The operators should be prepared to trouble-shoot problems that arise from

operating a LFG system. Examples include:
• Repairing broken equipment

• Re-igniting the flare
• Unclogging a blocked pipe
• Odors
• Reduced LFG flow.
Operators should keep good records of trouble-shooting activities to facilitate

the correction of future problems.
In order to perform proper LFG system monitoring, the technician must pos-
sess a thorough understanding of operational principles, instrument procedures and
maintenance, and the instrument operating limitations. Also, data collection person-
nel should ensure that the monitoring equipment is calibrated to collect the most
accurate data possible. For example, readings from portable field instrumentation
can be affected where there is low oxygen, or when working with explosive gases.
Using LFG monitoring probles as a specific example, accurate records should
be maintained including, at a minimum, specific pipe identification (i.e., especially
within a multi-depth probe scenario), probe depth and construction information.
In addition, operational steps associated with LFG migration probe monitoring
should include the following:
1 Measuring and recording probe pressure/vacuum

2 Checking the entire sample train for leaks
3 Purging the probe piping
4 Reading and recording gas composition
5 Resealing the probe once monitoring complete.
The monitoring schedules for various components of the LFG system generally
fall into two categories: routine and accelerated. A summary of typical monitoring
schedules is provided in Table 7.8.
If the extraction system is inoperable for three or more consecutive days a non-
scheduled routine monitoring round should be conducted at all locations.
Extraction system monitoring should be conducted at least monthly for the first
year, depending on the stability of the extraction system flow rates, methane content,
etc. With time, this monitoring frequency may be reduced.
Table 7.8 Typical LFG System monitoring schedule
S. No. Location Routine Accelerated Accelerated Schedule Criteria

1. LFG Monitoring Wells Quarterly Weekly Monitoring well with methane
reading 5.0% GAS
2. On-site Structures Quarterly Daily Interior methane concentration
reading of 25% LEL
3. Blower/Flare Station Weekly Daily Adjustments made to any
extraction system components
(i.e., blower, extraction well)
4. Extraction System (first year) Monthly Weekly Adjustments necessary at
extraction wells
Notes: Accelerated monitoring schedules at the various locations are independent of each other (i.e., on-site
structures can be under an accelerated monitoring schedule while the other locations remain under their
respective routine monitoring schedules).
7.9.2 LFG wellfield, conveyance, and condensate

systems
Landfill managers should always strive to achieve a smooth, consistent wellfield
operation that promotes effective LFG recovery and control. Readings may be taken,
relating to line vacuum, gas flow and quality, at key points along the main gas col-
lection header and lateral branches. By doing so, leaking sections, poor performance,
and pressure drops can be identified.
Normal operating activities associated with the wellfield and conveyance piping
includes:
• Monitoring and adjusting LFG extraction wells;

• Inspecting landfill surface for indications that gas venting or air intrusion is
taking place (e.g., settlement, openings, etc.);
• Looking at wellfields and conveyance piping for any needed adjustments and
maintenance;
• Making sure monitoring instrumentation is operating properly; and
• Keeping thorough and accurate records and logs and scheduling appropriate
maintenance services.
In terms of system maintenance, air leaks are a main concern. These may occur
in the system as a result of settlement damage, conveyance piping expansion and
contraction, system aging, and other factors. By comparing oxygen readings from
the wellhead to access point readings, and looking for increasing concentrations,
leaks can be detected and isolated. Major vacuum loss is another indicator of leak-
ing air within the system. Such leaks are best repaired by replacing the damaged
equipment. It is recommended that oxygen not be greater than 3 to 4 percent by vol-
ume of LFG in the collection piping.
Other maintenance activities associated with the wellfield and conveyance systems
include:
• Repairing or replacing system components (e.g., wellheads, condensate traps,

valves, etc.)
• Reinstalling probes (due to loss, damage, etc.)
• Repairing and adjusting piping supports and anchors
• Re-sloping and re-leveling piping support earth berms
• Removing sludge or particulate from the liquid knockout vessel (visually inspect
annually)
• Making adjustments to the landfill surface (e.g., cover and cap maintenance).
Proper selection of the type of conveyance system pipe material is also important
from an operations and maintenance standpoint. In choosing which pipe material(s) is
most appropriate for a given LFG system, the following factors should be considered:
• Strength (a function of pipe thickness, type, and how installed)

• Chemical resistance (to varying mixtures found in the landfill)
• Weather resistance (minimized through proper storage and installation)
• Stress cracking (due to solvent, environmental, oxidative, and thermal conditions).
Ultimately, how long a pipe material lasts will depend upon the service condi-
tions and the durability of the material.
It is also advisable to check the wellfield and collection systems for unusual condi-
tions and maintenance needs. Unusual conditions would include: cracks and fissures,
subsurface fires, liquid ponding, major settlement, etc. It should also be noted that the
operation of extraction wells at temperatures greater than 145F or 63C may result in
the weakening and possible collapse of thermoplastic well casings.
When repairs are being made to the LFG collection system it is often necessary
to shutdown the blower and flare facilities as well. Such repairs should be coordi-
nated with other shutdown procedures to minimize the down time of the overall
LFG system.
The primary maintenance activities associated with the condensate handling
includes:
• System components replacement or repair (e.g., condensate traps, sumps, pipe
fittings, etc.)
• Correcting condensate blockages.
7.9.3 LFG blower systems

The typical blower is a single-stage or multi-stage centrifugal gas compressor that is
belt-driven or directly-driven by an electric motor. Proper operation and maintenance
of a blower facility requires the following types of activities, on an as need basis (i.e.,
daily to monthly, depending upon the facility design, system components, etc.).
• Checking the pressures and temperatures associated with blower suction and
discharge to make sure there is adequate flare fuel pressure
• Checking for out of the ordinary blower vibration or temperature (weekly)

• Periodically draining condensate from the blower housing.
• Running standby blowers (weekly)
• Checking drive belt wear and tension (monthly)
• Observing the levels of lubricants
• Greasing appropriate equipment parts (electric drive motor)
• Looking at the position and condition of valves (check valve, block valve)
• Determining the quality and temperature of LFG gas
• Monitoring instrument air operation
• Figuring out the status of condensate, LPG, propane, lube oil tank levels
• Monitoring overall system operations.
If maintenance is required, it is important to note all activities in a log book and

on record strip charts, and take all appropriate corrective action as soon as possible.
7.9.4 LFG flare system

Proper operations and maintenance of a flare facility requires a variety of activities,
on an as needed basis (i.e., daily to monthly, depending upon the facility design,
system components, etc.). A majority of the maintenance activities associated with
the candlestick flare (i.e., proper fuel mixing, velocity, quality, flame condition, wear
due to thermal stress) are also required for the enclosed ground flare system. The
operational life of flare equipment can be maximized by operating the flare at the
minimum recommended temperatures for emission control. Other specific operation
and maintenance activities include:
• Checking the alarm or annunciator panel for any system malfunctions

• Observing that the flare temperature is in the proper operating range (daily)
• Inspecting the firing condition of the flare (secondary air dampers and flame)
• Checking the valve position at the flare inlet (for proper flare adjustment)
• Making sure the flame arrester is properly functioning (differential pressure)
• Observing facility flow
• Maintaining the igniter and pilot fuel systems
• Removing any condensate from the flare
• Checking the internal refractory for heat and other damage (Enclosed ground
flare)
• Inspecting high temperature shutdown/switch annually
• Cleaning electrical equipment controls and instrumentation annually
• Inspecting condensate equipment corrosion and other maintenance needs
• Completing a visual and audible check of overall system operations.
If maintenance is required (e.g., replacing corroded pipes, valves, etc.), it is

important to note all activities in a logbook and on record strip charts, and take all
appropriate corrective action as soon as possible. Further, it is desirable to maintain
a minimum methane concentration for good combustion at the flare. About 25%
methane is a practical minimum.
7.9.5 LFG energy recovery systems

When operating the LFG system with energy recovery, it is important to keep the
concentration of methane at a high level (e.g., 50% or more), to manage the flow
of LFG from the wellfields conservatively, and to keep air intrusion into the system
to an absolute minimum. Too much air will inhibit the production of LFG and too
much LFG extraction will reduce the heat value and quantity of available methane.
When maintaining an energy recovery system it is common to have to shut the
equipment down. This should be kept to a minimum since LFG will escape from the
landfill and that energy value will be forever lost. There is the potential for consider-
able odor releases during shut down as well. During such maintenance procedures,
LFG should be redirected to a control device (e.g., flare) to minimize emissions and
migration.
It is typical with energy recovery efforts for operators to have a dual objective
of energy recovery and management of emissions and migration. In such cases, it
is common for operators to pull the LFG easier from the interior of the landfill for
energy recovery purposes, and to pull harder along the landfill perimeter for migra-
tion control. Ultimately, good planning and a proactive maintenance program are
keys to successful energy recovery operations.
Further, it is desirable to maintain a minimum methane concentration for the
successful operation of energy recovery equipment. About 25% methane is a practi-
cal minimum for boilers. Engines typically require at least 40% methane.
Another key to successful facility operation is the proper O&M of the proc-
ess chillers. This is best accomplished by observing operating pressures and temper-
atures and watching for signs of off specification performance such as refrigerant
leaks, a dirty process chiller condenser, an overloaded process chiller, etc.
Likewise, LFG operations are often hindered by excessive engine wear resulting
from acid formation in the engine crankcase. This is best remedied by maintaining
oil temperatures in the 90oC range (i.e., well above the water dew point). Routine
maintenance of the gas compressor components and annual inspection of generator
windings are other keys to consistent facility performance.
REFERENCES
International Solid Waste Association. (2005) ISWA Field Procedures Handbook for the
Operation of Landfill Biogas Systems.
International Solid Waste Association. (2010) ISWA Landfill Operational Guidelines, Ch. 9,
2nd Edition.
IPPTS Associate (n.d) LFG opportunities and Hazards.
Juli. (2009) Landfill Mining – Process, Feasibility, Economy, Benefits and Limitations.
Swedish International Development cooperation Agency (n.d) Dumpsite Rehabilitation and
Landfill Mining, ARPET.
Swedish International Development cooperation Agency (n.d) Dumpsite Rehabilitation
Manual, ARPET.
Tielemans, Y., Laevers, P. and Nachiels, G. (2010) Closing the Circle, an Enhanced Landfill
Mining case study. 1st International Symposium on Enhanced Landfill Mining, Houthalen-
Helchteren, 4–6/10/2010, Belgium.
Chapter 8
Landfill gas case studies
8.1 INTRODUCTION
The recovery of LFG as a source of renewable energy can yield substantial energy,
economic, and environmental benefits. For every 1 million tons of MSW approxi-
mately 0.8 megawatts (MW) of electricity or 432,000 cubic feet per day of LFG can
be produced. LFG projects also improve energy independence, produce cost savings,
create jobs, and help local economies. Internationally, significant opportunities exist
for expanding LFG to energy projects.
In 2005, global methane emissions from landfills were estimated to be nearly
750 MMTCO2E. There is a lot of potential for methane recovery; in 2020, more
than 10 percent of methane emissions will be profitable to recover with no price on
carbon, and about 60 percent will be profitable to recover with a carbon price of
just $30/TCO2E.
As of December 2006, 425 LFG recovery projects were operating in 43 states
of USA. These projects supply 74 billion cubic feet of LFG to end users and gen-
erate approximately 10 billion kilowatt hours of electricity every year. Collectively,
these projects supply a variety of direct-use projects with 230 million cubic feet of
LFG per day. In addition, the EPA has estimated that the environmental benefits and
energy savings from these projects are equivalent to annually: planting 19 million
acres of forest; supplementing the consumption of 150 million barrels of oil; elimi-
nating the carbon dioxide emissions from 14 million cars; or offsetting the use of
325,000 railcars full of coal.
According to the EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP), approxi-
mately 520 landfills are strong candidates for new LFG projects (out of a national
total of 2300). To be considered, a landfill must contain a minimum of one million
tons of waste, be currently accepting waste or have been closed for five years or
less, and not contain a currently operating LFG project. If all candidate landfills are
used for LFG production, the EPA estimates they could generate enough electricity
to power 700,000 additional homes. Because landfill waste continues to emit meth-
ane for roughly 100 years, this could provide a reliable, long-term energy solution
for local communities while cutting off an important source of GHGs.
While initial capital costs to install a LFG project are high, the EPA estimates
that the benefits of LFG capture for direct use can outweigh the costs by as much
as a factor of 10.13 This makes LFG capture appealing not just from an emissions
standpoint, but also from an economic one. LFG can generate electricity at a cost as
low as $0.055 per kWh. The attractiveness of LFG from these two standpoints has
led to successful growth in the industry and a major drop in methane emissions from
landfills over 1990 levels.
LFG recovery projects involve many different types of participants and contribu-
tors, including private and public entities, small and large landfills, and an assort-
ment of technologies and equipment used for delivery, conversion and production.
The types of facilities that use recovered methane gas include: warehouses and other
operational facilities of private manufacturing companies; recreational facilities;
wastewater treatment plants; schools; correctional facilities; and on-site landfill facil-
ities themselves.
The following section examines in detail selected LFG to energy recovery and
utilization projects in different parts of the World. The details such as size of the
landfill, methods and means for collecting LFG, ways in which LFG is used, and the
financial and environmental impacts of the individual projects are highlighted.
8.2 SUZHOU QIZI MOUNTAIN LFG TO ENERGY PROJECT, CHINA
The Mountain LFG recovery Project is a 5 MW LFG to Energy project located on

Qizi Mountain, Mudu County, Wuzhong District, Suzhou City, Jiangshu Province
in China. It is a combination project involving LFG collection, processing and elec-
tricity generation. The power plant captures and uses the LFG to produce electricity
through internal combustion engines and generators. There are four container engine
units installed to generate electricity, each of which has a capacity of 1.25 MW. The
project involves three processes:
1 LFG collection system: The LFG is extracted from the landfill site through a sys-
tem consisting of vertical wells, collectors and piping.
2 Processing system: The extracted LFG is then pre-treated by a processing sys-
tem. Water and impurities are removed and LFG is left with a high concentra-
tion of methane.
3 Energy generation system: Finally, the LFG is combusted to produce heat energy
which is converted into electrical energy. The generated electricity is transferred
to the distribution and controlling system and is directed to Suzhou City local
power grid.
The electricity is exported to Suzhou City local power grid, part of the East
China Power Grid. The project is projected to generate 23,963 MWh per year on
average, displacing approximately 117,477 tonnes of GHG emissions (GHG)
annually.
8.3 TÂRGU MURES, LFG TO ENERGY PROJECT, ROMANIA
The LFG recovery and utilization project in Târgu Mures in Romania is developed
and implemented under Joint Implementation (JI) between Denmark and Romania.
This project is one of the first LFG utilization projects to be implemented under JI
in Romania. The project involves utilization of four existing district heating plants,
Landfill gas case studies 287
replacing part of the natural gas demand at the plants and reducing methane emis-
sions from the landfill.
The LFG Extraction and Utilization Project in the Târgu Mures is divided into
two components. The first component comprises the installation of approximately 50
gas extraction wells through the depths of the landfill, collection pipes from the well
heads, and the establishment of a Measuring, Pumping and Regulation module on
site. This first component has the capacity to extract the estimated quantity of LFG
and flare it if needed. The second component comprises the installation of a 6.5 km
LFG pipeline, which leads from the LFG plant to the City’s four District Heating
Plants. The vast majority of LFG is delivered to the two existing and two new boilers
at the District Heating Plants, where LFG is mixed with the natural gas supply.
The advantages of the project are the cost savings for the City in utilizing a local
energy resource and reducing payments based on the replaced natural gas and reduced
GHG emissions generated from the utilized methane. The project is expected to
extract around 41,000,000 Nm3 of LFG during the period from 2007 to 2012. It is
expected that around 90% of the extracted LFG will be utilized in the existing district
heating plants in Târgu Mures, replacing approximately 559 TJ from natural gas dur-
ing the same period. The total expected emission reductions from this the project are
280,000 tons CO2 equivalents.
8.4 WINGMOOR, LFG TO ENERGY PROJECT, UK
At Wingmoor Farm the LFG is collected from a network of gas wells drilled into the
capped and operational areas of the site. The gas control system collects over 1,700
cubic metres per hour of LFG. This equates to a reduction of 96,000 tonnes of car-
bon dioxide emissions a year, equivalent to 300 million miles of car travel emissions.
The collected LFG is being used to fuel three spark ignition gas engines generating
3,000 kilowatts of electricity. This electricity supplies the grid with enough power to
supply over 3,000 houses.
At Wingmoor Quarry the LFG is also collected from a network of gas wells drilled
into the capped and operational areas of the site. During 2010, there was a significant
investment in expanding the gas control system, resulting in collection of 600 cubic
metres per hour of gas. This equates to a reduction of 36,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide
emissions a year, equivalent to 100 million miles of car travel emissions. The collected
gas is being used to fuel a recently installed spark ignition gas engine generating 1 kilo-
watts of electricity. This electricity supplies the grid with enough power to supply over
2,000 houses based on the average electricity consumption of a household.
8.5 MCKINNEY LFG TO ENERGY PROJECT, TEXAS, USA
This LFG to energy project is spread across 65 acres landfill site in McKinney,
approximately 30 miles Northeast of Dallas, Texas. Between 1968 and 2008, approx-
imately 6.7 million tonnes of waste have been deposited at the McKinney site, which
up to 2004, was all municipal waste. In August 2008, the McKinney project was set
up to capture, pipe and combust the LFG. The emission reductions have been 32,000
tCO2 equivalent.
8.6 LUBNA, SOSNOWIEC AND LEGAJNY LFG TO ENERGY

PROJECT, POLAND
The landfill projects are located in Lubna, Sosnowiec and Legajny and are one of
several collaborative landfill projects between Denmark and Poland. The gas is
transported from ‘wells’, to a new boiler house in which a generator converts it to
electricity and heat. The electricity and heat are distributed to the supply grid, where
it replaces heat and electricity produced from coal and oil, thus reducing Poland’s
emissions of GHGs. The technology is manufactured in Poland by local compa-
nies, but the landfills are operated by the Danish owned company Hedeselskabet
Polska. At the three landfill sites, 250,000–300,000 tonnes of waste are deposited
annually. The project supply electricity to about 10,000 house holds from the three
landfills. The GHG emissions reduction is estimated to about 622,000 tonnes CO2
equivalents.
The JI project will generate CO2 emission credits corresponding to a total of
622,000 tonnes of CO2. equivalents. The reduction of methane gas emissions is pro-
viding a number of significant improvements for the local environment. The odour
from the landfill is heavily reduced, and risk of fires and explosions caused by pock-
ets of methane at the landfill sites is minimized.
8.7 PALEMBANG LFG TO ENERGY PROJECT, INDONESIA
The project involves the installation of LFG collection system and an enclosed
LFG Flaring facility which destroys the methane gas generated from the City of
Palembang’s landfill, in southern Sumatra. LFG is collected and utilized for the gen-
eration of electricity required to meet the load of the facility. The best Practices at
the landfill site involves, increasing cell height, compaction, environmental closure of
cells, and landfill mining to achieve volume reduction.
The project will improve the living and working environment for the landfill
workers and the surrounding community through a Community Development Plan
(CDP). The Asia Pacific Carbon Fund is co-financing carbon savings equivalent to
95,000 Certified Emission Reductions. The estimated CO2 savings to 2012 is 280,075
tCO2e. ADB is providing technical assistance to this project through the Technical
Support Facility (TSF).
8.8 MONTEREY REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

LFG TO ENERGY PROJECT, MARINA, CA
In 1983, the Monterey Regional Waste Management District (MRWMD) developed

one of the first LFG to energy plant. The District’s LFG system now collects 610
million cubic feet of gas per year from waste buried since the Monterey Peninsula
Landfill opened in 1966.
In 1994, the project was expanded. A new 3,200-sq.-ft. building was constructed
to house up to four engine generators and switchgear equipment. A third generator
was installed, enlarging the overall production capacity of the facility to 2,100 kW.
The expansion of the project enabled the District not only to produce enough power
to meet all of its own needs but also to generate a greater surplus of electricity to
sell. The MRWMD was the first in the U.S. to use Austrian-made Jenbacher engines.
They were installed in 1997, 1998 and 2002. In early 2006, the District replaced the
first engine with a new CAT 3520 LFG engine which delivers twice the amount of
electricity over the original engine.
Currently, the system collects more than 1.5 million cubic feet of gas per day
from a 120-acre area containing waste buried for nearly 40 years. It includes 41 hor-
izontal and vertical gas wells in the active areas of the landfill. Instruments monitor
each well and collect data to allow maximum production and ensure minimum gas
emissions from the landfill to the environment. The project’s four generators now
provide approximately 4.6 megawatts of clean alternative power, meeting all of the
District’s own power needs and supplying electricity for nearly 4,000 homes. Heat
exchangers capture waste heat from the radiators and send it to District buildings
for heating and to produce hot water. By using its own power, the District saves
approximately $230,000 per year. During the 2006–07, gross revenues from electric-
ity sales totaled $1.75 million. Total power produced since 1983 is over 320 million
kilowatt-hours and total project revenues have surpassed $17 million.
8.9 LA PRADERA LFG TO ENERGY PROJECT, COLOMBIA
This project enables efficient LFG management at two landfill sites which service
the metropolitan area of Medellin in Colombia. The first site is located in Curva de
Rodas and was closed in 2003 after 19 years of operation in which approximately
9.6 million tons of municipal waste were received at the site. The second landfill site
is La Pradera which became operational in 2003 and currently receives 2,300 tons
of waste a day. Through this project, a state of the art LFG recovery system and
an enclosed flare combustion station have been installed at both sites, which will
extract and destroy 99.99% of the LFG. The La Pradera project was initiated by the
University of Antioquia which is also based in the city of Medellin. This project is
registered with the (CDM).
8.10 BANDEIRANTES LFG TO ENERGY PROJECT, BRAZIL
São Paulo, Brazil’s largest city has around 11 million inhabitants, generating about
15,000 tonnes of waste per day and disposed in landfills. Upto one third of the
urban waste is deposited in the Bandeirantes landfill on the outskirts of São Paulo.
In order to counteract this problem, the gases produced in the Bandeirantes landfill
are now being captured and used to generate power. With a total capacity of 22 MW,
this LFG recuperation plant produces of around 170,000 MWh of electricity every
year – enough to supply about 100,000 inhabitants of São Paulo – whilst at the
same time significantly reducing LFG. In addition, the extra revenue generated by
the city administration makes it possible to finance improvements to the local infra-
structure, social measures which are particularly designed to help the people who
live in the direct vicinity of the landfill. The avoided emissions are 7,494,404 tCO2e
and the crediting period is 7 years (2004–2010).
8.11 DUNSINK LFG TO ENERGY PROJECT, NORTH DUBLIN
The Dunsink landfill site, located in north Dublin, contains about 5 million tonnes
of waste. LFG is recovered from the site to generate 4.8 MW of power. The equip-
ment was commissioned in 1996. Fingal County Council own the landfill site,
thereby providing the site and the gas. The council takes a share of the profits from
electricity sales. The LFG collection system consists of 7 km of piping, which encir-
cles the site and runs off to 120 individual wells from which LFG is drawn. Each
well is drilled to a depth of 20 metres and contains a slotted pipe, 90 millimetres in
diameter into which the gas migrates. The vertical pipes are surrounded by gravel
to filter out particulate matter. The pipes run back to 11 manifold or gas collection
points, which contain infrared gas analysers that provide a breakdown of the LFG
constituents. Gas from the collection system is pumped back to 4 turbo-charged,
inter cooled spark ignition engines.
The total investment costs for the plant was in the region of IR£3.5 million. Annual
operating costs are estimated at IR£850,000. Revenue is generated through electricity
sales by 15 year power purchase agreement at an average rate of IR£0.042. A payback
period of 5 years has been estimated for the plant. The landfill site yields 3,000 cubic
metres of LFG per hour.
8.12 LFG TO ENERGY PROJECT, NIAGARA
The Niagara Waste Systems Landfill (NWSL) has been in operation for over twenty
years, receiving commercial, industrial, and municipal wastes. In 1996, a temporary
LFG collection system was installed in the landfill to collect and flare LFG primarily
from the leachate collection system manholes. In 2002, IGRS completed construc-
tion of a permanent LFG collection system at NWSL (Refer Figure 8.1). This system
collects and processes the LFG for utilization in the boiler system at the Abitibi-
consolidated mill in Thorold, Ontario. The LFG is conveyed in a 3 km dedicated
pipeline from the landfill.
The project provides several benefits including destruction of more than 230,000
tonnes of CO2e of methane per year, displacement of natural gas (a non renewable
resource) at Abitibi-Consolidated, gas and odour control at the NWSL, improved
safety at the landfill; and economic efficiencies related to combined LFG compression
equipment at the operations of LFG control at NWSL and fuel supply at Abitibi.
In 2003, IGRS expanded the utilization system which resulted in gas delivery
increasing to 4250 m3/hr. In 2007, the LFG collection, gas plant, and pipeline systems
expanded to accommodate an additional 2100 m3/hr of LFG to be sent to Abitibi.
8.13 MCROBIES GULLY LFG TO ENERGY PROJECT, TASMANIA
LFG to energy plant has been installed at the McRobies Gully landfill, Tasmania
that extracts methane and converts it into electricity. The plant is a 1 megawatt elec-
tricity generating facility, producing enough power to supply around 1000 average
Tasmanian homes per year. In 2004, flaring tests were conducted, which provided
information about the amount of LFG capable of being extracted, and aided in iden-
Figure 8.1 Niagara LFG to Energy Technology
tifying the size of the electricity generator. The generator was installed in 2006. Since
then the plant has produced enough electricity to power 3200 average Tasmanian
homes, and destroyed GHG’s equivalent to removing over 46,000 vehicles from the
road. The project also provides environmental benefits by producing electricity that
would have otherwise been created by other means, displacing a further 7000 tonnes
of CO2e. The project is ongoing, and LFG will continue to be extracted for many
years to come.
8.14 CITY OF BERGEN LFG TO ENERGY PROJECT, NORWAY
The Raadalen power plant runs on gas from a landfill site outside the city of Bergen,
the second largest city in Norway. The project was started in 1993, and has been car-
ried out in collaboration with the local authorities, who built the LFG collection sys-
tem. Gas is drawn from the landfill and supplied to the power station at 50 mbar g by
means of centrifugal blowers; it is then compressed to 3.8 bar g. After compression,
the gas is chilled to approximately 2ºC in two stages, in order to dry the gas. Following
this, the gas is heated to further reduce the relative humidity of the gas. Gas pressure to
the engine, after filtration and drying, is approximately 3.5 bar g (Refer Figure 8.2).
The engine is an Ulstein Bergen AS spark-ignition, lean-burn gas engine, spe-
cially tuned for running on LFG. The engine is based on a diesel/heavy fuel oil
engine. It is designed to operate for long intervals between overhauls, and is suited
for base load power generation under varying conditions. The annual electricity pro-
duction is 10.4 GWh. The annual gas consumption is 5.44 million Nm3. The annual
energy consumption is 28 GWh and the electrical efficiency is 37%. The net electri-
cal output from the plant is 1.3 MW. Heat can be utilised from the engine’s exhaust,
lubricating oil system, cooling water system and air cooler. Part of the heat generated
Figure 8.2 Raadalen LFG to Energy flow diagram
by the engine (60%) is bought by the local authorities for use in a nearby agricul-
tural college, while the remaining 40% is available for other purposes.
The total cost for additional investment in buildings, power generation and
ancillary plant, excluding VAT, was approximately US$ 1.46 million (1993 prices).
Operating costs, based on the exported power and including consumables, have
amounted to around US$ 0.01/kWh. Exported power is sold to Bergen Lysverker,
the local utility company, at a price equivalent to approximately US$ 0.03/kWh,
based on a ten-year contract.
8.15 NOVAGERAR LFG TO ENERGY PROJECT, BRAZIL
The NovaGerar project in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil collects LFG from two dumpsites
through LFG collection system and a modular electricity generation plant at each
landfill site. The generators combust LFG to produce electricity for export to the
grid. Combustion and flaring together will reduce emissions of 12 MT over the next
21 years. The project was the first landfill project registered with the UN and now
has a total of 148,833 CERs issued over the first two annual crediting periods and
another 82,606 CERs awaiting issuance request in the third crediting period. With
full anticipation of having the third period CERs issued this put the project at a
total of 231,439 CERs issued within 3 years. The expected final capacity will be
12 MW. The project was initially expected to reduce 670,133 tCO2e per year over
the crediting period. By collecting and combusting LFG, the NovaGerar project’s
sanitary landfills will reduce both global and local environmental effects of uncon-
trolled releases of pollutant gases.
8.16 ETHEKWINI LFG TO ENERGY PROJECT, DURBAN
The Durban (eThekwini) municipality will capture LFG from three landfill sites to
generate 10 MW of electricity. The gas is captured by sinking wells up to 40 m deep
in the landfill waste sites and through inter-connecting pipes linked to an under-
ground main gas collector and extracted via a roots blower system which maintains
a partial vacuum in the pipes resulting in the gas being sucked out of the landfill.
Moderate speed (1500 rpm) spark ignition engine generators will be installed at the
three sites to generate electricity for the local grid network. The threes sites are La
Mercy located at 35 km north of Durban, Bisasar Road some 7 km from the Durban
CBD (Central Business District) and; Mariannhill located in the western area of the
Durban Unicity around 20 km to the west of Durban in the Metro area formerly
called the Inner West City Council (IWCC).
The project has two components, one covering the Mariannhill and La Mercy
landfills, will generate 700,000 tons of emission reductions. Component two, the
Bisasar Road Landfill, will generate 3.1 million tons of emission reductions. The
Prototype Carbon Fund will purchase 3.8 million tons of GHG emission reduc-
tions from the project at a price of US$3.75 per ton of CO2e. This provides 55% of
the income from the project. The project will benefit from the CDM of the Kyoto
Protocol, the 1997 international agreement to limit the emissions of climate alter-
ing GHGs. Under the provisions of the agreement with the World Bank an addi-
tional US$0.20 per ton of CO2e will be paid for additional social benefits aimed at
poverty reduction and addressing the needs of poor and disadvantaged people in
eThekwini. The projected capital cost is R 106.8 million with Internal Rate of Return
as 16%, Power Purchase Tariff at R 0.13/kWh, annual power sales (estimated) R 8
million and annual income from CO2 emission reductions at (averaged) R 9.5 million.
8.17 HOROTIU, HAMILTON LFG TO ENERGY PROJECT,

NEW ZEALAND
The Hamilton City Council signed an agreement with its local electricity distribu-
tion network company and a LFG developer, to develop a LFG to energy project
at Horotiu, near Hamilton in 2001. A gas engine and generator was installed at
the site in 2004. The generator is rated at 920 kW. In early 2005, it was running at
around 750 kW (enough to power about 820 homes). Over time, annual cost savings
have steadily increased, and are presently in excess of $500,000 per annum. The
landfill generator will supply around 8 million kWh per year of electricity and will
displace the equivalent amount from national generators. The Council supplies the
LFG to WGE and purchases the electricity for use in its facilities at a fixed price.
The landfill contains more than 600,000 tonnes of waste. Around 650 to 750 m3
of LFG is collected per hour for energy conversion from the vertical collectors in
the landfill. Once the last stage of the landfill is completed total LFG generation is
anticipated to be more than 1,000 m3/hr. In addition to converting methane into less
harmful carbon dioxide, it helps displace generation requirements in New Zealand.
The project has an expected life of twenty years and over that time will deliver sig-
nificant cost savings that will benefit the community. Electricity supplied from the
landfill is not subject to the carbon tax charge and this alone could generate signifi-
cant savings. National electricity costs are expected to increase from current levels,
and this will further improve the cost effectiveness of the project.
8.18 ARTHURSTOWN LFG TO ENERGY PROJECT, IRELAND
Arthurstown Landfill is located in Kill, Co. Kildare and is Ireland’s largest waste dis-
posal facility with a total area of 180 acres. It caters for the municipal waste disposal
needs of the greater Dublin region and is licensed by EPA to accept 600,000 tpa of
municipal nonhazardous baled waste. The landfill was developed adjacent to an old
small dump. This was remediated prior to development of the new landfill. The site
is a fully engineered landfill that is designed, built and operated in accordance with
the EU Landfill Directive on the Landfill of Waste. The landfill has a large LFG uti-
lisation plant comprising eleven engines and two 2,500 m3/hr enclosed flares. The
utilisation plant peaked at 13.2 MW and in the year 2010 generated 10 MW of elec-
tricity which was exported to the National Grid. Overall project works value at
est a50m.
8.19 ANO LIOSSIA LFG TO ENERGY PROJECT, GREECE
One of the largest sanitary LFG power exploitation plants worldwide has been
operating now in Greece, in the Sanitary Landfill of Ano Liossia. This pioneer
project, which has been operating since 2001, has expanded in 2007. The electricity
production plant started its commercial operation in March 2001, with an installed
nominal power of 13.8 MW, while its recent expansion of 9.7 MW raised its total
nominal power to 23.5 MW, rendering the plant in one of the largest of its kind
worldwide.
The investment for the expansion project ranged around 14.892.000 a and the
connection cost to the grid was 669.345 a, raising the total construction cost to
15.561.345 a. The project was granted with 5.956.800 a by the Operational Program
“Competitiveness” plus 301.205 a for the connection to the grid, so a total of 6.258.005 a
was public financed (40.2%). The rest of the required capital was private. The total
investment cost, including the initial installation, was 35.5 million a and was granted
by the Ministry of Development for 45% of the construction cost. The cogeneration
plant includes the expansion of the existing LFG network with new vertical wells
(211) and horizontal network (the total number of LFG wells is higher than 600) and
the construction of a new cogeneration plant, with four additional gensets, with a
capacity of 2.433 kW each, with a total capacity of 9.7 MW, installed in an enclosed
building of 1.200 m2. The electricity produced is sold to the Hellenic Transmission
System Operator S.A., while the thermal energy is produced as hot water from the
discharged heat of the gensets.
8.20 PUENTE HILLS LFG TO ENERGY PROJECT, CALIFORNIA
Puente Hill landfill is owned and operated by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angles
County. It encompasses an area of 1,365 acres, only half of which is ear-marked for
use as landfill. The landfill receives 12,000 tons of waste per day. Part of the landfill
is already closed and producing 27,000–28,000 CFM gas. The gas collected from the
landfill is delivered to the Puente Hills Energy Recovery Facility, where it is burned
in a boiler to produce steam which is fed to a turbine generator set (two steam boil-
ers each of the rating of 264,000 lb/hr at 1000F and one turbine of 1850 lb/hr.).
The power generation is close to 50 MW which makes it the largest LFG to Energy
Facility in the world. The landfill started commercial production of power from
in 1987. The complete power plant was financed by the Banks and the plant has
repaid all the money within first 5 years of its operation. The total cost of the project
including interest which was repaid to bank was nearly US$ 35 mln. The company is
selling power to the grid at 8 cents/kW-hr.
The company also has a CNG facility producing 100 cfm of high quality CNG
containing on an average 97.5% methane. In this facility methane gas coming from
landfill is dewatered, purified by membrane purification technology which requires
minimal maintenance, and pressurised to produce high quality CNG. The total
project cost of this component was approximately US$ 1 million. The facility is pro-
jected to be capable of producing clean fuel at an equivalent gasoline cost in the
range of US$ 0.5–1.0 per gallon. The Puente Hill Landfill has the capacity to provide
environmentally sound disposal for the residents and business of Los Angeles county
until the year 2013.
8.21 GREATER SUDBURY AND HALTON REGION,

LFG TO ENERGY PROJECT, CANADA
The first of its kind in Northern Ontario, the LFG generation plant at the Sudbury
Landfill is an innovative initiative that captures methane gas from the municipal
landfill to create electricity. The project was launched in September 2007 and is a
partnership between the City of Greater Sudbury, Greater Sudbury Utilities and
Toromont Energy Limited. The gas generation plant operated at 1.2 MW in 2007,
and will operate at 1.5 MW in 2008, and achieve full capacity of 1.6 MW in 2009.
At full capacity this represents the amount of electricity required to power approxi-
mately 1,200 homes for a year. The generation system is designed to accommodate a
second engine which Greater Sudbury Utilities plans to add in five years. This project
will reduce overall demand for fossil fuels. The new plant will now burn the methane
in a reciprocating engine to generate electricity.
Oakville Hydro Energy utilizes LFG in Halton Region. The project was
launched in July 2007, it was generating as much as 2.1 megawatts of electricity, or
enough green power for up to 1,500 homes. Nearly 80,000 tonnes of carbon diox-
ide is eliminated that would otherwise be released into our air. The project has been
implemented in two phases. In Phase 1, the collection of LFG, took place Halton
Region has installed over three kilometres of piping within the buried waste at the
Halton Waste Management Site. This allows the gas to flow, under vacuum, from
the landfill’s interior to the enclosed flaring system. The project has resulted in the
annual elimination of over 4,000 tonnes of methane that would otherwise have
been released into the environment which has the equivalent impact of removing the
annual emissions of 15,000 vehicles or planting 9,000 hectares of forest.
8.22 CHELYABINSK LFG TO ENERGY PROJECT, RUSSIA
The LFG utilisation project in Chelyabinsk is a Joint Implementation project devel-

oped between the Russian Federation and the investor countries and companies of
the Baltic Sea Region Testing Ground Facility (TGF) and the Danish Environmental
Protection Agency (DEPA). The project proposes to build and operate installa-
tions for the extraction and utilization of LFG at the site. The technology proposed
for the extraction and utilisation of LFG can be regarded as standard technology
commonly used in the EU. The basic operational principle is the generation of vac-
uum in the waste mass allowing extraction of LFG. The main components of the
active collection system to be installed are the gas extraction wells and collection
piping, the gas pumping equipment (mechanical blowers), which create a suction
pressure in the system necessary for extraction of the LFG, the gas treatment unit
including the condensate and gas utilization unit (for production of heat and elec-
tricity), and monitoring and control system. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from
the “business as usual case (BAU)” currently employed by the municipal landfill
of Chelyabinsk will be reduced through the collection of LFG and the subsequent
destruction of the methane component in a gas engine.
The investment project is estimated to result in an emission reduction of 200,000
tCO2e p.a. over the Kyoto commitment period. The emission reductions will be pur-
chased jointly by the TGF for the account of its investors and DEPA for the account
of Denmark. The project investment represent a capital investment of a3.3 million.
The projects are financed through a mixture of own equity, loan financing and carbon
finance contribution from the TGF and DEPA.
8.23 TORUN LFG TO ENERGY PROJECT, POLAND
The project demonstrates the recuperation of energy from LFG in a CHP application.
The project is located within the municipality of Torun, northern central Poland, at
the municipal landfill site. The landfill in Torun covers an active area of approxi-
mately 9 hectares. It has been in use since 1964. The present total amount of waste
is approximately 1,500,000 tonnes. The project was commissioned in September 1997.
The novel feature of the system is the automatic regulation in the gas recovery module.
This regulation system provides individual measurements of gas flow and gas quality
for each extraction well, as well as the combined total. The extraction system consists
of 40 extraction wells and associated piping to the Gas Recovery Module. The extrac-
tion wells are 12–20 meters deep. Each well is filled with filter gravel or similar mate-
rial, surrounding the extraction pipe. The top of the well is sealed with clay to prevent
entrance of atmospheric air. Each well is connected to the Gas Recovery Module by a
standard gas pipe. The Gas Recovery Module contains the entire process equipment
for pumping, filtering and analyzing the gas extracted from the landfill. An automatic
FROM 15KV TO 15 KV PUBLIC CRID

PUBLIC CRID
Gas Extraction Wells
40 Wells
40 Suction Lines
Transformer 15/0.4 kv Transformer 15/0.4 kv
45 kw 551 kw – 800 kVA
Extraction Module
Connection to District
Heat Exchanger Heating System
Communications Cable
Control
Gas Transmission Line. 320 cubic meters/h Gas Engine, 551 kW el.
Heat 688 kW
Figure 8.3 Simplified process flowsheet of Torun LFG to Energy Plant
control system is installed to regulate the control valves based on gas quality and
oxygen content. The gas compressor is of the Roots Blower type and has a maxi-
mum capacity of 550 Nm3/h at a suction pressure of 50 mbar. The gas is cooled and
the condensate is removed after the cooling. A simplified process flowsheet is given in
Figure 8.3.
The Gas Recovery Module is connected to the CHP plant by a 560-meter long
transmission line. Condensate separators are installed in the line. The core of the
CHP Plant is a Jenbacher gas engine type 312 with a Stamford synchronous electri-
cal generator, having a rated electrical output of 275 to 551 kW. The heat output of
the system is in the range of 350 to 688 kW from the engine cooling water and an
exhaust gas boiler, cooling the exhaust gas to a temperature of 150C. Maximum
forward temperature to the District Heating System is 130C. A rated operational
time of 8,000 hours per year is expected. An availability of 95% has been dem-
onstrated. For an annual power output of 4.5 million kWh electrical and 6 million
kWh heat, Approximately 2.65 million cubic meters of LFG can be extracted.
In a conventional Polish CHP plant over 1,500 tons of fuel oil would have been
used to produce the same amount of energy. Therefore the equivalent amount of pol-
lution from the fossil fuel needed to produce the same amount of energy as the LFG
CHP plant is eliminated. In addition, the atmosphere is relieved of almost one mil-
lion tons of methane which would have been otherwise emitted. This results in savings
of 2,840 tons of carbon dioxide and 53 tons of sulphur dioxide annually. The total
installation cost is DKK 12 million, equivalent to approximately 1.6 million Euro.
The European Commission, DG XVII has supported the project with 35% of the cost.
With the current energy price level in Poland, the pay-back time is about 10 years.
8.24 KRISTIANSTAD LFG TO ENERGY PROJECT, SWEDEN
Landfills are the second greatest methane source in Sweden after agriculture. Collecting
the gas and use it for energy production is therefore very important. The gas from the
landfill in Kristianstad, the capital of the Swedish province Skåne (about 15,000 MWh)
is used for incineration in the district heating plant, together with a part of the LFG
from the plant in Karpalund. The collection of LFG from the landfill prevents huge
amounts of methane to enter the atmosphere and instead it can be used as a source
of energy and thereby reduce the use of oil. The prevention of methane loss is
equivalent to 53,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide (in a perspective of 20 years) and the
substitution of oil with biogas means that an additional 4,000 tonnes of carbon diox-
ide are saved.
8.25 BELROSE LFG TO ENERGY PROJECT, AUSTRALIA
The project is located in Belrose, New South Wales, Australia. The LFG power plant
has a capacity of 4 MW. The project started in 1995. LFG is extracted from the land-
fill site, processed to remove moisture and particulate matter and utilised as fuel for
power generation. The power produced is supplied to the utility distribution system.
The gas extraction system comprises gas production wells drilled into the landfill.
The wells are fitted with wellheads comprising valves and flow meters to control the
flow from each well. An underground pipeline network connects the wells to a cen-
tral gas compression and processing plant. Gas is produced at approximately 50%
methane content. Gas blowers maintain vacuum on the gas extraction system and
compress the gas to the pressure required for supply to the generating plant.
The generating plant comprises four gas engine generator sets. Generation
voltage is 415 volts which is stepped up by the unit transformers for each generator
set, to 33 kV at which it is electrically interconnected with the utility distribution
system.
8.26 ZÁMBIZA LFG TO ENERGY PROJECT, ECUADOR

The Zámbiza landfill is located near Quito, the capital of Ecuador. Operational
from 1979–2002, the landfill site has accommodated five million tonnes of domestic
waste, to a depth of over 20 metres. The project involves methane capture and flar-
ing, using technology from Hofstetter Umwelttechnik AG. Zámbiza has the potential
to support a gas utilisation plant with 2,500 kW installed power. This would be able
to generate an average of 14 GWh/year of electricity. The project has been devel-
oped to comply with the UNFCCC Methodology regulations. The Zámbiza project
is bringing a host of positive benefits for the Quito region. It has the potential to
deliver total GHG reductions of 777,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalents, in the 10 year
project crediting period – ending February 2016.
Methane gas explosions and fires at the site have now been prevented. The sur-
rounding environment has been improved. Local residents are no longer exposed to
the harmful health effects caused by gas emissions which were previously allowed to
escape unrestrained. At the same time technology and know-how are being trans-
ferred to the region through foreign investment capital. It also has had a small but
positive impact on local employment. Ultimately, the Municipality of Quito plans to
convert part of the landfill site into a recreational park for the people of Quito.
8.27 VLIERZELE LFG TO ENERGY PROJECT, BELGIUM
The Vlierzele LFG plant in Belgium was commissioned in 2001. Due to increasing LFG
volumes, a second module was added in February 2002 and was later replaced by a
more powerful unit in May 2003. As a consequence, from 2001 to 2006 the plant’s
energy production increased by 81 per cent. In 2006, approx. 7.6 million kilowatt
hours of energy were produced – enough to meet the energy demands of 1,900 house-
holds. The electrical output/installed capacity is 1,168 kW. The energy production
was 7.6 million kWh (2006). The annual CO2 reduction is approx. 32,000 tonnes (in
2006). The Green Gas Germany GmbH is the operator of the plant.
8.28 ANTIOCH LFG TO ENERGY PROJECT, ILLINOIS
The HOD Landfill is located within the Village of Antioch in Lake County, north-
eastern Illinois consisting of approximately 51 acres of landfilled area. A schematic
layout of the LFG to energy system is shown on Figure 8.4.
The project demonstrates the use of microturbines, fueled with LFG, in providing
electric power and heat for a 262,000 square foot high school. This project included
12 Capstone MicroTurbines™, to turn LFG into energy source for the 262,000-
square-foot ACHS. The gas that is collected from the landfill is conditioned through
a series of chillers that drop the gas temperature to 10F to remove moisture and
siloxane compounds. A schematic diagram indicating the LFG compression and con-
ditioning system is shown on Figure 8.5. An activated carbon unit is also included to
remove additional impurities. The LFG is compressed to 95 pounds per square inch
(psi) to meet the input fuel requirements of the Capstone MicroTurbinesTM.
Excess
Electricity
to Com Ed
35 Gas and Leachate Gas Compression and
Conditioning Building High School
Collection Wells
Microturbine and
Heat Recovery
40% to 60%
Methane
Flare Electricity
HOD Landfill
0.5 Mile Gas to School
Leachate Transmission Pipe Heat to School
Collection Tank
Figure 8.4 Layout of LFG to Energy System
Figure 8.5 LFG Conditioning System

Each Capstone MicroTurbineTM fueled by LFG produces up to 30 kW of three-

phase electricity at 480 volts, using 12 to 16 cfm of LFG for a total of 360 kW of
electricity – enough to power the equivalent of approximately 120 homes. The
microturbine system incorporates a combustor, a turbine, and a generator. The gener-
ator is cooled by airflow into the gas turbine. Built-in relay protection automatically
trips off the microturbines in the event of a utility system outage or a power qual-
ity disturbance. Each Capstone MicroTurbineTM produces exhaust energy of around
290,000 Btu/hr at 550F. The exhaust from the microturbines is sent to the school’s
boiler system. When waste heat recovery is not required by ACHS, the microturbine
exhaust is automatically diverted around the exchanger, allowing continued electri-
cal output. During extremely cold weather, the school boiler system automatically
uses natural gas to supplement the heat output of the microturbines. This project
serves as a model of how a landfill with relatively small quantities of LFG can be
used to produce clean efficient energy.
8.29 CHENGDU CITY LFG TO ENERGY PROJECT, CHINA
Chengdu City Landfill is a sanitary landfill owned and operated by the Chengdu
City Solid Waste Sanitary Treatment Centre. The estimated annual waste acceptance
rates for 1994 to 2010 ranges from 638,000 to 1,277,000 tonnes/yr. The waste dis-
posal area is 35 hectares. The depth of waste is 40 meters (Phase I)/80 meters (Final).
Currently the site has approximately 17.2 million tonnes of waste in place. The land-
fill is expected to close in 2011 with approximately 19.8 million tones of waste in
place. Preliminary LFG modeling estimates that 4,440 m3/hr of LFG at 50% meth-
ane with 65% collection efficiency can be recovered for capture and use in 2010.
After the landfill closes in 2011, the landfill will average approximately 4,000 cubic
meters per hour of gas for over the next 15 years (Refer Figure 8.6). This project
has several co-benefits. Specifically, it will reduce GHG emissions, mitigating climate
change, improve local air quality, and provide a local, clean energy source.
Figure 8.6 LFG Modeling results for Chengdu City Landfill, China
8.30 GAOANTUN LFG TO ENERGY PROJECT, CHINA
Gaoantun Landfill is a sanitary landfill owned and operated by the Beijing Chaoyang
District Garbage Innocent Disposal Center. The estimated annual waste acceptance
rates for 2005 to 2010 ranges from 206,000 to 253,000 tonnes/yr. The waste dis-
posal area is 30 hectares. The depth of the waste is 53 meters. Currently the site has
approximately 5.1 million tonnes of waste in place. The landfill is expected to close
Figure 8.7 LFG Modeling results for Gaoantun Landfill, China
in 2014 with approximately 8.0 million tones of waste in place. Preliminary LFG
modeling estimates that 1,790 m3/hr of LFG at 50% methane with 65% collection
efficiency can be recovered for capture and use in 2010 (in addition to 630 m3/hr
used by the two 500 KW engines) (Refer Figure 8.7). The initial gas production at
the closing of the mine in 2014 would be 1,852 (scfm) and that it would continually
decrease after site closure in that year. The study estimated the production to fall to
528 scfm by the year 2027. The study also estimated that the gas would be able to
supply an additional 3 megawatts of engine-generator capacity.
The original study estimated that the expansion of the electricity genera-
tion project could reduce emissions by more than 300,000 metric tons of carbon
Co2e (MTCO2E) for the period 2008 to 2022 by displacing electricity produced
from other sources. Additionally, it was estimated that direct uses of the gas in
nearby facilities would reduce emissions by more than 200,000 MTCO2E in
other source displacement over the same time period. Together, this project has
the potential to reduce more than a half a million MTCO2E in the period leading up
to 2022.
Phase 1 of the landfill was planned and constructed with 52 extraction wells
converted from passive vents, all installed before waste placement. As of July 2007,
these were collecting LFG. The owners then installed a 500 (kW) reciprocating
engine generator to generate electricity for the leachate treatment plant. A second
500 kW engine was installed in 2009. Phase 2 of the landfill involved installing 24
passive vents, which have been flaring gas as of July 2007.
8.31 MENTOUGOU LFG TO ENERGY PROJECT, CHINA
Mentougou Landfill is a controlled-dumping type of landfill owned and operated by

the Mentougou District Garbage Disposal Center. The estimated annual waste accept-
ance rates from 2005 to 2010 ranges from 206,000 to 253,000 tonnes/year. The waste
disposal area: 13.25 hectares. The depth of the waste is 20 meters. Currently the site
Biogas Generation and Recovery Model
1,000
18,000
Landfill Gas Generation and Recovery (m3/hr)
16,000
800
14,000
Avail. Thermal Energy (MJ/yr)
12,000
600
10,000
8,000
400
6,000
200 4,000
2,000
0 0
2012
2017
2022
Year
Landfill Gas Generation
Recoverable Gas and Thermal Energy
Figure 8.8 LFG Modeling results for Mentougou Landfill, China

has approximately 1.22 million tonnes of waste in place. The landfill is expected to
close in 2011 containing approximately 1.58 million tons of waste. Preliminary biogas
modeling estimates that 500 cubic meters per hour of LFG at 50 percent methane
with 65 percent collection efficiency can be recovered for capture and use in 2010
(Refer Figure 8.8). The potential for reducing methane emissions through both cap-
ture and flaring is up to 395,021 metric tons of CO2e from 2010 to 2028. In 2009,
a 65 kilowatt (kW) microturbine was installed to provide power for onsite facilities.
Construction of a comprehensive LFG collection system is underway and there are
plans to expand the electricity generation capacity.
8.32 GORAI LFG TO ENERGY PROJECT, INDIA
The Gorai Landfill, located outside Mumbai, is owned by the Municipal Corporation
of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) and was operated as an open dump that served the city
from 1972 until 2007. The estimated annual waste acceptance rate from 1972 to 2007
is 9,400 to 251,000 tonnes/year. The waste disposal area is 19.6 hectares. The aver-
age depth of the waste is 16.6 meters. The estimated total volume of waste in place is
approximately 2.79 million m3. Currently, as part of a (CDM) project, MCGM has
closed the site and installed a methane capture and destruction system. The project
study estimates that the Gorai Landfill has the potential to reduce emissions by 2 mil-
lion metric tons of CO2e over the lifetime of the project. These reductions are assumed
to come from flaring between 2009 and 2028. The project has been registered under
the CDM process and is currently recovering an average of 684 m3/hr. The LFG mod-
eling results are shown in Figure 8.9.
The Asia Pacific Carbon Fund provided carbon cofinancing. The fund’s upfront
financing represented 56% of the project’s $ 9.31 million capital cost. In exchange,
the fund secured a portion of the expected future CERs to be generated by the Gorai
project. Construction was completed in 2010 and the landfill closure and gas capture
project is now fully operational. The project was successfully registered as a CDM
Figure 8.9 LFG Modeling results for Gorai Landfill
on February 2010. As India’s first project of this nature, it involved a significant

transfer of state-of-the-art technology and knowledge. The project demonstrated
that the carbon credit finance mechanism can catalyze the environmentally sustaina-
ble and financially viable closure of a problematic dump site, eliminate methane, and
replace fossil fuel electricity generation, all toward reducing GHG emissions in the
atmosphere. Besides improving the overall management of the landfill, the project
supports efforts to replicate the Gorai experience throughout India. The project will
act as a clean technology demonstration project, encouraging the development of
more efficient energy generation using LFG.
8.33 KHMELNITSKY LFG TO ENERGY PROJECT, UKRAINE
The Khmelnitsky Landfill is a sanitary landfill owned by the Khmelnitsky City State
Administration and operated by Municipal Enterprise (ME) Spetskomuntrans. The
landfill was opened in 1956. The estimated waste acceptance rate for 2009 is nearly
93,000 Mg. The waste disposal area is 9 hectares. The annual precipitation rate is
26.4 inches/year. The waste in place is estimated to be 3.1 million Mg in 2009. The
expected closure is in 2010 with approximately 3.2 million Mg of waste in place.
Figure 8.10 LFG Modeling results for Khmelnitsky Landfill, Ukraine
The LFG modeling estimates that nearly 760 m3/hr of LFG at 50% methane with 80%
collection efficiency can be recovered for capture and use in 2011 (Refer Figure 8.10).
Four infrared heaters have been installed in an outdoor landfill garage for bull-
dozers in the City of Khmelnitsky, about 300 kilometers from Kiev. Infrared heating
using LFG is ideal for facilities near landfills with space heating needs. Infrared heat-
ing creates a high-intensity energy that is safely absorbed by surfaces that warm up,
which, in turn, release heat to raise the ambient temperature. The technology is rela-
tively simple and inexpensive, and it can function effectively with a small gas flow.
This is the first LFG-to-energy project in Ukraine and an example of a successful
transfer of appropriate technology.
Ukrainian cities and towns generate approximately more than 10 million tons
of municipal solid waste each year. More than 90 percent of this waste is sent to
landfills. About 140 of the estimated 700 landfills across the country are considered
suitable for extraction and utilization of LFG, with the 90 largest landfills contain-
ing roughly 30 percent of the total amount of municipal solid waste. Several pre-fea-
sibility studies have been conducted at Ukrainian landfills to assess the potential for
project development. Ukrainian landfills face operational challenges making larger
scale LFG energy projects difficult. These factors make Ukrainian landfills excellent
candidates for this technology.
8.34 BELO HORIZONTE LFG TO ENERGY PROJECT, BRAZIL
Belo Horizonte Landfill is owned and controlled by the Municipality of Belo Horizonte.
The landfill operated from 1975 to 2007. The estimated annual waste acceptance
rates for 1990 to 2007 ranges from approximately 3,64,500 to 6,73,800 tonnes/yr.
The waste disposal area is 65 hectares. The maximum depth is 64 meters. In 2006
there was approximately 17.4 million m3 of waste in place. The landfill expects to
reduce annual emissions by an average of 134,160 metric tons of Co2e each year for
ten years, totaling nearly 1.5 million metric tons of Co2e. The assessment report esti-
mated that sufficient LFG could be recovered to generate 9 (MW) of power in 2009.
However, power that could be generated would decrease rapidly after the first few
years of operation as the supply of decomposable waste became depleted. A power

plant of capacity 5 MW is proposed to be installed. The project also intends to make
financial gains through the Kyoto Protocol’s CDM.
8.35 OLAVARRIA LFG TO ENERGY PROJECT, ARGENTINA
This landfill has an active flare-only project under CDM. The National University
of the Central Province of Buenos Aires received a grant to demonstrate that LFG
can be beneficially used to fuel a pyrolysis furnace. The project will relocate a medi-
cal waste incinerator and autoclave to treat waste using 50 m3/hour of LFG. The
medical waste incinerator will treat waste on site that was previously treated at four
different medical facilities located in urban areas. Initially, the project will blend
propane and LFG, but will operate fully on LFG once the gas collection system is
expanded to incorporate a second cell scheduled to close at the end of 2009.
8.36 OKHLA LFG TO ENERGY PILOT PROJECT, INDIA
The Ministry of Environment and Forest (MOEF) is sponsoring a pilot demon-

stration project for LFG recovery from okhla landfill site in Delhi. The project is
being undertaken by Jamia Millia Islamia University and TERI, New Delhi, India.
The objective of this pilot demonstration is to recover the LFG currently being emit-
ted from Okhla landfill site by using Clean Technology (CT) and thereby utilize the
energy from the landfill. The outcome of the study will be beneficial for more than
5,100 urban landfill sites India.
In the pilot demonstration, an active LFG collection system is used, compris-
ing of a series of vertical wells for extracting LFG, piping network and blowers that
connect the LFG treatment, conditioning and flaring system. The basic design of
the pilot plant is done by Jamia Millia Islamia University and the detailed engineer-
ing, fabrication, erection and commissioning is done by CRA (Refer Figures 8.11
and 8.12).
The system consists of a complete module to process the LFG i.e. scrubbing and
moisture removal to the required limit and compress to 50 mbar. The system consists of:
1 Gas flowmeter
2 Gas scrubbing module
3 Moisture removal
4 Gas flaring system
The LFG processing module comprises of the following
1 Gas scrubbing system

2 LFG compression system
3 LFG dryer system.
The raw LFG from the landfill is required to be processed to make it useful for
power generation. This is obtained in this unit by scrubbing the LFG to the required
Figure 8.11 LFG Scrubbing, Conditioning & Flaring System of Okhla Landfill, Delhi, India
Figure 8.12 Graphical representation (3D image) of LFG Scrubbing, Conditioning & Flaring System of
Okhla Landfill, Delhi, India
level, compressing it and then removing the moisture by refrigerated type moisture
removal system.
The system consists of the following:
• LFG scrubbing system

• LFG compressors
• Moisture Removal system (Chilling unit One)

• Interconnecting piping
• Frame and structural
• Necessary instrumentation
• Wires and cables up-to control panel
• Control panel to operate the system.
The control panel is mounted on the system frame to operate it conveniently.

Process Description for LFG Scrubber with pH Loop: In the storage tank a solu-
tion is prepared of 5% NaOH solution. On giving the start command to it, if the
scrubber tank is empty and level controller detects the same, the control panel will
start dosing the pump for filling the scrubber tank till the level controller gives OK
command. Now the scrubber is ready to scrub LFG and automatically it will start the
scrubbing pump and the NaOH solution will start spraying in the venturi and generate
the appropriate suction so that the pressure drop in the venturi is catered for. The LFG
is scrubbed in the venturi section and mixes thoroughly at the throat and the diver-
gent section. The saturated LFG is the passed through the baffles for inter-stage mois-
ture separation. The scrubbed gas is then allowed to pass through the packed column
where the gas passes through the ceramic section and the NaOH is sprayed through
the custom designed spray nozzle. Here the remaining hydrogen sulphide is removed.
Finally the gas passes through the nylon demister bed. The final mixture has
the Hydrogen sulphide in traces ie less than 0.1%. During the process, the alkalin-
ity of the solution reduces and it is compensated by the pH loop and dosing system.
If there is any alarm for level or alkalinity too low, then an alarm is initiated and the
pump will stop working till the corrective action is taken.
The scrubbing system is a combination of venturi jet scrubber and packed beds
to ensure minimum maintenance and reduction of acidic vapors. The objective is to
bring down the H2S to less than 500 ppm from 1.5%. The scrubbing system has the
following major components:
1 Venturi jet
2 Packed bed tower
3 NaOH solution circulation system comprising of Pump, Water tank, Level con-
trollers and HDPE Back up water tank
4 Chemical dosing system consisting of pH controller, Dosing pump and Dosing
chemical storage tank
5 Necessary pipe, fittings, valves etc.
The tower is complete with air inlet nozzle, air out let nozzle, observation port,
maintenance ports and cleaning port, drain and port for spray nozzles, re-circulation
of water etc.
One dosing system is provided to dose NaOH from concentrated NaOH solu-
tion to the tank based on the pH level of alkali solution in the tank.
The dosing system consists of dosing pump, pH sensor and controller to main-
tain alkalinity of NaOH solution tank, necessary pipe, fittings and valves. The recir-
culation pump is of centrifugal type with necessary instrumentation provided in
NaOH tank such as Low level float switch, pH meter for NaOH dosing, level gauge,
float valves.
The LFG moisture removal system consists of shell and tube heat exchangers
(Chilling units) to cool the LFG. The complete unit is mounted on a common skid to
ensure ease of monitoring and maintenance.
The cubical control panel has the necessary ammeter, voltmeter, pH controller
and starters for operation of LFG processing system. The panel operates the system
in sequence and gives alarm for any off design parameter. The panel has all the safe
guards to protect the system from the malfunction, motor running dry, level low etc.
The PLC based panel has necessary audiovisual alarm, annunciations and manual
mode of operation.
The pilot burner is specially designed for LFG, is aspirating type and has high
ignition reliability. When the LFG at required pressure is given to the pilot burner
the air in required quantity is sucked by the burner by aspirating principle.
As soon as the ignition energy is provided by the ignition system, a pilot flame
front is generated and the system is ready to ignite the main flame. On receiving the
signal from the main system for flaring, the solenoid valve is opened and ignition
system is energized and the pilot flame is initiated. The pilot flame is established by
the thermo-sensor fitted on to the pilot flame tube.
After the pilot flame is established the main flame can be initiated by opening
the valve on the main line. The following safety are incorporated in the system:
a) Flame arrestor for flame flash back

b) Non return valve for any flash back of gases
c) Pilot Pressure relief valve for releasing excess pressure in the pilot line.
These safeties are provided in addition to the safety incorporated in the design
of the equipment.
The ignition system is mainly responsible for providing the ignition energy to
the pilot gas so that it gets ignited and generates a pilot flame front. This flame front
is required for the starting of the main flare burner. The ignition system consists of
a) Ignition transformer with panel box

b) HT cables
c) Ignition electrodes.
When a command is given to the ignition system for ignition of pilot gas, the
high voltage is generated across the transformer and supplied through HT cables to
ignition electrodes. A high voltage spark is generated to give the ignition energy to
the pilot gas. As this energy is much more than the auto-ignition energy of the LFG,
the LFG is ignited.
The main responsibility of the gas train is to provide all necessary support to
the gas burner for safe and smooth burning of the gas. Thus it is the most important
subsystem of the LFG flaring system. The gas train in this flaring system consists of:
a) Main line flame arrestor

b) Electrically actuated Motorized valve
c) Moisture trap
d) Non return valve
e) Isolation butterfly valve

f) Diaphragm pressure gauge
g) Pressure switch, flameproof type
h) Flare structure and Necessary piping.
The flame arrestor is a safety device for preventing flashback in the process
equipment. It is recommended for use in venting vessels, storage or transport tanks,
protection of fuel air supply lines to gas burners, and in industrial plants at tempera-
tures not exceeding above 200°C.
For flow measurement of LFG in the pipeline, Venturi type flow meter is used.
It has very nominal pressure drop. This device is used for auditing as LFG is a fuel
and the generation and utilization is recorded. The LFG signal thus produced can be
utilised for operation of any process or gas utilisation equipment. The flow-meter is
differential producing flow-meter and is most widely used in industry for flow meas-
urement applications.
The meter consists of three separate major devices that act on combination to
measure the flow rate. The first device is differential producer, a primary device
called Venturi or Orifice Plate which generates differential pressure proportional to
flow rate. The second device is Differential Pressure Transmitter, which measures
this pressure and generates signal, which is proportional to the flow rate. The third
device is the rate indicator and recorder (optional) which gives the flow rate and
totalized flow in desired engineering unit.
Pre-feasibility studies have completed for evaluating LFG-to-energy (LFGE)
potential at landfills in Pune, Ahmedabad, Mumbai, Hyderabad, and Delhi. These
studies explored the economic viability of several project alternatives, including elec-
tricity generation, flare-only, and a pipeline to a nearby industry. All together, these
sites have a combined emissions reduction potential of 300,000 MTCO2E.
The Gas Authority of India Limited (GAIL) is undertaking an experimental LFG
project at Ghazipur landfill site in Delhi. If the LFG recovery cost proves commer-
cially viable, GAIL will take up more LFG to energy recovery projects across India.
It also hopes to gain carbon credits.
In Delhi, the World Bank and MCD carried out pumping tests at the three main
dump sites in the areas surrounding the city (Ghazipur, Okhla and Bhalswa). Reports
from these tests were finished in 2008. An initial assessment of Ghazipur, Okhla and
Bhalswa landfill sites indicate that the power generation potential is around 2.0 MW,
2.7 MW and 3.7 MW respectively for each of the above sites. The report shows that
a financially viable LFG project could be developed, especially if a local user for the
LFG can be identified.
In Pune, pump test and prefeasibility studies were carried out at Uruli Devachi
landfill site in the year 2008. The LFG estimates shows that it can support a 670 kW
power plant.
A pre-feasibility and pump test has also been commissioned by the US EPA at
the Pirana Landfill in Ahmedabad. Gas flow models and pump tests suggest that it
can support a 1.3 MW power plant initially and 700 kW from 2016.
The US EPA is working with the local government testing the LFG flow at
the Deonar Landfill site in Mumbai. The detailed report from the pump test indi-
cates that the site will generate enough LFG to power two 820 kW generators until
2016, and one 820 kW generator until 2022. The project seems to be economically
feasible.
The CPCB in co-ordination with NEERI and IARI carried out research activi-
ties for LFG recovery at Bhandewadi landfill site in Nagpur, Amravati landfill site
on Nagpur-Mumbai highway and Bhalswa, Delhi in 2004. The CPCB has recom-
mended the adoption of LFG recovery for power generation and development of
guidelines and emission standards to control LFG emissions.
8.37 PRE-FEASIBILITY STUDIES FOR LFG RECOVERY IN

COLUMBIA
In recent years, Colombia has undertaken several activities to advance LFG capture
and use. Pre-feasibility and/or evaluation studies have been conducted at the Loma
de Los Cocos, Dona Juana, El Navarro, El Tejar, La Pradera, and Villa Karina land-
fills, and there are studies underway at four more landfills.
8.38 LFG ENERGY PROJECT IN RUSSIAN FEDERATION
An information center has been established in Russia to help identify clean energy
technologies, particularly those that use alternative and renewable energy sources,
with a focus on methane utilization. The objective of the Clean Energy Technology
Information Center is to monitor the status and development of alternative energy
sources, identify barriers (e.g., technical, economical, legal) hindering introduction
and wide-scale deployment of clean energy technologies, and disseminate informa-
tion to interested stakeholders.
8.39 PRE-FEASIBILITY STUDIES IN THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA
The Korean District Heating Corporation has conducted three pre-feasibility studies
for evaluating LFG at Chuncheon, Gangneung, and Jinju landfills in the Republic of
Korea. The studies recommended the installation of reciprocating engines ranging
from 0.6 to 2 MW of electricity generating capacity at each of the three landfills. The
studies also recommend that developers discuss green power premium pricing with
the Korea Electric Power Company.
8.40 CONCLUSION
LFG to capture and use is a reliable and renewable fuel option that represents a largely
untapped environmental and energy opportunity at thousands of landfills around the
world. As countries begin to implement laws, regulations, and policies to improve
solid waste management practices, promote alternative energy, and address GHG
emissions, the economic viability of LFG to energy projects will improve. Moreover,
creating an atmosphere in which potential investors (the private sector, international
development banks, and financiers) are secure in the technical and policy framework
that supports LFG energy projects will be essential to project development.
REFERENCES
[Online] Available from: adb-apcf.org/documents/download/project_pdf/Landfillgas-reduc-

tion.pdf
[Online] Available from: ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/bioenergy/…/010bm_173_1993.pdf
[Online] Available from: http://adb-apcf.org/projects/
[Online] Available from: http://www.adb.org/documents/information/knowledge-showcase/
gorai-landfill-closure.asp?pkmlshow
[Online] Available from: http://www.arizona energy.org/News04/News%20Nov04/landfill_
gas_becomes_first_ghg_r.htm
[Online] Available from: http://www.carboncatalog.org/projects/hobart-city-council-landfill-
gas/
[Online] Available from: http://www.cdmgoldstandard.org/LFG-Recovery-Suzhou-Qizi-Mou
.450.0.html [accessed 2nd March 2011]
[Online] Available from: http://www.durban.gov.za/durban/services/cleansing/gastoelec/landfill
[Online] Available from: http://www.ens.dk/en-us/climateandCO2/international_climate_
projects/danish_climate_ projects/danish_ji_projects/ ji_project_description/targu_mures/
sider/forside.aspx
[Online] Available from: http://www.ens.dk/en-us/climateandCO2/international_climate_
projects/danish_climate_projects/danish_ji_projects/ji_project_description/lubna/sider/
forside.aspx
[Online] Available from: http://www.greengas.net/output/page36.asp
[Online] Available from: http://www.greengas.net/output/page36.asp
[Online] Available from: http://www.helector.gr/index.php?optioncom_content&viewartic
le&id5%3Axyta-ano-liosia&catid2%3Anews&Itemid9&langen
[Online] Available from: http://www.irenewcorp.com/Insights/Case-Studies-By-Energy-Source/
Piston-Engine.aspx
[Online] Available from: http://www.lacsd.org/info/energyrecovery/landfillgastoenergy/puente-
hillsgastoenergyii.asp
[Online] Available from: http://www.mrwmd.org/landfill-gas-power.htm
[Online] Available from: http://www.nefco.org/tgf
[Online] Available from: https://climatefriendly.com/…/Suzhou_Qizi_Mountain_Landfill_Gas_
Recovery_Project_Profile.pdf
[Online] Available from: kfw-mittelstandsbank.com/…/KfW_Projektsteckbriefe_Brasilien_
Bandeirantes_EN_rev.pdf
[Online] Available from: kristianstad.se/…/4%20Waste%20gives%20Energy%20handout
%202010.pdfWaste gives Energy in Kristianstad, Sweden
[Online] Available from: local-renewables.org/…/Sao%20Paulo%20107%20High%20Res.pdf
[Online] Available from: siteresources.worldbank.org/…/ModelBandeirantesRevised0304200
7.pdf
[Online] Available from: urbanindia.nic.in/publicinfo/swm/annex15.pdf
[Online] Available from: urbanindia.nic.in/publicinfo/swm/annex15.pdf
[Online] Available from: US EPA (2007) Okhla landfill – LFG assessment report, Delhi
[Online] Available from: US EPA (2007) Report of the pump test and pre-feasibility study for
LFG recovery and utilisation at the Deonar landfill Mumbai
LFG recovery and utilisation at the Gorai landfill Mumbai
LFG recovery and utilisation at the Pirana Landfill, Ahmedabad
LFG recovery and utilisation at the Uruli Devachi Landfill, Pune
[Online] Available from: www.ambbukarest.um.dk/NR/…4CD2…/ProjectinTarguMures.pdf

[Online] Available from: www.carbonneutral.com/…/La%20Pradera_US-0912.pdf
[Online] Available from: www.ces-landtec.com/uploads/resources/…/CaseStudy_Nova Gerar_
Brazil.pdf
[Online] Available from: www.cityenergy.org.za/files/resources/re/case_ethekwini.pdf
[Online] Available from: www.comcor.com/projects/IGRSEastQuarry.pdf
[Online] Available from: www.eda-on.ca/…/Oakville_Sudbury_Landfill_Gas_Generation_
Feb08.pdf
[Online] Available from: www.eda-on.ca/eda/edaweb.nsf/0/…/EDA%20Distributor_Feb08.
pdf
[Online] Available from: www.eeca.govt.nz/sites/all/…/biogas-and-landfill-gas-fact-sheet-jun-
05_0.pdf
[Online] Available from: www.ehsdata.com/…/arthurstown_landfill_gas_model_2011-16-02-
11_rev0.pdf
[Online] Available from: www.ens.dk/da-DK/KlimaOgCO2/…/statens…/JI/Lubna/…/Lubna_
web.pdf
[Online] Available from: www.enthuse.info/UK/examples/irl-4.pdf
[Online] Available from: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/…/MIDS_Wingmoor_briefing_
landfill_gas _collection.pdf
[Online] Available from: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/…/MIDS_Wingmoor_briefing_
waste_sites.pdf
[Online] Available from: www.globalmethane.org/Data/LF_CO_La-Pradera_flyer_2010.
pdf
[Online] Available from: www.igrs.ca
[Online] Available from: www.ihs.com/en/uk/Images/McKinney-Landfill-Methane-Capture
(US).pdf
[Online] Available from: www.lgat.tas.gov.au/…/Climate_change_case_studies_-_Hobart_
McRobies.pdf
[Online] Available from: www.mrwmd.org/pdf/landfill-gas-facility.pdf
[Online] Available from: www.nefco.org/…/tgf/TGF%20Project%20Profile%20Chelyabinsk.
pdf
[Online] Available from: www.retscreen.net/download.php/ang/484/3/CHP03-C.pdf
[Online] Available from: www.seai.ie/Archive1/Files_Misc/landfillgasutilisationdublin.pdf
[Online] Available from: www.uop.com/…/UOP-Converting-Landfill-Gas-to-Vehicle-Fuel-
Tech-Paper.pdf
[Online] Available from: www.wasteminz.org.nz/conference/…/Nigel%20Edger.pdf
Capturing LFG to Generate Electricity, the distributor, February 2008
Environment and Energy Study Institute (2009) EESI Biogas Capture and Utilization: An
Effective, Affordable Way to Reduce GHG Emissions and Meet Local Energy.
Methane to Markets. (2009) M2M Partnership Accomplishments 2004–2009
Recovery of LFG from Torun Landfill, Torun, Poland
Williams, J. (2008) LFG to Fuel, Southern Legislative Conference, January, 2008
Chapter 9
Challenges in utilization of
LFG in developing countries
9.1 INTRODUCTION
Landfill Gas (LFG) recovery and utilization is a part of good integrated waste man-
agement for most of the Municipalities and Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) in the devel-
oping countries. However, scientific management of existing and proposed landfill
sites and recovery of LFG in an environmentally sound manner is a challenge in
many developing countries. This is due to lack of technical capability and lack of
financial incentives in these countries. In addition, the governments have not devel-
oped a comprehensive action plan to encourage LFG recovery and use. In this chapter,
an action plan is presented to overcome the challenges to utilization of LFG.
The proposed action plan analyzes various barriers for the adoption of LFG
recovery and utilization in developing countries and provides suggestions to over-
come these barriers. The key hurdles to the implementation of LFG recovery and
utilization projects include technical, institutional and financial barriers. The devel-
oping countries lack technology for LFG recovery and the resulting high costs of
imported technology and equipment further prevents its adoption. There is lack of
skilled personnel for the design, construction and operation of LFG recovery and
utilization projects. Implementation of an LFG recovery and utilization project will
require access to either domestic or foreign capital markets. Most of the developing
countries do not have a national action plan to promote the use of LFG recovery
and utilization from landfills, which has prevented the formulation of a strategy to
address the above-mentioned issues in an integrated manner. The proposed action
plan provides a strategic plan for LFG management including framework for imple-
mentation of the proposed action plan.
It is anticipated that the action plan will provide a framework for international
and national investors and developers in identifying LFG projects that can qualify
for carbon credits under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). Key sugges-
tions are listed below.
1 Widely disseminate the project lessons learned from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency’s Global Methane Initiative (GMI) program in developing
countries and worldwide.
2 Compile a list of landfills in developing countries as per the format of the inter-
national landfill database. The GMI partnership is already tracking and priori-
tizing such data.
3 Collect LFG data from existing landfills in developing countries for the purpose of
improving LFG estimation models that can be used to predict LFG recovery rates.
4 Change landfill operating procedures to convert operations from open dumps to
sanitary landfills.
5 Develop a template that municipalities can use to enter into agreement with LFG
to energy recovery project developers. Developers can be both local and foreign
companies.
6 Provide guaranteed rates for energy and/or gas for the expected life of a project
(not less than 10 years). This may require government subsidies.
7 Draft a standard Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) that can be used by project
developers.
8 Provide a stable financial environment for investors of LFG to energy projects.
This includes a stable sales price for energy, stable or well established tax rate,
and long-term policy that is favourable to private and/or foreign investors.
Each of these suggestions is discussed in detail in the subsequent section for

application in developing countries.
With rapid economic development and increased urbanization levels and mate-
rial consumption, the amount of MSW in developing countries is increasing sig-
nificantly. The disposal of MSW has become an important task for municipalities
and ULBs, since it affects the city development, quality of life and protection of the
environment. A proper MSW management system provides two key benefits. The
first which is most immediately relevant to a citizen is the removal of MSW from his
premises and second is the treatment and disposal of MSW in a way which is envi-
ronmentally sound.
The 4R’s of waste management i.e. waste reduction; reuse, recycling and recov-
ery should be encouraged. Figure 9.1 provides an overview of the main components
of MSW in developing countries.
The MSW generated in developing countries is generally disposed off in unsecured
landfills where it gradually decomposes to produce methane and carbon dioxide,
both considered as potent GHGs. Due to a high proportion of biodegradables, and
the warm, wet climate, the rate of MSW decomposition is faster in developing coun-
tries than in landfills in developed countries. The rates of methane flow can therefore
be expected to peak shortly after a landfill is closed, and afterwards rapidly decrease.
Due to the high rate of MSW decomposition, only large landfill sites will be able
produce methane at a high level over a long period of time.
Many countries regularly capture LFG as a strategy to improve landfill safety,
reduce odors, generate electricity, reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and to
earn GHG reduction credits. The practicalities of running an LFG to energy project
mean that only those sites that are closed or about to be closed should be considered
for LFG to energy projects.
9.2 BARRIERS IN LFG TO ENERGY PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
While the LFG recovery technologies are mature world-wide and there are many
options for LFG recovery and utilization, there are several problems and barriers
Challenges in utilization of LFG in developing countries 319
Figure 9.1 Overview of Main Components of MSW in Developing Countries (The World Bank, 2006)
to using LFG as an energy source. These barriers include technological intricacies,

financial and economic limitations, regulatory issues, lack of awareness, and inter-
connection challenges. These barriers are often interdependent.
9.2.1 Technological intricacies

The technological barriers identified are generally site specific in nature such as:
• Inability to collect sufficient amount of methane gas from a landfill site

• Insufficient amount of methane gas production
• Lack of ability to quantify methane generation
• Lack of consistency in the waste material
• Lack of basic research on the component of the MSW and the LFG generation
mechanism
• Lack of clear estimation and forecast for LFG generation.
The options of LFG utilization mainly includes power generation technology,

industrial fuel technology and vehicle fuel technology.
1 Power generation technology: The LFG power generation equipment and man-
ufacturing technology of developing countries is lagging behind international
levels. Another technical barrier lies in the distance between landfill sites and the
power grid and ease of grid connection.
2 Industrial fuel technology: If there are industries near the landfill site, the puri-
fied LFG can be used as industrial gas of good quality for boilers/kilns. There
is no technical obstacle in the LFG utilization as fuel if there are nearby users.
The limitations for its utilization are purification of LFG and LFG transmission
and distribution. The composition of LFG is complex and unstable, and LFG
contains noxious and harmful gases, so it requires purification before sending to
the user; and the investment for LFG transmission pipes and pressure increasing
system is also high.
3 Vehicle fuel technology: Methane is the main content of purified LFG, which
can be used as an alternate to natural gas. Compressed natural gas (CNG) is
used extensively in vehicles in the developing countries, and converting the puri-
fied LFG to CNG can be expensive.
9.2.2 Economic limitations

The key economic limitations include:
1 High cost of project preparation: The power utility system reform in most of
the developing countries is in its initial stages, there is a lack of a mature com-
mercial market for Independent Power Producers (IPP). In addition, the cost of
developing an LFG power generation project is high, which limits the implemen-
tation of LFG recovery and utilization projects.
2 Lack of financial incentive policies: To encourage the development of LFG
power generation, the standard agreement for grid connection, Power Purchase
Agreement (PPA), the method and criteria for calculation of power price are
lacking. Lack of successful experience in LFG recovery and utilization makes it
difficult to attract private parties to join in LFG recovery and utilization projects.
3 Lack of facilities: LFG recovery and utilization is not included in the construction
plan of old and existing landfill sites and methane is emitted freely. This makes it
difficult to develop LFG recovery and utilization in existing landfill sites.
4 Mechanism barriers: LFG recovery and utilization is restricted due to the lack of
technical/management capacity and investment mechanisms. When the alterna-
tive of not installing any system or simply flaring the LFG is available, landfill
operators are unlikely to invest in an LFG recovery and utilization project unless
it will be sufficiently profitable to justify the capital and O&M costs.
9.2.3 Awareness of regulators and policy makers

There is a lack of awareness of LFG as a renewable energy source. Policy makers
may not understand the full extent of the harmful effects of LFG, particularly with
regard to climate change. They may also not realize how LFG can be used for energy
production. The landfill operators also lack information about cost and performance
of various LFG to energy recovery technologies.
9.2.4 Power system interconnection

Another potential barrier is inconsistent and complicated standards for connecting
LFG power projects to the grid. Because there is typically very low electricity con-
sumption at landfill sites, LFG projects need to sell power to make a project viable.
Presently there are no requirements or incentives to motivate landfill operators to
invest in LFG to energy recovery technologies.
9.2.5 National policy framework

The development of LFG to energy recovery technologies depends on political and
governmental support. There is a lack of favorable policies in most of the developing
countries for LFG recovery and utilization. The government policies do not encour-
age LFG projects in the form of financial incentives, subsidies and support for tech-
nology development and demonstration. The key barriers identified and proposed
remedial measures are given in Table 9.1.
9.3 ACTION PLAN FOR LFG MANAGEMENT
The proposed action plan focuses on the following elements, aiming at the problems
and barriers of LFG recovery and utilization in the developing countries:
1 Legislation, regulation and standard development;

2 Economic incentives;
3 Education and awareness;
4 Information dissemination and technical training;
5 Institutional strengthening and barriers removal actions;
6 Demonstration and promotion activities;
7 Financial arrangement.
9.3.1 Legislation, regulation and standard development

Currently, most of the landfill sites are constructed in a traditional way, which does
not require LFG recovery and utilization and results in LFG emissions. Therefore the
national action plan should pay attention to the following issues:
• To formulate the technical standards for design and construction of modern

landfill sites and LFG utilization projects.
• To develop a national regulation, requiring the utility to purchase the electricity,
gas, thermal or other energy products produced by the old and existing landfills.
• To develop renewable energy laws.
• To set up legislation, which encourages private sector to construct, operate and
manage the landfill site including LFG utilization.
Table 9.1 Key Barriers and Proposed Remedial measures for LFG Utilization
Issue Major barriers Actions overcoming the barriers

LFG Lack of mechanism of coordination Set up coordination group
recovery and management
Lack of capital for setting up (i) increase government input
engineered landfill sites (ii) user charge
(iii) bilateral and multilateral fund
(iv) commercial finance
Lack of successful experiences of LFG Develop demonstration projects on the basis
recovery and utilization projects of international experiences
Lack of operation and maintenance (i) implement the demonstration projects
experiences for engineered landfills (ii) prepare training materials
(iii) build training centers
(iv) conduct the related training
Lack of awareness of harmful (i) propaganda by various media
impacts of emission of LFG (ii) study tours to other countries and
other cities
(iii) print brochures
Lack of model for LFG generation Develop the software and models according
potential to country specific conditions on the basis of
international experiences
LFG Lack of definite and attractive Determine the power price of LFG for
utilization policy of power price power generation
for power Without standard Power Purchase Make up standard PPA
generation Agreement (PPA)
Difficulty in grid connection (i) adopt the power grid-connected policy
of renewable energy
(ii) Mandatory Market Share
(iii) Green power price
Difficulty in determination of Develop suitable models of LFG generation
energy potential due to lack and optimal power capacity
of LFG estimation model
Lack of financial support from Financial support from Government agencies
Government agencies
LFG Lack of purification technology Develop the purification technology
utilization of LFG
as fuel Lack of financial support from Financial support from Government agencies
Government agencies
9.3.2 Economic incentives

Economic incentives are the major driving force for adoption of LFG recovery and
utilization. In the developed countries, the investment and operating cost of landfill
sites are paid by the government or the users. The government pays the cost from
the tax or authorizes the landfill owners to collect the MSW charge. The owners of
landfill sites are also in charge of the building of LFG recovery and utilization facilities.
The major incentives should include the followings:
1 Grid connection policy: Power utilities must buy the electricity produced by
LFG or other energy products with reasonable price, the LFG sales price should
be less than the natural gas price in the same region.
2 Power price policy: the grid connection price is calculated based on payment
for the principal and interest plus reasonable profit. Green Power Price or subsi-
dized price can be adopted.
3 Mandatory Share: The green energy certificate market can also be used to meet
an obligation to produce a specific amount of renewable electricity in a market.
4 Tariff policy: the key equipment used for LFG power generation shares the
preferential import tariff and the import value added tax.
5 Investment policy: LFG power generation project to support and offer interest
subsidy.
9.3.3 Education and awareness

The following activities for the education and awareness should be conducted:
1 To develop a training program for the personnel engaging in LFG to energy

technology design and engineering, and installation of LFG recovery and utiliza-
tion equipments;
2 To train the staff of municipalities and ULBs for better understanding of design,
construction and management of landfill system equipped with methane recov-
ery and utilization facilities and improvement of their capability of supervision;
3 To develop education on Polluters Pays Principle as the basis of implementation
of MSW charge system;
4 To promote the public awareness on LFG recovery, waste recycling and building
a resource efficient society by all kinds of media;
5 The role of NGO in promoting public awareness activities should be played
fully.
9.3.4 Information dissemination and training

Major information dissemination and technical training activities for the populariza-
tion of LFG recovery and utilization include the following items:
1 To provide landfill data in the GMI Landfill Database. This is a voluntary data
repository to promote the development of LFG to energy projects. The data-
base can be used to identify suitable landfills for LFG to energy project evalua-
tion. The database can store the following types of landfill data: general location
and contact information, landfill physical characteristics, LFG collection system
characteristics, waste characteristics, landfill operations, and additional informa-
tion and comments.
2 To develop country specific LFG Modeling Tool. Several country-specific LFG
generation models have already been developed by the USEPA. These models were
created to help landfill owners and operators and other interested parties evalu-
ate the feasibility and potential benefits of collecting and using LFG for energy
recovery. The models include Central America LFG Model, China LFG Model,
Ecuador LFG Model, Mexico LFG Model, Philippines LFG Model, Thailand
LFG Model and Ukraine LFG Model.
3 To conduct regional information dissemination workshop, seminars or trainings
for the national and local government and enterprises;
4 To organize technologies, equipment and system exhibition for national and
international technical information exchange;
5 To encourage the private and public participation for the LFG recovery and
utilization, such as promoting residents to buy the LFG and its energy product
like electricity, gas and thermal at green price;
6 To set up information dissemination agency for LFG recovery and utilization.
9.3.5 Institutional strengthening

Capacity building is the basic foundation for the national action plan activities.
Following capacity building activities should be conducted:
1 To set up a coordinating group consisting of senior government officials from

selected ministries. Such group can provide guidance on policies and institu-
tional coordination during the action plan implementation.
2 To set up a program implementation office under the coordinating group for
implementation of the national action plan activities.
3 To set up market operation agencies for the LFG recovery and utilization, such
as ESCO for power, thermal or gas generation, distribution and marketing.
Encourage and support the project developers of commercial LFG recovery and uti-
lization, and the main activities include:
1 The government encourages market operation and commercial development of

MSW disposal;
2 Publicize the information of project investment through seminars and provide
fair competition opportunity for the enterprises;
3 Set up the large scale ESCO through market competition;
4 The government formulates the standards and regulations to standardize the
activities of enterprises.
9.3.6 Demonstration activities

The action plan needs to develop technical demonstration activities such as increas-
ing the demonstration items. The demonstration items should include the following:
1 Implementation of landfill system design, construction and maintenance and

LFG recovery and utilization equipments;
2 Management of commercial LFG recovery and utilization project;
3 Commercial mode for grid-connected price, power generation and sales.
9.3.7 Financial mechanism

The financial viability of LFG recovery and utilization projects depends on many fac-
tors, including the capital costs for LFG collection system, power generation equip-
ment and/or gas pipelines or power lines, costs of operation and maintenance, the
tariffs paid for electricity or natural gas generated, the eligibility for CDM carbon
credits, and any capital subsidies available in the form of grants or loans.
Experience from the United States shows that even with no “green” tariffs or
government subsidies, direct use of LFG can still be financially attractive when users
are located nearby. In less developed markets, initial costs are likely to be high due to
the need to import equipment and expertise, and government subsidies will probably
be required in the intial phases of its development. There are a number of potential
funding mechanisms for LFG recovery projects. Determining the most appropriate
funding mechanism will be dependant on the project type, the project developer and
access to each of the various types of funding.
The experience from developed countries has shown that even with sophisticated
collection and sorting practices, MSW will continue to contain significant amounts
of biodegradable material. Therefore, it is advantageous to extend the subsidies to
LFG projects to aid in the management of future sanitary landfill sites. Energy gen-
eration and carbon credits are an additional benefit to this approach.
Compared to developed countries, the capital costs in developing countries may
be higher due to costs of importing machinery, but these costs could be offset by
lower costs for local labour. But operating costs could also be high if local expertise
to run the projects is not available. Sales of electricity to the grid from renewable
energy attract a higher tariff than for fossil-based electricity. Tariffs can be negoti-
ated with the electricity boards.
The sufficient financial arrangement can ensure successful implementation of the
action plan. The financial flows can be from:
1 Governmental financial budget, which has been put for the municipal MSW
management;
2 Increasing the disposal fee for MSW;
3 Bilateral assistance or Overseas Development Agency (ODA) financial support;
4 GEF, WB, ADB and other international financial agencies;
5 Commercial banks and Private investment.
International assistance is necessary to strengthen the capacity building for LFG

recovery and utilization. Private sector investment is perhaps the best way of rapidly
expanding the development of LFG to energy projects. Companies throughout the
world have the financial capability and the technology to implement these projects,
provided institutional barriers and risks can be overcome. Private investors will want
to evaluate their risk, especially as it relates potential changes in the price for energy,
tax benefits, or the adoption of new laws or regulations that are not favourable to
a project or foreign investment. Provided a stable platform can be established, there
should be many opportunities to promote LFG recovery with private investors. To
assist private investors evaluate LFG to energy projects, the Governments should
prepare a report describing the stability that can be guaranteed to a project. This
should include project ownership guarantees, energy price guarantees, tax treatment
of profits, long-term government policy concerning foreign investment, and assist-
ance by regional or state agencies to help smooth the way with local governments.
9.4 FRAMEWORK FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION PLAN
The action plan has been developed to promote widespread replication and adop-
tion of LFG recovery and utilization technologies in the developing countries. The
proposed roles and responsibilities by various agencies are given in Table 9.2.
Table 9.2 Agencies with their Roles/Responsibilities for implementation of LFG Action Plan
Agencies/
S. No. Authorities Proposed Roles/Responsibilities
1. Central • Amendments in Existing MSW Rules to incorporate LFG reduction,

Ministry of reuse and recycling methods and strategies for achieving sustainable
Environment waste management
• Setting targets and timelines for achieving reduction in methane
generation from MSW
• Notification of standards for Flaring and LFG recovery
• Notification of standards for remediation of old/closed landfill sites
• Clearance of LFG projects under CDM program
• Funding for clean LFG recovery technologies
• Funding for organization of LFG technologies workshops, seminars and
conferences
• Notifications of laboratories for LFG analysis ands monitoring work
2. Regional/State • Monitoring the implementation of MSW Rules
Ministry of
Environment
3. Central • Creation of National level Data Banks with the purpose of
Pollution disseminating information on landfill sites, landfill methane emissions
Control inventory and energy recovery potential, characteristics of waste
Authorities/ generated and management of MSW
Boards • Development of a national data base of landfills, LFG system developers,
bankers and financial institutions, consultants, engineers, constructors,
operators
• Developing country-wide, sector-specific methane reduction programs
• Development of standards for Flaring and LFG recovery
• Development of standards for remediation of old/closed landfill sites
• Dissemination of success stories of LFG recovery
• LCA studies on MSWM
• Strategies for integration with other legislations on E-waste, Plastic
waste, Biomedical waste and hazardous waste
4. State Pollution • Periodic assessment of the amounts of waste being generated
Control • Development of comprehensive database on waste for aiding
Authorities/ policy-making and intervention
Boards • Creation of State level Data Banks with the purpose of disseminating
information on landfill methane emissions and energy recovery potential
(Continued)
Table 9.2 Continued
Agencies/
5. Central • Landfill site data collection and compilation

Ministry • Monitoring and implementation of MSW rules 2000
of Urban • Identification of suitable areas for Sanitary engineered landfills
Development • Full scale implementation of LFG recovery technologies
• Remediation of old/closed landfill sites
• Land lease issue
• Identification of land for setting up common/zonal/regional sanitary
landfills on a priority basis and municipalities to jointly implement and
manage such facilities, according to a time bound programme
6. Regional/ • Closure of landfill sites which have completed their designed life and
State Ministry installation of LFG recovery facilities
of Urban • State governments to prepare Detailed Project Report (DPR) for
Development towns and municipalities in their states and regions. Local bodies should
make budgetary provision to implement the DPR
• The ministry should make budgetary provisions including land allotment
for waste storage, sorting, recycling, processing and disposal
• Implementation of MSWM Rules in time bound phases by
prioritization/categorization of cities/towns based on population and
quantum of waste generation
• Formulation of scheme for providing incentives and disincentives
to local bodies to promote LFG recovery as per the MSWM Rules
7. Central • Establish links with other national and international organizations build
Ministry up its reputation as the “one-window” contact and facilitator for LFG
of Energy/ projects in developing countries
Renewable • Financial asistance for projects that demonstrate methane
Energy capture and use from existing landfill sites such as pre-feasibility
studies, feasibility studies, or technology demonstrations.
• Integration of LFG technologies with other renewable energy
technologies
• Funding of demonstration projects for methane recovery from landfills
and municipal wastewater treatment plants (MWWTPs)
• Demonstration projects for methane recovery from MWWTPs
8. Regional/ • National level policy intervention for incorporating LFG energy recovery
State Ministry and utilization into mainstream renewable energy sources of developing
of Energy/ countries
Renewable • Develop a publicity program to include the production of project
Energy documents, videotapes, TV programs, special interviews, seminars,
articles and presentations at national and international conferences and
symposiums. In project dissemination effort, information must include:
Environmental Benefits; Economic and Technical Viabilities; Innovation
in Project Financing; Establishment of independent Energy Service
Companies, and Project Management and Institutional Capacity
• State level policy intervention for incorporating LFG energy recovery
and utilization into mainstream renewable energy sources of the country
9. Central • Princing norms for LFG
Electricity • Subsidies to project developer for LFG recovery
Authority
(Continued)
Table 9.2 Continued
Agencies/
10. Regional/State • State level princing norms for LFG

Electricity • State level subsidies to project developer for LFG recovery
Authority
11. Ministry of • National level LFG potential estimates
Science & • Identification of projects that improve emissions estimates and
Technology identify the largest relevant emissions sources to facilitate project
development
• Funding for feasibilities studies related to methane mitigation in various
sectors
• Protocols/standards for LFG analysis
12. World • Identification of cost-effective opportunities to recover methane
Bank/ADB emissions for energy production and potential financing mechanisms to
encourage investment
• Identification and promotion of areas of bilateral, multilateral, and
private sector collaboration on methane recovery and use
• Identification of legal, regulatory, financial, or institutional mechanism
necessary to attract investment in international LFG recovery and
utilization projects
13. Ministry • Develop training program curriculum and course content for LFG
of Human recovery and utilization as well as landfill design and operation
Resources • Identification of projects addressing specific challenges to methane
Development recovery, such as raising awareness, improving local expertise and
(Through knowledge, and demonstrating methane recovery and use technologies
Academia) and management practices
• Environmental liability assessment of exisiting MSW landfill sites
• Compulsory lab and theory course on ISWM incorporating LFG
utilization technologies and processess
• Creating awareness on LFG recovery and utilization
The Action Plan should be implemented in phases.
Short term phase

1 Conduct field trials at selected landfills to assess the yield and composition of
LFG and use the baseline data to calibrate a theoretical model of methane gas
yield.
2 Establish institutional arrangements for the construction and operation of the
demonstration projects, and the sale of LFG.
3 Disseminate information, maintain databases, train manpower engaged in LFG
technology, and conduct research on improving the technology.
Medium term phase

1 Reconstruct 20–30 existing landfill sites, for LFG recovery and utilization;
2 Conduct commercial operation for LFG utilization project;
3 Promote the MSW management institution reform; summarize the experience

of demonstration and pilot projects to make out institutional policy, economic
incentive policy framework for government at central, local and municipal level.
Long term phase

1 Build municipal landfill sites meeting the international standard;
2 Build facilities of LFG recovery and utilization for power generation, residential
fuel and vehicle fuel;
3 Establish ESCO’s;
4 Establish centers for LFG recovery and utilization technology;
5 Develop technical standards for construction and operation of LFG recovery
facilities;
Indicators for Successful LFG to Energy Projects

1 Improvements in energy production or installed capacities
2 Reduction in technology implementation costs
3 Expansion of business and supporting services for LFG to energy projects
4 Increase of financing availability and mechanisms
5 Development of policies, laws and regulations that support project goals
6 Awareness and understanding of LFG technologies among producers and users
7 Successful project implementation leading to reductions in LFG emissions to the
atmosphere
8 Clean emissions from LFG recovery project
9 Reduced groundwater contamination potential
To overcome the barrier of LFG management practices throughout the World,

the GMI has been instrumental in formulating nine country specific LFG action
plans. These countries include Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Italy,
Japan, United Kingdom and United States. The action plans contain an overview
of the country’s solid waste management practices and outlines the country-specific
opportunities and challenges to developing LFG to energy recovery projects.
As a first step, it is proposed that a strategic LFG recovery action plan be pre-
pared by the developing countries that could be an enhancement of the existing
landfill country profiles. These profiles should contain an overview of the country
solid waste and LFG sectors and outline of the country-specific opportunities and
challenges to developing LFG to energy recovery projects. The strategies will include
country-specific strategic plans – a range of activities, from near-term to longer
term, to promote LFG recovery and use in a given country. Ideally, the strategic plan
should identify activities in order of their priority or importance, convey the country’s
overall abilities and goals to promote projects, and outline the country’s potential to
reduce methane emissions during a specified period of time.
Such country-specific strategic plans can play a very useful role in identifying
activities in each country that would be most beneficial and effective in promoting
the development of methane recovery and use projects. Ideally, these strategies could
help to identify and clearly describe the activities that should be undertaken as part
of project development in a given country. These plans can also outline activities that
a country is involved with or sponsoring in other countries. As such, these country-

specific strategic can provide information to groups that wish to work to develop
projects in a particular country and want to know the most effective activities to
undertake. Finally, these strategic plans might become incorporated as a component
of a country’s overarching carbon mitigation plan (if applicable) and provide sub-
stantive, concrete steps towards the country’s overall national emission reductions
goal. In these ways, the country-specific strategic plans could help contribute to each
country’s ongoing environmental, energy, and strategic efforts.
Country-specific strategic plans might be considered “living documents,” to be
updated as circumstances change and evolve in the landfill sector in a given country.
It is suggested that each plan be reexamined from time to time to ensure that the
Action Plan remains relevant. Ideally, plans will be based on input from a broad
range of stakeholders in each country. A draft template developed by the GMI with
a list of suggested topics to include in the country-specific profile and strategic plan
is provided in Appendix G.
9.5 CONCLUSIONS
1 The developing countries can adopt this policy and work with their respective
governments to build their capacity to implement LFG to energy projects.
2 The concerned ministries of the developing countries should work closely to
develop the incentives required to promote the use of LFG as renewable energy
source from landfills.
3 The land value and development potential from the recovery of LFG and the
rehabilitation of old landfills should be studied by the developing countries and
the results of the study can be used to provide incentives and training to munici-
pal authorities and ULBs for implementing LFG to energy projects.
4 Private sector participation in the LFG industry should be promoted by pre-
qualifying firms that have the required capabilities, and the list of pre-qualified
firms should be provided by the concerned ministries to the municipal authori-
ties and ULBs.
5 The health impacts of old landfills, and the economic benefits of LFG to energy
projects and closure of old landfills should be included in the government policy.
REFERENCES
Country Action Plans (n.d.) [Online] Available from: http://www.globalmethane.org/

landfills/index.aspx [Accessed 3rd May 2011].
Deed, C., Gronow, J., Rosevear, A., Smith R. and Braithwaite, P. (2003) A Strategy for emis-
sions based regulation of landfill gas: Proceedings of the Ninth International Landfill
Symposium, Cagliari, Sardinia, 6–10 October 2003, Paper No. 429.
Energy Research Institute, China. (2001) Proposal for a National Action Plan for Recovery
and Utilization of Landfill Gas in China – Final Draft.
International Energy Agency. (2008) IEA: Turning a Liability into an Asset: Landfill Methane
Utilization Potential in India.
International Energy Agency. (2009) IEA: Turning a Liability into an Asset: The importance
of policy in fostering landfill gas use worldwide.
Siddiqui, F.Z. (2010) National Action Plan for Recovery and Utilization of Landfill Gas in
India – Final Draft, USEPA – LMOP.
Siddiqui, F.Z. and Khan M.E. (2010) Landfill gas recovery and its utilization in India: cur-
rent status, potential prospects and policy implications J. Chem. Pharm. Res., 2011, 3(5):
174–183 JCPR.
The World Bank. (2006) Improving Management of Municipal Solid Waste in India –
Overview and Challenges.
The World Bank. (2008) Improving Municipal Solid Waste Management in India:
A Sourcebook for Policymakers and Practitioners.
United Nations Development Program. (2005) UNDP: Promoting methane recovery and uti-
lization from mixed municipal refuse in China Terminal Evaluation Report, GEF/UNDP
Project No. CPR/96/G31.
Appendix A
Format for monitoring of LFG
NAME OF SITE: ___________________

LANDFILL OPERATOR: ___________________
DATE: _________________________
A. LFG MONITORING SYSTEM REVIEW:

1) Factors affecting LFG emissions:
a) methane concentrations in the landfill:
% methane emission potential

i) 0–20% low
ii) 20–30% medium
iii) 30–60% high
notes: % methane based on LFG monitoring data, or several representative

measurements taken across the fill area.
b) Waste management System (WMS) type:

WMS lateral migration
potential
i) gravel mining pit high
ii) excavation/trench high
iii) canyon or ravine medium
iv) waste pile low-medium
v) lined unit low
c) Surface and subsurface soil conditions:

SUBSURFACE SURFACE SOILS
SOILS Clays Silts Sands Gravels
Clays L-L L-L L-M L-M
Silts L-M L-M L-M L-M
Sands H-H M-H M-M M-M
Gravels H-H H-H M-H M-H
Migration Potential: L-LOW M-MEDIUM H-HIGH
334 Appendix A
d) Land development within 1000 ft or less from the landfill area:

Check plans to determine if any of the following types of building con-
struction, underground structures, utilities or paving are present on or
within 1000 ft of the landfill area.
Concrete slab-on-grade _________________________________
Raised foundation _________________________________
Piling foundation _________________________________
Basement/cellar _________________________________
Water wells _________________________________
Underground tanks _________________________________
Utility lines/trenches _________________________________
Parking lots _________________________________
Roads _________________________________
Note: The presence of any of these features, which could be potential

receptors for LFG should trigger the following actions:
1) if applicable, an initial LFG monitoring survey of the recep-
tor space using a LFG analyzer/instrument.
2) placement of sensors or monitoring probes to check for
explosive LFG concentrations.
e) Other migration factors:

1) Seasonal variations, which will predominantly cause moisture condi-
tions within the landfill to change, can effect LFG generation.
2) Atmospheric conditions, predominantly changes in barometric pres-
sure conditions, temperature and humidity can effect lateral migra-
tion of landfill LFG.
2) Placement of Monitoring Probes

Monitoring probes are typically placed using the following guidelines:
a) Multi-level (shallow, medium, deep) probes are typically
constructed.
b) Probes are typically installed to the depth of waste around the
perimeter of the landfill at the boundary in native soil.
c) Ideally, there should be a buffer zone between the landfill
boundary and the property boundary (100 ft or greater),
especially where native subsurface soils near the landfill are
permeable, e.g., sands and gravels.
d) Common probe spacing is 100 to 500 feet.
e) Probes are often required for any new structure built within
1000 feet of landfill or existing structures within 100 feet or
less from the landfill.
f) Well boring logs from previous investigations or domestic
wells should be consulted to determine most likely depth to
place monitoring probes screening intervals.
Format for monitoring of LEG 335
g) Screened intervals can also be determined based on LFG

monitoring data taken during well construction, i.e.,
annotation in log showing depth at which LFG is encountered.
h) Probes’ screened intervals should sample permeable geologic
layers such as sands and gravels and not impermeable materi-
als such as clays and mudstone.
i) Probes should be placed between and not immediately
opposite.
3) Construction of Monitoring Probes

The following guidelines are provided for reviewing the adequacy of LFG
monitoring probe design and construction specifications.
REVIEW ITEM TYPICAL

a) Bore-hole Dia. _______(in) 4–8 inches
b) Casing Diameter: _______(in) 0.5–2 inch PVC pipe
Schedule 40 or 80
c) Depth of Hole: _______(ft) Depth of landfill
d) Well Bore Seal: _______ 1–2 ft hydrated bentonite
e) Filter Pack: _______ 3/8 inch pea gravel
f) Screened Length: _______(ft) 3–5 feet
g) Perforation Sizes: _______(in) 1/8 inch machine slot
.25 inch perforation
i) No. of Screens _______ 1 screen/probe
h) Ground Water Depth _______(ft) Should not be above
screened interval
i) ID Tags/Depth Attached to each probe
j) Locking Well Head Cover 1 per hole
k) Anti-Vehicular Barrier Well head flush with
ground
B. LFG GENERATION/ CHARACTERISTICS:
1) Review LFG monitoring data for site and review and record the following
information:
a) LFG Chemical/Physical Characteristics:
Methane:______% CO2:_______% O2:_______%
Nitrogen:______% H2S:_______ppm CO:______ppm
Other constituents:_________________________________________
Dry Bulb Temp: ______oF Wet Bulb Temp: ______oF
Relative Humidity: ______% Pressure:______psi
336 Appendix A
b) Integrated Surface Sample (ISS) data:__________________________

___________________________________________________________
c) Non-Methane Organic Compounds (NMOC) constituents:
___________________________________________________________
2) Calculate LFG generation rate for blower/flare sizing based on following

equation:
QCH (t) moLo(1 elt)

4
where: QCH (t) Total methane generated from to to t (ft3)

4
Lo Methane generation potential (ft3/lb)
λ Decay constant (1/yr)
t Time (years)
mo Mass of waste (lb)
a) Calculate decomposable waste mass (mo) in place at year t

Area of landfill (estimate from topographic maps): _____________(ft2)
Averaged depth of landfill (historical records): _____________(ft)
Volume of waste in place (calculated): _____________(yd3)
b) Choose decay constant (λ): __________
For: Wet Conditions: λ 0.1–0.35
Medium Moisture Conditions: λ 0.05–0.15
Dry Conditions: λ 0.02–0.10
if no waste moisture data is available, consider the following factors to

determine if l is high, medium or low value based on:
i) type of wastes disposed of, i.e., liquids, “green” waste, food wastes,
agricultural wastes, etc.
ii) presence of leachate (is leachate being generated?).
iii) sources of moisture: annual precipitation, drainage.
iv) hydraulic gradients between landfill area and surface and/or ground
water, i.e., landfill intersects ground water table or surface water.
v) climate: desert, mountains, coastal, foothills or central valley.
c) Choose LFG generation rate (Lo): ___________

high: Lo 2.88
medium: Lo 2.55
low: Lo 2.25
LFG generation rate should be selected as high, medium or low value
based on the following factors:
i) data from LFG monitoring (high: 40–60% methane, medium: 20–
40% methane, low: 0–20% methane)
ii) amount of biodegradable wastes, i.e. presence of yard wastes, green

wastes, food wastes, animal waste, etc.
iii) moisture content of waste (see λ above)
iv) age of waste (high: 0–15 yrs, medium: 15–30 yrs, low: 30 yr)
d) Choose year of total LFG produced from first placement of waste to

that year, i.e., age of waste.
t _____________yrs;
Calculate: ______(t) yrs 365 day/year 24 hrs/day 60 min/hr
No. of minutes:_________________________________________
10) Calculate LFG quantity:

QCH (t) moLo(1 elt)
4
QCH4 _________________________ft3
11) Calculate LFG flow rate (cfm) QCH /No. of minutes in t years
4
PREDICTED LFG FLOW RATE AT YEAR t:
*_____________cfm’s
C. LFG Control System:

The following guidelines are provided for reviewing the adequacy of
specific LFG control system design parameters:
1) Well-field Layout
The following table provides information for reviewing LFG extraction
system well-field layout:
REVIEW ITEM CONSIDERATIONS

a) Conveyance Routing:
Branched Less piping; greater area coverage
Less flow and pressure redundancy
Looped Better flow and pressure distr.
Easier to maintain and trouble shoot
Easier to locate condensate sumps
More piping; higher expense
Above Ground Reduced installation cost
Ease of maintenance and repair
System expansion easier
Exposure to UV degradation
Accommodate for surface run-off
Minimizes vehicular access
Increased condensate
338 Appendix A
Below Ground Protected from surface activity

Less susceptible to temp changes
Higher capital installation costs
Access vaults needed
Difficult to maintain; settlement
b) Extr. Well Spacing: _______(ft) Interior wells 200–500 ft
Perimeter wells 100–250 ft
Shallow or wet landfills : 100–300 ft
Deeper or dryer landfills: 200–600 ft
c) Well-Field Density: _______ One well per 0.5–2 acres;
(well/acre) 0.75–1.5 acre is typical
d) Well Flow Rate: prod. _____(cfm) Production: 20–40 cfm
migr._______(cfm) Migration: 5–20 cfm
e) Well Vaccum: ______(in of W.C.) 5–10 in w.c.
f) Piping Slopes: ______(%) 3% or greater
g) Well Schedule: Should include following info:
Well Number
Well Depth
Casing Diameter & Length
Perforated Length
Non-Perforated Length
No. of Slip Couples
No. of Caps
2) Extraction Well Construction

The following guidelines can be used to review the construction of LFG
extraction wells:
REVIEW ITEM TYPICAL

a) Vertical Well-bore Diameter: ______(in) 12 –36 standard
24 , 30 and 36 typical
b) Horizontal Well Depth: ______(ft) In active landfill, trenched into
waste or layed on top and
landfilled around later; 2–3 ft
wide and 4 ft deep
Closed landfill: install deep as
practical
c) Well Depth (Vertical) ______(ft) 60 ft or 5 ft from landfill bot-
tom, whichever occurs first
(Horizontal) ______(ft) Deeper the better; minimum
of 25 ft or depth of backhoe
reach or use membrane to seal

surface and extend for distance
equal to influence desired
d) Perforations (Vert. Wells) ______(ft) Bottom 1/3 to 2/3 of
extraction well
e) Slot Area ______(in2) Total area roughly 10 X
casing dia.
f) Casing (Size) ______(in) 3 –8 nom. (approx. 40–600 cfm)
(Materials) _____(type) PVC; polyethylene (HDPE);
125 ft depth use steel or
telescoping well joint
g) Wellbore Seal _____(type) Down-Hole: hydrated
bentonite Surface
h) Well-Head Construction Well-Head should have
following components:
sampling port
shut-off valve
temperature sensor
flex connection
quick disconnect unions
6) Flaring/Blower Station Review
a) Review flare/blower station layout for components.
FLARE STATION PURPOSE

COMPONENT
Inlet demister or scrubber vessel Dehumidify LFG stream to

improve combustion efficiency
Valve (check, butterfly, ball) Shut-off or vary flow to control
combustion process/isolate
major component for repair
Temperature/Pressure/Flow Measure LFG stream
characteristics to control
efficiency of combustion process
Sampling Port Provide access to LFG stream
for sampling to determine LFG
quality
Blower/compressor Unit Provide system vacuum for
extracting LFG from well field
Flare Unit Combust LFG at optimal
temperatures (ground/candlestick)
and retention times to destroy
LFG constituents and minimize
stack emissions
340 Appendix A
Flame Arrestor Valve which prevents flare “backflash” by

by automatically constricting flow to LFG
manifold at specific pressure or temp.
Pilot Burner Provides “safe” ignition source for burner
tip or flare’s LFG manifold
Propane Pilot Fuel “Make-up” LFG system used to ignite Pilot
burner and provide fuel if LFG quality is
insufficient for combustion
Automatic Block Valve Isolates LFG stream from blower and
upstream flare station piping
Electrical Controls Provide automatic control of electric-driven
motors, solenoids, sensors, etc. to control
LFG extraction and combustion process
Condensate Drains Provide conveyance of condensation from
major components to main storage vessel.
Condensate Storage Tank Provide temporary storage capacity for all
condensation “knocked-out” of well field
and flare/blower station components.
Condensate Treatment Remove contaminants from condensate to
meet discharge or permit requirements.
Source: Draft LFG Monitoring and Control System Plan Review Template
www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/CIA/…/LFGform.doc.
Appendix B
Format for conducting waste audit

at a landfill site
Landfill Name:
Location:
Landfill Latitude
Landfill Longitude
Nearby Land use
Owner
Operator
Contact Person (Ph No., E-mail)
Please provide information for the whole landfill. If the landfill is divided into different
sections or operational stages, please submit the information separately for each case.
# Question Units Data and Information
Quantity of waste generated annually tonnes per annum
Quantity of waste collected per day tonnes per day
Quantity of waste generated per grams per day
capita
Quantity of incoming waste at the
landfill
Quantity of waste processed/treated
at the landfill (per day, per week, per
month and annually)
Physico-chemical composition
of the incoming waste i.e before
processing/treatment
A) Waste In Place To Date
1. Type of Landfill
2. When was the waste deposition/ date OR year
landfilling started at the landfill?
3. Number of operational years of the
landfill
342 Appendix B
4. Date of closure of the landfill or

Year when the landfill is going to be
closed?
5. Quantity of waste currently deposited tonnes per annum
at the landfill per year?
6. How much is the designated area for M2
landfilling?
7. What is the current area of landfilled m2
waste?
8. How much is the designated volume M3
or design capacity of the landfill?
9. What is the current volume of m3
landfilled waste?
10. What is a size of current tipping area? m2
(i.e., what is the size of the area that
is receiving trucks/lorries with waste?)
11. What is the maximum depth of the m
landfill at the present moment?
12. What is the current average waste m
depth at the landfill?
13. What is the average depth of each of m
the platforms on the site?
14. What is the bulk density of waste in t/m3
place till date?
15. What is the compaction ratio of the
waste?
16. Quantity of waste deposited on a Tons per day
daily basis? Give the basis of the
estimate
17. Quantity of waste deposited on a Tons per week
weekly basis? Give the basis of the
estimate
18. Quantity of waste deposited on Tons per month
monthly basis? Give the basis of the
estimate
19. Quantity of waste deposited on yearly Tons per year
basis? Give the basis of the estimate
20. Average annual quantity of waste M3 or ton
deposited in the landfill
21. Total number of trucks/lorries per day
depositing waste at the landfill?
22. Is the waste being placed in a Yes or No
controlled manner?
23. What kind of waste is deposited in
the landfill (please complete the
Format for conducting waste audit at a landfill site 343
appropriate %ages or volumes for the

different types of waste)
24. Domestic/municipal waste? % weight OR
volume
25. Commercial waste? % weight OR
volume
26. Industrial waste? % weight OR
volume
27. Inert waste (construction and % weight OR
demolition waste)? volume
28. What is the biodegradable % of total waste
(putrescible) fraction in the total input rate OR
waste stream? rate in m3 or t
[per day, week,
month, year]
29. What is the fraction of liquid waste in % OR (m3
the total waste stream? OR t) [per day,
week, month,
year]
30. Any other type of waste being %
landfilled
31. Please provide the latest
physico-chemical analysis report of
the waste being disposed in landfill
32. Please provide the Gross Calorific
Value (GCV) and Net Calorific
Value (NCV) of the waste before
disposing in landfill
33. Is segregation carried out at the
landfill. If yes then pl provide the
classification of the segregated waste
Soil Type
34. Type of soil i.e., low permeability
(clay, silt, loam); Medium
permeability (sand, pebble); High
permeability (gravel, cobble, rocks)
B) Waste To Be Deposited In Future
35. What is the planned closure date of Date/month
landfill? OR year
36. What is the predicted amount of m3 OR t
waste that will be in place when the
landfill is completed?
37. What is the predicted area of the m2
landfill after its completion?
38. What is the predicted volume of the M3
landfill after its completion?
344 Appendix B
39. What will be the predicted average m

depth of the landfill after its
completion?
40. What will be the density of the t/m3
waste at the site after the landfill is
completed?
C) Information About the Site
41. Please describe the geometry of the
landfill. Is it a secured or unsecured
landfill site? If available, please attach
a plan or a map, and/or photographs
of the site
42. What are the geological conditions of
the site and the surrounding strata?
Please indicate the type of soil and
substrata (e.g., sand, gravel, clay,
rocks). Please provide soil analysis
report of the landfill
43. What is the groundwater table level m
in the site area? Please state the
reference point (i.e., is it below
ground level, at sea level or at the
bottom of the landfill?)
44. What is the mean annual mm/year
precipitation/rainfall in the area?
Please provide last 20 yrs data
45. What is the mean annual temperature Deg C
in the area? Please provide last 20 yrs
data
46. Please indicate any specific climatic
conditions (e.g., arid, tropical, mild)
47. Estimated separation between waste m
and ground water
48. Is waste area within 100 year flood Yes or No
plain?
49. Show the following items on a site
map(s):
1. Property boundaries
2. Waste disposal area(s) boundary
3. Structures on or within 1000 ft.
of waste
4. Topographical Contours
5. Access points and roads
6. Site security systems
7. Surface water bodies and drainage
patterns
8. Monitoring and control systems

9. Areas where landfill gas migration
was detected
10. Areas where leachate migration
was detected
D) Management Of the Landfill
50. Is compacting equipment used on
site? If so, please indicate what type
of equipment is used (e.g., waste
compactor, bulldozer)
51. What is the sequence of filling of the
landfill? For example, are individual
cells filled in first, or is the entire site/
area filled in and then a subsequent
platform is begun? If available, please
attach documents describing the
phasing plan
52. Are filling procedures the same today
as they have been in the past and will
be in the future? If not, please explain
the differences in filling procedures
53. What other treatment facilities are
there at the site for processing of the
waste prior to Landfilling?
E) Lining/Capping
54. Is there a bottom liner at the site? YES/NO
55. What liner system is followed at the
landfill site (unlined, single or double)
56. If so, does the liner cover the entire
site or just part of it? In case the liner
only covers part of the site, please
indicate the approximate area or %
of the site that has a bottom liner
57. If so, what kind of liner is it (e.g.,
plastic membrane, compacted clay
soil, composite etc)?
58. Does the site have liners on the sides? YES/NO
59. If so, what kind of side liners are they
(e.g., plastic membrane, compacted
clay soil)?
60. Does each platform or cell have a cap YES/NO
on it?
61. If so, what kind of platform/cell caps
are installed (e.g., regular soil)?
346 Appendix B
62. Will the site be capped (at the top) YES/NO

upon completion?
63. If so, what kind of cap will this be
(e.g., plastic membrane, compacted
clay soil)?
64. What are the sources of soil cover
and its characteristics
65. What type of material is used for
daily covering of waste
F) Leachate
66. Is the landfill accumulating leachate YES/NO
(standing pools of leachate, and
leachate seepages)
67. Is leachate drained and collected at YES/NO
the landfill?
68. If yes, what is the quantity of
leachate collected at the landfill (liters
per year)?
69. Is there a leachate control system on YES/NO
site?
70. If so, when was the leachate control date OR year
71. system installed?
72. What type of leachate control
system is in place (e.g., basal
drainage, pumping from wells)?
73. What is done with the collected
leachate (e.g., re-circulated, treated
on site, pumped or taken away)?
74. What is the height of the leachate m
measured from the bottom of the
landfill?
75. Has any analysis of the leachate been YES/NO
done?
76. If so, please describe results of
leachate analysis. If available, please
attach a copy of the analysis
77. Is there any leachate treatment
system. If yes please provide the
details of its final disposal
G) Landfill gas (LFG) Control
78. Is there a LFG monitoring system on YES/NO
site? If available, please attach the
plan or map of the system; please
provide maximum information
available.
79. If so, when was the LFG monitoring date OR year

system installed?
80. What is the number of gas
monitoring wells on site?
81. Is there a LFG collection and control YES/NO
system on site (open flare, enclosed
flare, energy recovery)? If available,
please attach the plan or map of the
system; please provide maximum
information available
82. If so, when was the LFG collection date OR year
and control system installed?
83. Does the operator monitor the flow
and composition of LFG at the site?
84. Composition of LFG (CH4, CO2, CO,
H2S etc.)
85. If so, what is the flow rate of the LFG? Nm3/h
86. What is the methane content of the %
LFG?
87. Has the LFG at the site ever been YES/NO
analyzed?
88. If so, please describe the results of
the LFG analysis. If available, please
attach a copy of the analysis
89. Is pretreatment of LFG carried out
(e.g., none, condensate trap, dryer,
H2S removal etc.)
90. Does site flare or utilise the LFG at YES/NO
the moment? If yes then for what
purpose?
91. LFG collection system (i.e., Active or
passive venting of LFG)
92. Number of horizontal or vertical wells
93. Average depth of wells m
94. If designed to generate power then the
type of gen-set and the exhaust gas
emission control system
95. If interconnected with an electric
utility then the name of utility and the
type of utility contract
96. If engine generator set waste heat
utilization, then heat source and heat
recovery capacity and the waste heat
utilization purpose.
97. If designed to use on-site as a boiler
or furnace fuel, a description of the
348 Appendix B
boiler or furnace including the rated

capacity
98. If designed for LFG sale to a third
party, a description of the methods of
processing, transport and endues
H) Information About the LFG Project
99. Local/Municipal Agreement or
Interest in Pursuing LFG Project
100. Who is promoting the
development of the LFG project (e.g.,
landfill operator, municipality)?
101. Who has the licence (or rights) to
utilise the LFG (e.g., developer,
operator, municipality)? Is there
an agreement signed with any
authority/organization
102. What are the minimum
environmental requirements on site?
103. Is there a history of environmental
complaints – odour, fires, gas
migration etc? If yes, please describe
them
104. Is there a legal requirement to utilize
or burn LFG?
105. Is there a customer in the
vicinity, interested in electricity or
heat purchase?
106. Are there any other parties interested
in exploration of this site?
107. Are there scavengers on site for YES/NO
picking recyclable waste?
108. Has an EIA conducted for the site?
If yes pl provide the summary of the
report
Regulatory compliance
109. Provide a chronological list of
regulatory compliance for the site
110. Regulatory framework for methane
capture and control, Describe the
framework
111. Has landfill contracted its carbon
credits?
112. Type(s) of cooperation sought to
advance project (Investor build,
own, operate, Partnership, Technical
Assistance, Carbon Credits)
Appendix C
Format for waste characterization
Landfill name
City
Climatic Region
Waste – % dry organics
Site-specific waste composition data (in %) (Based on dry weight % of total waste)
Breakup of Organic and Inorganic Waste
Total Waste
Percent very fast decay organic waste
Percent medium-fast decay organic waste
Percent medium-slow decay organic waste
Percent slow decay organic waste
Very Fast-decay Organic Waste Methane Generation Rate (k)
Medium-fast decay Organic Waste Methane Generation Rate (k)
Medium-slow decay Organic Waste Methane Generation Rate (k)
Slow-decay Organic Waste Methane Generation Rate (k)
Methane generation rate constant (K)
Fast-decay Organic Waste Methane Potential Lo
Medium fast decay Organic Waste Methane Potential Lo
Medium slow decay Organic Waste Methane Potential Lo
Slow-decay Organic Waste Methane Potential Lo
Total Potential Methane Generation Capacity (Lo)
Average very fast decay organic waste moisture
Average medium-fast decay organic waste moisture
Average medium-slow decay organic waste moisture
Average slow decay organic waste moisture
Weighted Average – Fast decay organics moisture %
Weighted Average – Medium-fast decay organics moisture %
Weighted Average – Medium-slow decay organics moisture %
Weighted Average – Slow decay organics moisture %
Weighted Average – Total Waste Moisture %

Year landfill opened
Landfill design capacity
Annual disposal for latest year with data in tonnes per year (Mg/yr)
350 Appendix C
Year of annual disposal estimate

Waste in place estimate available in tonnes (Mg)?
Waste in place estimate for end of 2010 or most recent year (m3)
Estimated in-place waste density in Mg per m3
If waste in place estimate is in volume (m3), convert to Mg
Year of waste in place estimate
Projected or actual closure year
Estimated growth in annual disposal
Average annual precipitation
Expected methane content of LFG (%)
Average landfill depth (m)
Site design and management practices
1 Unmanaged disposal site; 2 Engineered/sanitary landfill; 3 Semi-aerobic
landfill; 4 Unknown
Has site been impacted by fires? Indicate % of landfill area impacted
Indicate the severity of fire impacts
1 low impacts; 2 medium impacts; 3 severe impacts
Year of initial collection system start-up; If no system is installed, give proposed year
of installation
Percent of waste area with wells
Percent of waste area with final cover
Percent of waste area with intermediate cover
Percent of waste area with daily cover
Percent of waste area with no soil cover
Percent of waste area with clay or synthetic liner
Is waste compacted on a regular basis?
Is waste delivered to a focused tipping area?
Does the landfill experience leachate surface seeps or surface ponding?
Does this occur only after rainstorms?
LFG Collection efficiency
NMOC Concentration (ppmv)
Appendix D
Useful websites
1. http://www.globalmethane.org/tools-resources/landfill_addresources.aspx
2. http://www.globalmethane.org/tools-resources/landfill_techproceeds.aspx
3. http://www.globalmethane.org/projects/index.aspx?sectorlandfill
4. http://www.iswa.org/en/525/knowledge_base.html
5. http://www.globalmethane.org/tools-resources/tools.aspx#three
6. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch10.html
7. http://140.194.76.129/publications/eng-manuals/em1110-1-4016/toc.htm
8. http://www.epa.gov/lmop/international/tools.html
9. http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/sectors/108918.aspx
10. http://www.sepa.org.uk/waste/waste_regulation/landfill.aspx
11. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/codes/landfill_gas/index.htm
12. http://www.epa.ie/downloads/pubs/
13. http://swanastore.stores.yahoo.net/langaspub.html
14. http://www.nswai.com/
15. http://www.johnzink.com/e-library/landfill-biogas/
16. http://www.combustionindia.com/
17. http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/DB/203B03KT6N8QCC0R1C56DFOF9O
YO2T/view.html
18. http://www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/products.html
19. http://www.biogasmax.eu/
20. http://www.swlf.ait.ac.th/NewInterface/ProjectPublications.htm
21. http://www.bioreactor.org/
22. http://www.sustainablelandfillfoundation.eu/
23. http://www.landfill-gas.com/
24. http://www.scsengineers.com/paperone.html
25. http://www.floridacenter.org/publications/bysubject.htm#landfill
26. http://www.globalmethane.org/landfills/index.aspx
27. http://www.iea-biogas.net/
28. http://www.nrel.gov/applying_technologies/climate_neutral/landfill_gas.html
29. http://www.dirkse-milieutechniek.com/dmt/do/webPages/202168/Publications_
Biogas_Treatment.html
30. www.sgc.se/dokument
31. www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LEA/Training/landfillgas
32. http://www.bancomundial.org.ar/lfg/gas_access_008.htm
352 Appendix D
33. pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADK799.pdf
34. www.epa.gov/slclimat/documents/pdf/landfill_methane_utilization.pdf
35. http://www.bancomundial.org.ar/lfg/gas_access_003.htm
36. www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy97/26041.pdf
37. makassarkota.go.id/download/makassar_fs_report_lfg.pdf
38. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill_gas
39. www.acrion.com
40. zorg-biogas.com/
41. www.hofstetter-uwt.com
42. www. organics.com
43. www.haase-energietechnik.de
44. www.flareindustries.com
45. www.lfgspecialties.com
46. www.johnzink.com
47. www.carbotech.info
48. www.xebecinc.com
49. www.acrona-systems.com
50. www.cirmac.com
51. www.gasrec.co.uk
52. www.malmberg.se
53. www.flotech.com
54. www.rosroca.de
55. www.haaseenergietechnik.de
56. www.cirmac.com
57. www.mt-energie.com
58. www.lackebywater.se
59. www.koehler-ziegler.de
60. www.dge-wittenberg.de
61. www.dreyer-bosse.de
62. www.airliquide.com
63. www.cirmac.com
64. www.gasrec.co.uk
65. www.terracastus.com
66. www.gastreatmentservices.com
67. www.prometheus-energy.com
Appendix E
Glossary of terms in landfill gas

management
A
Acetogenic stage Initial period during anaerobic decomposition of waste in a
landfill, when the conversion of organic polymers, such as cellulose, to simple
compounds such as acetic and other short chain fatty acids dominate and little
or no methanogenic activity takes place.
Advanced Thermal Treatment (ATT) New and emerging technologies apply-
ing thermal processes to municipal solid wastes to produce a combustible gas
(syngas) and an inert solid residual. These processes include gasification and
pyrolysis.
Aeration Providing air and oxygen to the composting piles either through turning
or ventilation (by blowers) to aid the microorganisms in breaking down of the
material into compost. Aeration can be in the positive (forced; push) mode or in
the negative (induced; pull) mode.
Aerobic A condition in which elementary oxygen is available and utilised in the
free form by bacteria.
Aftercare Any measures that are necessary to be taken in relation to the facility
for the purposes of preventing environmental pollution following the cessation
of the activity in question at a facility.
Afteruse The use to which a landfill is put following restoration.
Anaerobic A condition in which oxygen is not available in the form of dissolved
oxygen or nitrate/nitrite.
Anchor trench A trench where the ends of geosynthetic materials are embedded
and suitably backfilled.
Area Method A method of sanitary landfilling used when it is impossible to
excavate.
Ash The in-combustible solid by-products of incineration or other burning
process.
Authorization Means the consent given by the Board or Committee to the “oper-
ator of a facility”.
B
Baseline monitoring Monitoring in and around the location of a proposed facil-
ity so as to establish background environmental conditions prior to any develop-
ment of the proposed facility.
354 Appendix E
Biodegradable waste Any waste that is capable of undergoing anaerobic or aero-

bic decomposition, such as food and garden waste, and paper and paperboard.
Biodegradation The biological decomposition or breakdown of organic matter
by microorganisms. During this process, microbial energy in the form of heat
is produced. This energy can be used to kill pathogens, destroy weed seeds,
and evaporate water. Organic matter is turned into a stable humus or compost
through this process.
Biofilter A designed pile consisting of finished compost, bark and similar stable
organic materials used for biologically stripping odor producing compounds
from composting off-gases. Biofilters are used with aerated static pile compost-
ing, when operating in the negative mode.
Biofouling Clogging of wells, pumps or pipework as a result of bacterial growth.
Biofuels Fuels derived directly or indirectly from biomass.
Biogas (landfill gas) Gas produced by the decomposition of organic material under
anaerobic conditions. It is composed primarily of methane and carbon dioxide.
Biological Treatment Any biological process that changes the properties of waste
(e.g., anaerobic digestion, composting).
Biomethanation Means a process which entails enzymatic decomposition of the
organic matter by microbial action to produce methane rich biogas.
Biosolids A nutrient-rich, organic byproduct of the wastewater treatment process.
Borehole A shaft installed outside waste area for the monitoring of and/or the
extraction of LFG/groundwater. Established by placing a casing and well screen
into the boring. If installed within the waste area it is called a well.
Borrow pit An area where material is taken from to use elsewhere.
Bottom ash Relatively coarse, noncombustible, generally toxic residue of incin-
eration that accumulates on the grate of a furnace.
Buffer Zone Area between the composting facility and homes or other sensitive
land uses that shields these neighboring uses from impacts of the operation.
A buffer zone that is vegetated can contribute to visual screening and noise
interception.
Bulking Agent Relatively large particle (size) materials, such as wood chips that
create air space to accelerate the composting process.
Bulky waste Large wastes such as appliances, furniture, and trees and branches,
that cannot be handled by normal MSW processing methods.
Bunding/berm A dike or mound usually of clay or other inert material used to
define limits of cells or phase or roadways; or to screen the operation of a land-
fill from adjacent properties; reducing noise, visibility, dust, and litter impacts.
C
Calorific value The number of heat units obtained by the combustion of a unit
mass of a fuel. The higher or gross calorific value (HCV) of a fuel is the total
heat developed after the products of combustion are cooled to the original fuel
temperature.
Capping The covering of a landfill, usually with low permeability material
(Landfill cap).
Capping system System comprising of a number of different components placed
over the waste principally to minimise infiltration into the waste.
Glossary of terms in landfill gas management 355
Carbon The element carbon is the chemical basis of all organic life. In the context
of discussion on climate change, the term “carbon” is short-hand for carbon
emissions and generally refers to the six main greenhouse gases identified in the
Kyoto Protocol (see Greenhouse gases).
Carbon accounting Carbon accounting refers to systematic measurement of the
number of carbon dioxide equivalents emitted or abated by an organisation or
process, as undertaken in accordance with internationally and nationally recog-
nised methodologies. Carbon accounting protocols classify emissions according
to their source.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most abundant of
the greenhouse gases contributing approximately 75% of Australia’s greenhouse
gas emissions. Carbon dioxide is a byproduct of oil and gas production, and is
produced by burning fossil fuels or plant matter used for fuel (biomass). All ani-
mals, plants, fungi and micro-organisms also produce carbon dioxide. It has a
global warming potential (see Carbon dioxide equivalent) of 1, because it is the
reference gas from which the values of all other greenhouse gases are calculated.
Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) Various greenhouse gases in the earth’s
atmosphere differ in their ability to absorb and re-emit infrared radiation,
and therefore in the amount to which they contribute to global warning. The
“global warming potential” (GWP) of a greenhouse gas indicates its potential
to trap heat in the earth’s atmosphere relative to carbon dioxide, and is
expressed in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2-e). For example, over a period
of 100 years, one tonne of methane (CH4) will have an effect on global warm-
ing that is 21 times greater than one tonne of carbon dioxide, so the GWP of
methane is 21.
Carbon footprint The carbon footprint of an organisation, activity or event is a
measure of the greenhouse gas emissions attributable to it due to energy use or
other greenhouse gas-emitting processes. Carbon footprint is expressed in car-
bon dioxide equivalents (see Carbon dioxide equivalents).
Carbon neutral The term used to indicate that the net greenhouse gas emission of
an organisation, event, or activity is zero carbon dioxide equivalents. The ACCC
defines carbon neutral as, broadly speaking, achieved by reducing and offsetting
a business or individual’s carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) producing activities
and requires comprehensive accounting for the carbon footprint.
Carbon offsets Offsets are simply credits for emission reductions achieved by
projects such as tree planting or energy efficient projects. By purchasing these
credits you can apply them to your own emissions and reduce your net impact
on the environment. One carbon offset represents the reduction of one metric
ton of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e). Offsets are typically generated from
emissions-reducing projects.
Carbon offsetting Carbon offsetting is the act of reducing greenhouse gas emis-
sions relative to baseline (the organisation’s usual operations). This is done by
reducing the amount of emissions generated in one location to compensate for
emissions generated in another location.
Carbon Sequestration Carbon sequestration refers to the capture and long-term
storage of carbon in forests and soils or in the oceans, so that the build-up of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will reduce or slow.
356 Appendix E
Carbonaceous matter Pure carbon or carbon compounds present in solid wastes.

CDM Clean Development Mechanism (under Kyoto Protocol) is a project under-
taken in a developing country that generates reductions in GHG emissions. It
contributes to the host country’s sustainable development, and it accrues emis-
sion reduction credits. These credits, Certified Emission Reductions (CERs), can
be used to contribute to the emission reduction commitments of industrialized
countries.
Cells Subdivision of phases.
Climate Change Climate Change is any long-term significant change in the “aver-
age weather” that a given region experiences. Average weather may include
average temperature, precipitation and wind patterns. It involves changes in the
variability or average state of the atmosphere over durations ranging from decades
to millions of years.
Co-disposal The disposal of different types of waste in one area of a landfill
or dump. For instance, sewage sludges may be disposed of with regular solid
wastes.
Cogeneration Production of both electricity and steam from one facility, from the
same fuel source.
Collection The process of picking up wastes from residences, businesses, or a col-
lection point, loading them into a vehicle, and transporting them to a processing,
transfer, or disposal site.
Combustibles Burnable materials in the waste stream, including paper, plastics,
wood, and food and garden wastes.
Combustion A process in which a substance reacts with oxygen to give heat and
light.
Commingled Mixed recyclables that are collected together after having been sepa-
rated from mixed MSW.
Composite liner A liner system for a landfill consisting of an engineered soil layer
and a synthetic sheet of material.
Composite liner Comprises two or more liners in direct contact with each other.
Compost Organic matter decomposed aerobically and used as a fertiliser or soil
conditioner.
Condensate The liquid which forms within gas pipework due to the condensation
of water vapour from LFG.
Construction and demolition debris Waste generated by construction and demo-
lition of buildings, such as bricks, concrete, drywall, lumber, miscellaneous metal
parts and sheets, packaging materials, etc.
Container A receptacle used for the storage of solid waste until they are collected.
Controlled dump A planned landfill that incorporates to some extent some of the
features of a sanitary landfill siting w.r.t hydrogeological suitability, grading,
compaction, leachate control, partial gas management, regular cover, access con-
trol, basic record-keeping, and controlled waste picking.
Convection Movement of gas from areas of high pressure to areas of low pressure.
Conversion The transformation of waste into other forms for example transfor-
mation by burning or pyrolysis into steam, gas or oil.
Conversion Products Products derived from the first step conversion of solid
waste such as heat from combustion and gas from biological conversion.
Cores Material obtained when using a hollow drill to produce a borehole.

Cover material Soil or other material used to cover compacted soil wastes in a
sanitary landfill.
D
Daily cover is the term used to describe material spread (about 150mm if soil
cover used) over deposited waste at the end of every working day.
Decay constant A constant that represents the rate at which a material decays
given the specific circumstances of a landfill.
Decomposition The breakdown of organic waste by bacterial, chemical or ther-
mal means. Complete chemical oxidation leaves only carbon dioxide, water and
inorganic solids.
Degradable organic carbon The fraction of a material that is made up of carbon
that could theoretically be released through degradation processes.
Demolition and construction waste Means wastes from building materials debris
and rubble resulting from construction, re-modeling, repair and demolition
operation.
Densification The unit operation used to increase the specific weight of waste
materials so that they can be stored or transported more efficiently.
Dewatering The removal of water from solid wastes and sludges by various ther-
mal and mechanical means.
Diesel engine A form of reciprocating internal combustion engine which ignites
the fuel/air mixture by compression. The diesel engine has a high mechanical
efficiency and hence a high power/heat ratio in CHP applications.
Diffusion from an area of high concentration to an area of low concentration.
Digestion The biological conversion of processed organic waste to methane and
carbon dioxide.
Disposal The final handling of solid waste, following collection, processing, or incin-
eration. Disposal most often means placement of wastes in a dump or a landfill.
Dissimilable fraction The fraction of the DOC that actually degrades in landfill.
Diversion A term used to describe the act of diverting one or more designated
materials from a solid waste stream. Diversion typically occurs at the point of
generation, but can also occur at waste transfer and processing facilities. The
objective of diversion is to market materials for productive use and hence pre-
vent these materials from being landfilled or otherwise permanently disposed.
Diversion rate The proportion of waste material diverted for recycling, compost-
ing, or reuse and away from landfilling or incineration.
Dump A waste disposal site where waste is deposited without cover material being
applied at regular intervals.
E
Emissions Gases released into the atmosphere.
Energy recovery The process of extracting useful energy from waste, typically
from the heat produced by incineration or via methane gas from landfills.
Energy source Primary energy is energy that has not been subjected to any con-
version or transformation process which is contained in raw fuels and any other
forms. Primary energy includes nonrenewable energy and renewable energy.
358 Appendix E
Environmental impact Any change to the environment (including ecological,

social, cultural and economic), whether adverse or beneficial, wholly or partially
resulting from an organisation’s operations.
Environmental impact assessment (EIA) An evaluation designed to identify
and predict the impact of an action or a project on the environment and human
health and well-being.
Environmental remediation Environmental remediation involves providing a
remedy for an environmental problem. This can include the removal of pollution
or contaminants from environmental media such as soil, groundwater, sediment,
or surface water for the general protection of human health and the environ-
ment or from a brownfield site intended for redevelopment.
Environmental risk Environmental risk deals with the possibility of an event caus-
ing an undesirable environmental effect. Reliable information is used to inform
of the risks and probabilities of an environmental impact, based on observations
of the nature of the issue at hand.
Environmental risk assessment Environmental risk assessment is the process of
systematically identifying credible environmental hazards, analysing the likeli-
hood of occurrence and severity of the potential consequences, and managing
the resulting level of risk.
Environmental risk assessment (EnRA) An evaluation of the interactions of
agents, humans, and ecological resources. Comprised of human health risk
assessment and ecological risk assessment, typically evaluating the probabilities
and magnitudes of harm that could come from environmental contaminants.
F
Ferrous metals Metals composed predominantly of iron. In the waste materials
stream, these metals usually include tin cans, automobiles, refrigerators, stoves
and other appliances.
Fibres The portion of a recyclable material stream comprised of newsprint, papers,
cardboard and other items made of paper fibres.
Flame arrestor in the case of landfill gas catching fire in the pipes or process
equipment or a flame entering the pipe from a burner, the flame arrestor pre-
vents the fire or flame moving back down the pipe.
Flare unit a device used for the combustion of landfill gas thereby converting its
methane content to carbon dioxide.
Flaring The burning of methane emitted from collection pipes at a landfill.
Food wastes Animal and vegetable wastes resulting from the handling, storage,
sale, preparation, cooking, and serving of foods (garbage).
Foreign Matter Any matter resulting from human intervention and made up of
organic or inorganic components such as metal, glass, synthetic polymers (e.g.,
plastic and rubber) that may be present in the compost. Feedstock Materials that
contain organic materials that decompose biologically.
G
Garbage In everyday usage, refuse in general.
Gas wells Wells installed during filling or retrofitted later within the waste area
for the monitoring of and/or removal of landfill gas either actively through an
extraction system or passively by venting.
Gasification An advanced thermal treatment process that converts carbonaceous

materials through a process involving partial oxidation of the feedstock in
a reducing atmosphere in the presence of steam at temperatures sufficient to
convert the feedstock to synthesis gas; to convert inorganic matter in the feed-
stock (when the feedstock is a solid or semi-solid) to a glassy solid material
known as vitreous frit or slag; and to convert halogens into the corresponding
acid halides.
Gasolines Gasolines are complex mixtures of volatile hydrocarbons distilling
between approximately 25C and 220C and consisting of compounds in the C4
to C12 range.
Generator of wastes Means persons or establishments generating municipal solid
wastes.
Green electricity Green energy sources are considered to be environmentally
friendly and non-polluting. These sources of energy are also renewable and do
not rely on finite fossil fuels to create energy. Green Energy always comes from a
renewable source,and is efficient and direct.
Green power Green power is the name given to electricity generated from clean,
renewable energy sources. Green power sources can include solar (photovoltaic
and thermal), wind power, new hydro on existing dams, biomass, save energy
and landfill gas.
Greenhouse effect A natural system of trapping the Earth’s heat. Solar rays,
which penetrate the atmosphere to reach the Earth’s surface, are then partly re-
radiated by this surface. Certain gases present in the atmosphere absorb these
ascending rays and reflect them back to the surface as heat. Human activity con-
tributes to the increase in content of these gases, known as greenhouse gases, in
the atmosphere, which in turn raises the Earth’s temperature.
Greenhouse Gases Water vapour, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).
H
Hazardous waste Waste that is reactive, toxic, corrosive, or otherwise danger-
ous to living things and/or the environment. Many industrial by-products are
hazardous.
Heavy metals Metals of high atomic weight and density, such as mercury, lead,
and cadmium, that are toxic to living organisms.
Heavy Metals Metallic elements with high molecular weights, such as cad-
mium, chromium, copper, zinc, etc. Some heavy metals may have health risks
to humans, animals, and/or plants if present in excessive concentrations or
amounts.
Higher Heating Value (HHV) The standard measure of the energy released dur-
ing combustion of a fuel, assuming the product water is in the liquid state. For
natural gas fuel, the HHV is approximately 10% for higher than the lower heat-
ing value (LHV).
Hydrolysis Decomposition of a chemical compound by reaction with water, such
as the dissociation of a dissolved salt or the catalytic conversion of starch to
glucose.
360 Appendix E
I
Incineration The burning of waste at high temperatures in the presence of suffi-
cient air to achieve complete combustion, either to reduce its volume (in the case
of MSW) or its toxicity (e.g., for organic solvents and PCBs). MSW incinerators
recover heat and/or power. The main emissions are carbon dioxide, water and
ash residues.
Incinerator Ash The ash residue, other than fly-ash, resulting from incineration
where the waste is reduced to ashes containing by weight less than 10 per cent
of combustible materials.
Incinerator Waste The residue from incineration, other than incinerator ash and
fly-ash (low solubility in water, non oxidizable).
Inorganic Waste Waste composed of material other than plant or animal matter,
such as sand, dust, glass, and many synthetics.
Integrated Solid Waste Management Involves the use of a combination of tech-
niques and programs to manage the municipal solid waste stream. It is based
on the fact that the waste stream is made up of distinct components that can
be collected, managed and disposed of separately and that a combination of
approaches can be used to manage targeted portions of the waste stream.
IPCC The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific inter-
governmental body tasked to evaluate the risk of climate change caused by human
activity.
J
JI Joint Implementation Mechanism under Kyoto Protocol through which a
developed country can receive ERUs (Emission Reduction Unit) when it helps to
finance projects that reduce net GHG emissions in another developed country.
K
Kyoto Protocol An international climate change treaty adopted in 1997 and
entered into force in 2005, with the objective to stabilize atmospheric concen-
trations of GHGs.
L
Landfill Waste disposal facility used for the deposit of waste on to or into land.
Landfill gases Biogas from the anaerobic fermentation of organic matter in land-
fills. Gases arising from the decomposition of organic wastes; principally meth-
ane, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen sulfide.
Landfilling The final disposal of solid waste by placing it in a controlled fashion in
a place intended to be permanent.
Leachate Any liquid percolating through the deposited waste and emitted from or
contained within a landfill.
Leachate collection and removal system (LCRS) Engineered system to draw
leachate to a central point for removal, with the purpose of minimising the accu-
mulation and depth of leachate on the liner.
Leachate pond A pond or tank constructed at a landfill to receive the leachate
from the area. Usually the pond is designed to provide some treatment of the
leachate, by allowing settlement of solids or by aeration to promote biological
processes.
Leachate recirculation Practice of returning leachate to a landfill from which it

has been abstracted.
Leachate well Well installed within the waste area for the monitoring and/or
extraction of leachate … as opposed to borehole which is the term used when
located outside of the waste deposition area.
Life Cycle Analysis Life cycle analysis is the investigation and valuation of the
environmental impacts of a given product or service caused or necessitated by
its existence.
Liner A low permeability barrier installed to impede the flow of leachate, ground-
water and landfill gas.
Liner A protective layer, made of soil and/or synthetic materials, installed along
the bottom and sides of a landfill to prevent or reduce the flow of leachate into
the environment.
Liner system Combination of drainage layers and liners.
Liquefied Petroleum Gases (LPG) Liquefied petroleum gas is a mixture of hydro-
carbon gases used as a fuel in heating appliances and vehicles, and increasingly
replacing chlorofluorocarbons (CFC’s) as an aerosol propellant and a refrigerant
to reduce damage to the ozone layer.
Litter The indiscriminate disposal of solid waste causing health related problems.
Lower calorific value (LCV) It is the total heat produced on combustion less the
energy in the uncooled products of combustion, including uncondensed water
vapor. The LCV of a fuel is typically 5–10% less than the HCV.
Lower explosive limit (LEL) The lowest percentage concentration by volume of
a mixture of flammable gas with air which will propagate a flame at 25C and
atmospheric pressure.
Lysimeter A device used to measure rate of movement of water through or from a
soil layer or is used to collect percolated water for quality analysis.
M
Magnetic separation The use of magnets to separate ferrous metals from com-
mingled waste materials in MSW.
Manual landfill A landfill in which most operations are carried out without the use
of mechanized equipment.
Manual Separation Separation of waste by hand picking or hand-sorting.
Market waste Primarily organic waste, such as leaves, skins, and unsold food,
discarded at or near food markets.
Mass-burn incinerator A type of incinerator in which solid waste is burned with-
out prior sorting or processing.
Materials balance An accounting of the weights of materials entering and leaving
a processing unit, such as an incinerator.
Materials recovery Obtaining materials that can be reused or recycled.
Materials recovery facility (MRF) A facility for separating commingled recy-
clables by manual or mechanical means. Some MRFs are designed to sepa-
rate recyclables from mixed MSW. MRFs then bale and market the recovered
materials.
Mechanical Separation Separation of solid waste into various components by
mechanical means.
362 Appendix E
Mesophilic Temperatures Environment of moderate temperature between 40F

to 110F (4C to 43C). Mesophilic microorganisms are most common at the
beginning and later stages of the compost process.
Methane An odorless, colorless, flammable, explosive gas, CH4, produced by
anaerobically decomposing MSW at landfills.
Methane correction factor A correction factor to represent the extent to which
decay processes are aerobic, rather than anaerobic.
Methane fraction The fraction of methane in landfill gas.
Methane generation potential The quantity of methane emitted per unit waste
deposited.
Methane recovery rate The fraction of the generated methane that is recovered
and oxidised in the gas collection system.
Methanogenic stage Phase where fatty acids are degraded to methane and carbon
dioxide by bacteria.
Micro-organisms Generally all living things microscopic in size including bacteria,
yeasts, simple fungi, algae, slime moulds, protozoans. They are involved in sta-
bilization of wastes.
Mixed waste Unsorted materials that have been discarded into the waste stream.
Modular incinerator A relatively small type of prefabricated solid waste combus-
tion unit.
Moisture content Weight of moisture (usually water) contained in a sample of
waste or soil. Usually determined by drying the sample at 105C to constant
weight.
Monofill A landfill intended for one type of waste only.
Municipal authority Municipal Corporation, Municipality, Nagar Palika, Nagar
Nigam, Nagar Panchayat, Municipal Council including notified area commit-
tee (NAC) or any other local body constituted under the relevant statutes and,
where the management and handling of municipal solid waste is entrusted to
such agency.
Municipal solid waste (MSW) All solid waste generated in an area except indus-
trial and agricultural wastes. Sometimes includes construction and demolition
debris and other special wastes that may enter the municipal waste stream.
Generally excludes hazardous wastes except to the extent that they enter the
municipal waste stream. Sometimes defined to mean all solid wastes that a city
authority accepts responsibility for managing in some way.
Municipal solid waste management (MSWM) Planning and implementation of
systems to handle MSW.
N
Natural Gas A mixture of gaseous hydrocarbons, primarily methane, but gener-
ally also including ethane, propane and higher hydrocarbons in much smaller
amounts and some non combustible gases such as nitrogen and carbon dioxide.
NGO Nongovernmental organization. May be used to refer to a range of organi-
zations from small community groups, through national organizations, to inter-
national ones. Frequently these are not-for-profit organizations.
NIMBY “Not In My Back Yard.” An expression of resident opposition to the sit-
ing of a solid waste facility based on the particular location proposed.
O
On-site handling, storage and processing The activities associated with han-
dling, storage and processing of solid waste at the source of generation before
they are collected.
Open Burning Combustion of MSW in an uncontrolled manner without using
any air pollution control device, discharging air pollutants exceeding the pre-
scribed air quality standards.
Open dump An unplanned “landfill” that incorporates few if any of the charac-
teristics of a controlled landfill. There is typically no leachate control, no access
control, no cover, no management, and many waste pickers.
Operator of a facility A person who owns or operates a facility for collection,
segregation, storage, transportation, processing and disposal of municipal solid
wastes and also includes any other agency appointed as such by the municipal
authority for the management and handling of municipal solid wastes in the
respective areas.
Organic waste Technically, waste containing carbon, including paper, plastics,
wood, food wastes, and yard wastes. In practice in MSWM, the term is often
used in a more restricted sense to mean material that is more directly derived
from plant or animal sources, and which can generally be decomposed by
microorganisms.
Oxidised fraction The fraction of the generated methane that is oxidised in the
upper layers of the landfill or landfill cap.
P
Pelletisation Means a process whereby pellets are prepared which are small cubes
or cylindrical pieces made out of solid wastes and includes fuel pellets which are
also referred as refuse derived fuel.
Phasing progressive use of the landfill area so that construction, operation (filling)
and restoration can occur simultaneously in different parts of the site.
Point of Collection A geographical point on a generator’s property where storage
containers are placed for collection service.
Pollution The contamination of soil, water, or the atmosphere by the discharge of
waste or other offensive materials.
Post-consumer materials Materials that a consumer has finished using, which
the consumer may sell, give away, or discard as wastes.
Primary material A commercial material produced from virgin materials used for
manufacturing basic products. Examples include wood pulp, iron ore, and silica
sand.
Privatization A general term referring to a range of contracts and other agree-
ments that transfer the provision of some services or production from the public
sector to private firms or organizations.
Processing Preparing MSW materials for subsequent use or management, using
processes such as baling, magnetic separation, crushing, and shredding. The
term is also sometimes used to mean separation of recyclables from mixed
MSW.
Producer responsibility A system in which a producer of products or services takes
responsibility for the waste that results from the products or services marketed,
364 Appendix E
by reducing materials used in production, making repairable or recyclable

goods, and/ or reducing packaging.
Putrescible Subject to decomposition or decay. Usually used in reference to food
wastes and other organic wastes that decay quickly.
Putrescible Process Decomposition or breakdown of organic materials with the
emission (giving off) of foul (bad, putrid) odors.
Pyrolysis Chemical decomposition of a substance by heat in the absence of oxy-
gen, resulting in various hydrocarbon gases and carbon-like residue.
R
Reclamation The restoration to a better or more useful state such as land recla-
mation by sanitary landfilling, or the extraction of useful materials from solid
waste.
Recoverable Resources Materials that still have useful physical or chemical prop-
erties after serving a specific purpose and can, therefore be re-used or recycled
for the same or other purposes.
Recyclables Items that can be reprocessed into feedstock for new products.
Common examples are paper, glass, aluminum, corrugated cardboard and plas-
tic containers.
Recycling The process of transforming materials into raw materials for
manufacturing new products, which may or may not be similar to the original
product.
Refuse-derived fuel (RDF) Fuel produced from MSW that has undergone process-
ing. Processing can include separation of recyclables and noncombustible mate-
rials, shredding, size reduction, and pelletizing.
Renewable energy A renewable resource is able to be replenished by natural proc-
esses at a rate comparable or faster than its rate of consumption (by humans or
other users). Renewable energy comes from renewable resources, such as fresh
water, biomass.
Residential Solid Waste Solid waste generated from single and multifamily
sources; frequently called household solid waste, or household wastes.
Residual waste Waste remaining after Recycling processes.
Those materials in one of the following ways:
1. For the same purpose as it was originally designed, or
2. For use in its original form, but for another purpose, or
3. The return of production line process wastes into main stream production
line feedstock, or
4. The treatment and reconstitution of the materials from one product to pro-
duce secondary raw materials for other products, and/or
5. Other productive uses.
Resource recovery The extraction and utilization of materials and energy from
wastes.
Restoration Works carried out on a landfill site to allow planned after use.
Reuse The use of a product more than once in its original form, for the same or a
new purpose.
Rubbish A general term for solid waste. Sometimes used to exclude food wastes
and ashes.
S
Sanitary landfill An engineered method of disposing of solid waste on land, in a
manner that meets most of the standard specifications, including sound siting,
extensive site preparation, proper leachate and gas management and monitoring,
compaction, daily and final cover, complete access control, and record-keeping.
Screening A unit operation that is used to separate mixtures of materials of dif-
ferent sizes into two or more size fractions by means of one or more screening
surfaces. Alternatively, the process of passing compost through a screen or sieve
to remove large organic or inorganic materials and improve the consistency and
quality of the end product.
Scrubber Emission control device in an incinerator, used primarily to control acid
gases, but also to remove some heavy metals.
Secondary material A material recovered from post-consumer wastes for use in
place of a primary material in manufacturing a product.
Secure landfill A disposal facility designed to permanently isolate wastes from the
environment. This entails burial of the wastes in a landfill that includes clay and/
or synthetic liners, leachate collection, gas collection (in cases where gas is gen-
erated), and an impermeable cover.
Segregation Means to separate the municipal solid wastes into the groups of
organic, inorganic, recyclables and hazardous wastes.
Self Heating Spontaneous increase in temperature of organic masses resulting
from the composting or microbial action.
Separation To divide wastes into groups of similar materials, such as paper
products, glass, food wastes, and metals.
Set-out container A box or bucket used for residential waste that is placed out-
side for collection.
Shredder A mechanical device used to break waste materials into smaller pieces,
usually in the form of irregularly shaped strips. Shredding devices include tub
grinders, hammer mills, shears, drum pulverizers, wet pulpers, and rasp mills.
Shredding Mechanical operations used to reduce the size of solid wastes.
Shrouded flare A flare where the combustion processes take place in a combus-
tion chamber. The combustion chamber is thermically insulated to prevent the
flame from cooling. Some means of combustion control is normally provided.
Also known as a closed flare or ground flare.
Site remediation Treatment of a contaminated site by removing contaminated
solids or liquids or treating them on-site.
Size Reduction, Mechanical The mechanical conversion of solid waste into small
pieces. In practice, the term shredding, grinding, and milling are used inter-
changeably to describe mechanical size reduction operation.
Soil Amendment A soil additive that stabilizes the soil, improves its resistance
to erosion, increases its permeability to air and water, improves its texture and
the resistance of its surface to crusting, makes it easier to cultivate, or otherwise
improve its quality.
Solid Waste Management Solid waste management is defined as the systematic
organization and administration of activities, which provide for the planning,
financing, and operational processes for managing solid waste. Operational proc-
esses include storage, separation, collection, transport, treatment, separation,
366 Appendix E
diversion for other management purposes, recycling, composting, combustion,

and landfilling of solid waste. The generation of solid waste is not a part of solid
waste management.
Solid Waste Management Facility Transfer stations, composting facilities, mate-
rials recovery facilities, and landfills that receive solid waste and/or recyclables
for management.
Source reduction The design, manufacture, acquisition, and reuse of materials so
as to minimize the quantity and/or toxicity of waste produced.
Source Reduction Source reduction is any action that reduces the amount of solid
waste to be collected and managed. It includes 1. Reducing the amount of
solid wastes generated at the source; 2. Redesigning of products or packaging so
that less material is used, resulting in fewer discarded materials; 3. Voluntary or
imposed behavioral changes in the use of materials which results in the selection
of products and materials which last longer, or reduce the amount of materi-
als discarded; or 4. Increasing the durability and reusability of materials thereby
producing longer lasting products.
Source Separated Organic Material (SSO) A mixture of the biologically decom-
posable organic materials separated from the MSW by the generator for the pur-
pose of recycling. The list of materials to be included in the SSO is defined by the
recycling program operator and usually reflects the capabilities of the processing
system.
Source separation Setting aside of compostable and recyclable materials from the
waste stream before they are collected with other MSW, to facilitate reuse, recy-
cling, and composting.
Source separation Separation of recyclable materials from MSW performed by
residents in their homes or by companies (sorting on the production chain,
industrial waste tips).
Spark-ignition gas engine A form of reciprocating internal combustion engine
burning gas in which spark plugs provide ignition. Most gas engines used for
CHP are based on commercial diesel engine designs, but with lower compres-
sion ratios and other modifications.
Special wastes Wastes that are ideally considered to be outside of the MSW
stream, but which sometimes enter it and must often be dealt with by municipal
authorities. These include household hazardous waste, medical waste, construc-
tion and demolition debris, war and earthquake debris, tires, oils, wet batteries,
sewage sludge, human excreta, slaughterhouse waste, and industrial waste.
Stabilization The decomposition or breakdown of compost to the point where it
does not reheat when wetted or give off offensive odors.
Storage means the temporary containment of municipal solid wastes in a manner so
as to prevent littering, attraction to vectors, stray animals and excessive foul odour.
Stripping Removal of volatile components from liquid by gas exchange.
Subsidy Direct or indirect payment from government to businesses, citizens, or
institutions to encourage a desired activity.
Syngas A combustible gas usually containing CH4, CO, H2, CO2, produced
through gasification of organic material. Syngas is similar to natural gas and can
be converted into electrical and thermal energy or cleaned and conditioned to be
used as a feedstock for production of methanol.
T
Thermophilic Temperatures Environment of higher temperatures ranging from
113F 155F (45C to 68C). Thermophilic microorganisms thrive when the
compost pile heats up.
Total organic carbon (TOC) mass concentration of carbon present in the organic
matter which is dissolved or suspended in water.
Transfer The act of moving waste from a collection vehicle to a larger transport
vehicle.
Transfer station A major facility at which MSW from collection vehicles is con-
solidated into loads that are transported by larger trucks or other means to more
distant final disposal facilities, typically landfills.
Transportation means conveyance of municipal solid wastes from place to place
hygienically through specially designed transport system so as to prevent foul
odour, littering, unsightly conditions and accessibility to vectors.
Trash Waste that usually does not include food wastes but may include other
organic materials such as plant trimmings.
Trigger Level is a value which when encountered requires certain actions to be
taken.
U
Uncontrolled dump site A landfill which receives all types of waste in conditions
which do not respect the rules in force for controlled landfills.
Upper explosive limit (UEL) the highest percentage concentration by volume of
a mixture of flammable gas with air which will propagate a flame at 25C and
atmospheric pressure.
User Fees Fees directly billed to individual generators (home and business owners)
for solid waste management services.
V
Vent refers to system provided in a landfill to permit the escape to atmosphere of
gases and vapours generated by deposited waste during biodegradation.
Virgin materials Any basic material for industrial processes that has not previ-
ously been used, for example, wood-pulp trees, iron ore, crude oil, bauxite.
Void space space available to deposit waste.
Void space The space between particles in a matrix, for example the space between
grains of sand or between materials in a landfill.
Volatile solid The portion of the organic material that can be released as a gas
when organic material is burned in a muffle furnace at 550C.
Volume reduction The processing of wastes so as to decrease the amount of
space to occupy. Compaction systems can reduce volume by 50% to 80%.
Combustion can reduce waste volume by 90%.
W
Waste characterization study An analysis of samples from a waste stream to
determine its composition.
Waste Composition Study An analysis of samples from a waste stream to deter-
mine its composition.
368 Appendix E
Waste Diversion The capacity to divert waste material or materials from Potential
ultimate disposal by landfilling or incineration, by employing the hierarchy of
Rs – Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. Incineration is a waste to-energy plant is usually
classed as Recovery, the 4th R, and is still a means of waste diversion.
Waste-derived fuel Fuel produced from MSW that has undergone processing.
Processing can include separation of recyclables and non-combustible materials,
shredding, size reduction, and pelletizing.
Waste generation The waste output of an area, location or facility.
Waste management hierarchy A ranking of waste management operations
according to their environmental or energy benefits. The purpose of the waste
management hierarchy is to make waste management practices as environmen-
tally sound as possible.
Waste reduction All means of reducing the amount of waste that is produced ini-
tially and that must be collected by solid waste authorities. This ranges from
legislation and product design to local programs designed to keep recyclables
and compostables out of the final waste stream.
Waste stream The total flow of waste from a community, region, or facility.
Waste Transformation The transformation of waste materials involving a phase
change (e.g., solid to gas).
Waste-to-energy (WTE) plant A facility that uses solid waste materials (proc-
essed or raw) to produce energy. WTE plants include incinerators that produce
steam for district heating or industrial use, or that generate electricity; they also
include facilities that convert landfill gas to electricity.
Well head fitting to the top of a gas well to control the extraction of landfill gas.
Wet/Dry Collection A 2-stream system of source separation whereby the recycla-
ble materials are placed in one container, forming the “dry” waste stream, and
other materials are put in a second container. The second, “wet” stream, is often
either landfilled or further treated to remove the compostable material from the
ultimate remnant which is landfilled.
Y
Yard waste Leaves, grass clippings, weeds, brush. and other natural organic mat-
ter discarded from gardens.
Appendix F
List of abbreviations
BAT Best Available Techniques

DOC Degradable organic carbon
DOCf Dissimilable fraction
F Methane fraction
K Decay constant
LEL Lower explosive limit
LFG Landfill gas
Lo Methane generation potential
MCF Methane correction factor
OF Oxidised fraction
R Methane recovery rate
TOC Total organic carbon
UEL Upper explosive limit
Basic Conversions
5% Methane in air 50,000 PPM (Remember that 1% 10,000 ppm)
1.25% Methane in air 12,500 PPM
100% of the Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) 5% Methane in Air
25% of the LEL1.25% Methane in Air
PPM – Parts Per Million

% O2 – Percent Oxygen
CO – Carbon Monoxide
H2S – Hydrogen sulphide
LEL – Lower Explosive Limit
UEL – Upper Explosive Limit
Appendix G
Template for country-specific

LFG action plan
1. Summary of the solid waste management sector

• Landfill management practices (daily cover practices, waste scales, leachate
management and treatment, waste compaction)
• Current Status and Trends for Landfill Design (depth of waste, presence of
liners and/or caps, steepness of slopes) especially disposal and landfill gas
2. Key stakeholders in the solid waste disposal sector and LFG industry
• Public and private landfill owners
• Government officials
• Non-governmental organizations
• Consultants
• Financers
• Project developers
• Utilities
• Existing bilateral agreements or international government cooperation
3. Overview of LFG potential from existing disposal sites
• Number, location and type (e.g., sanitary, controlled, open dump) of disposal
sites
• Waste generation rates (total or per capita)
• Waste-in-place, daily or annual waste acceptance rates, open and close dates
for sites
• Waste composition and basic characterization of landfilled waste
• Web-site for any existing landfill inventories in the country
4. List of existing or planned landfill gas capture and/or use projects in megawatt
capacity or gas flow (m3/minute or day or mmBTU/hr) and a brief description of
technology applications employed (e.g., flare, electricity generation, transmitted
in pipeline to end user)
5. Legal and Policy Frameworks for Landfill Methane Recovery, including:
• Current legal framework (e.g., licensing, royalties, environmental regulations,
permits)
• Climate change position (e.g., signatory to Kyoto Protocol, CDM/JI
opportunities)
• Policies or mandates that may affect waste streams (e.g., organic waste
diversion, recycling)
372 Appendix G
6. Market assessment and reform issues, including:

• End uses for LFG (e.g., electricity generation, fuel for industrial applications)
• Prices and tariffs
• Competition
• Market access (e.g., access to electric utility grid, natural gas pipeline)
• Carbon credits
• Renewable or green energy standards
7. Financing Options (characterize):

• Internal mechanisms
• External support
• Private sector investment
• Multilateral agreements
• Incentives (e.g., subsidies, tax credits)
• Research and Development Resources
8. Domestic Country Strategy
Briefly describe the country’s strategy and goals (if defined) including the legal frame-
work for reducing greenhouse gas emissions within the country and the role (if any)
that landfill emissions play in this strategy.
List the elements the country is using and plans to use to overcome the barriers
and promote methane emission reductions from landfills. These elements may include,
but are not limited to, the following:
• Data collection and development of information products

• Information sharing
• Targeted information exchange
• Development of financial incentives
• Capacity building
• Adoption of other new policies, including changes to Regulatory Framework
• Specific technical training
• Technology demonstrations
• Support for research and technology development
9. International Strategy
List the elements the country is using and plans to use to promote methane emission
reductions from landfills in other countries. These elements may include, but are not
limited to, the following:
• Grants solicitations
• Technical support for pre-feasibility studies, pumping trials, or other site-
specific assessments
• Technical support for preparing CDM paperwork (e.g., project design docu-
ments, contracts)
• Data collection
• Technology Demonstrations
• Targeting Information Exchange
• Specific technical training
Template for country-specific LFG action plan 373
• Capacity building
• Information sharing
10. “Wish List”: What are you looking for from the (e.g., financing, technical assistance,
feasibility assessments) and/or what expertise can you provide to the Partnership?
• Barrier (or support) #1
11. Conclusions and observations
12. References and sources (e.g., appendices, supplemental information)
Appendix H
LFG calculation worksheet
Site Name: ______________________________
Step 1 – Estimate the LFG Supply

If the landfill has a LFG collection system and the flow rate has been measured in
the past couple of years, proceed to Step 2.
A. Calculate the amount of MSW in place.

Line A.1: Solid waste in place (yd3) Area of waste (ft2) Ave. depth of waste (ft.)
1 yd3/27 ft3
( __________ __________ )/27
______________
Line A.2: MSW in place (yd3) Solid waste in place (yd3)
Fraction of MSW in landfill
_____________________ _______
Calculated from Line A.1
_______________
Line A.3: MSW in place (tons) MSW in place (yd3)
0.6 tons/ yd3
______________________ 0.6
Calculated from Line A.2
__________________
B. Estimate the current methane generation rate

Line B.1: Number of years the landfill accepted waste ___________________
Line B.2: Number of years since the landfill’s closure ____________________
Line B.3: Current methane generation rate (scfm) ___________________
C. Estimate the future methane generation rate (after ten years)

Line C.1: Future methane generation rate (scfm) Current methane generation
rate (scfm) 0.60
_________________ 0.60
0 From Line B.3
_____________
376 Appendix H
Step 2 – Assess the Adequacy of the LFG Supply
A. Assess the LFG Flow

To determine if the LFG supply could be adequate to support a commercial-scale
methane-to-energy project, proceed to Line A.1. If the methane will be used on-site
to generate electricity or flared, proceed to Line A.2 or Line A.6, respectively.
Line A.1: Is the adjusted future methane generation rate from Step 1 Line C.1 greater
than 400 scfm? (Note: A flow rate of approximately 400 scfm at 40% methane cor-
responds to the production of 1 MW of electricity or 10 mmBTU/hr of heat)
_____ Yes. Commercial sale may be viable if the LFG quality is adequate (Proceed to
Step 3).
_____ No. Commercial sale may not be viable.
For generating electricity for use on-site, proceed to Line A.2. For direct use in an
on-site boiler or furnace proceed to Line A.6.
For electricity production

Line A.2: Current electric load (kW) Highest monthly electricity usage (kWh)
(Obtained from the utility bill)/744 hours per
month (31 days @ 24 hrs/day)
___________________/744
____________kW
Line A.3: Electricity that can be produced for on-site use (kW) ________________
Line A.4: Compare the electricity produced (from Line A.3) to the current electric
load (from Line A.2) to determine the percentage of produced electricity that can
be utilized on-site. [Note: The excess electricity might be purchased by the servic-
ing utility and provide a potential revenue stream for the project. The economics of
doing so will depend on the utility’s buy back rate, the cost of tying into the electric
grid, and other factors.]
For direct use in on-site boilers or furnaces

Line A.6: Current heating demand (mmBTU/hr) Highest monthly total usage
(mmBTU) (Obtained from the
local utility bill)/744 hours per
month (31 days @ 24 hrs/day)
______________________/744
___ _mmBTU/hr
Line A.7: Energy that can be produced for on-site use (mmBTU/hr) _____________
Line A.8: Compare the Energy (from Line A.6) to the current energy availability
(from Line A.7) to determine the percentage of the produced energy that can be uti-
lized on-site.
B. Assess the LFG Quality

The preceding analysis assumed a methane concentration of 40%. In some cases
concentrations between 40% and 35% can be utilized, but that requires a site-spe-
cific determination beyond the scope and purpose of this tool. Methane concentra-
tions below 35% are typically too low to be considered for commercial sale.
Step 3: Evaluate the Project Costs
LFG calculation worksheet 377
To estimate the break even rate for producing electricity proceed to Line A.1 and for
utilizing the energy content in boilers or furnaces (direct use) proceed to Line A.3.
For Electricity Generation Projects

Line A.1: Break even rate ($/kWh) ______________________
Line A.2: Is the break even rate from Line A.1, above, equal or greater than the
current electric cost?
_____ Yes. The methane-to-energy project may be cost effective.
_____ No. The methane-to-energy project may not be cost effective.
For Non-Commercial Scale Direct Use Projects

Line A.3: Break even rate ($/mmBTU) _____________________
Line A.2: Is the break even rate from Line A.3, above, equal or greater than the
current natural LFG cost that is or would be supplied to the combustor?
_____ Yes. The methane-to-energy project may be cost effective.
_____ No. The methane-to-energy project may not be cost effective.
REFERENCE
US Environmental Protection Agency. (2010) USEPA Superfund Landfill Methane to Energy

Pilot Project, OSWER No. 9200.081.
Appendix I
List of LFG to PNG/CNG Technology

Providers
Acrion Technologies/ Terracastus Technologies: Acrion is a small American com-

pany that develops technologies for the separation and purification of CO2 rich
gases. Terracastus Technologies holds the license to produce PNG from Acrion’s
CO2 Wash® process. www.acrion.com, www.terracastus.com
AGA: A Swedish supplier of industrial gases, including LFG and CO2. AGA is a
member of The Linde Group. www.aga.se
Air Liquide Advanced Technologies: An expert in industrial gases and specialized
areas, like LFG. A supplier of a process for the production of CNG using mem-
branes for the separation of CO2. A member of the Air Liquide Group. www
.dta.airliquide.com/en/welcome.html
Air Liquide (Sweden): A Swedish expert in the industrial gas field and a supplier
of CO2. A member of the Air Liquide Group. www.airliquide.se/
BOC Gases: A supplier of industrial gases and gas equipment. A member of The
Linde Group. www.boc-gases.com/
Carbotech: A German company that develops plants for gas purification and gen-
eration. A supplier of PSA technology. www.carbotech.info
Cryo AB: A manufacturer of cryogenic equipment for the storage, transportation
and handling of liquefied gases. A member of The Linde Group. www.cryo.se
Cryostar: A company specialized in cryogenic equipment. A supplier of fuel sta-
tions using CNG as a feedstock and also a supplier of small-scale liquefaction
technology. www.cryostar.com
Flotech: A New Zealand company that, among others, operates in Sweden. A sup-
plier of water scrubber technology. www.flotech.com
Gasrec: A British producer of liquid methane fuel. They use gas generated by the
decomposition of biomass. www.gasrec.co.uk
GTI/Gas Technology Institute: An American research and development organiza-
tion in the energy field. A developer of small-scale liquefaction technology. www
.gastechnology.org
Hamworthy: A company working in the oil and gas market. A supplier of a small-
scale liquefaction technology. www.hamworthy.com
Hardstaff Group: A U.K. company working in the road transport industry and a
developer of natural gas vehicle technology with their own patented dual fuel
technology. www.hardstaffgroup.co.uk
H-O Nilsson AB/ Ingersoll Rand Svenska AB: A supplier of refrigerating plants,
including CO2 cooling systems. www.honilsson.se
380 Appendix I
INL/ Idaho National Laboratory: An American national laboratory that supports

the Department of Energy. A developer of liquefaction technology used at pres-
sure letdown stations. www.inl.gov
Malmberg Water: A Swedish company working with the fields of; LFG, heat/cold,
water treatment, drilling and environmental management. A supplier of water
scrubber technology. www.malmberg.se
Nexgen Fueling: A provider of equipment needed for LNG liquefaction, distribu-
tion, storage and vehicle fueling. A part of Chart Industries. www.nexgenfuel-
ing.com
Prometheus-Energy: An American company that produce, sell and distrib-
ute LNG produced from small sources. A developer and supplier of cryogenic
upgrading technology. www.prometheus-energy.com
Purac/Lackeby Water Group: Purac is a part of the Lackeby Water Group.
Lackeby Water Group is a Swedish company working with water and waste-
water treatment and biogas production. www.lackebywater.se
SGtS/Scandinavian GtS: A developer of biogas projects and a supplier of cryo-
genic upgrading technology. www.scandinaviangts.com
SITA UK: A British recycling and waste management company. www.sita.co.uk
The Linde Group: A gases and engineering company working in the biogas field,
among others. www.linde.com
Vanzetti Engineering: A manufacture of cryogenic equipment and a supplier of
fuel stations using LBG as a feedstock. www.vanzettiengineering.com
Converting old landfills to energy producing sites, while capturing emitted Rajaram
greenhouse gases, has faced numerous technical, financial and social challenges Siddiqui
and developments lately. Also, the re-mining of landfills to recover useful land in Khan
dense urban areas and proper landfill closure has been a subject of discussion and
investigation. Designed as an overview text for landfill management from cradle
to grave, this volume’s content stretches from the fundamentals to the rather in-
depth details. By putting down their joint international experience, the authors have
intended to both guide and inspire the user for his or her landfill project.
From Landfill Gas to Energy

Introducing the fundamental concepts of landfill gas management and its needs
and importance in the present world energy scenario, this accessible reference
volume presents key landfill gas management techniques at regional, national and
global levels. In detail, it gives an account of the recent technologies available for
landfill gas treatment and its utilization. It summarizes landfill gas prediction models
developed in various parts of the world and details their adequacy in various field
conditions. Covering both landfill remediation aspects and economic considerations
while selecting a landfill gas to energy utilization project, the reader gets familiar
with the practical aspects of converting a landfill site. Also, the challenges faced by
municipalities and landfill operators in recovering landfill gas as an energy source
are described, and solutions are suggested for solving them effectively. These
include practical execution problems, governmental issues, and developing policies
to encourage investment. The volume also includes various case studies of landfill
gas-to-energy utilization projects from around the world, which can be reviewed
and customized for the reader’s own application with the help of extensive reference
section.
Intended as an overview text for advanced students and researchers in the relevant
engineering and technology fields (Environmental, Civil, Geotechnical, Chemical,
Mechanical and Electrical), this book will also be particularly helpful to practitioners
such as municipal managers, landfill operators, designers, solid waste management
engineers, urban planners, professional consultants, scientists, non-governmental
organizations and entrepreneurs.
“Besides being a useful resource book, it allows for easy reading and a quick way
to learn about the field. With the potential to be the premier reference text in the
field of landfill gas to energy for the years to come, it should be on the shelf of
every professional working in this field.” David S. O’Neill, Environmental Attorney, From Landfill Gas to Energy
Principal of LandGas Technology LLC, Chicago, USA
Vasudevan Rajaram
Faisal Zia Siddiqui
an informa business Mohd Emran Khan

Landfill Gas To Energ

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Landfill Gas To Energ

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Converting old landfills to energy producing sites, while capturing emitted Rajaram

From Landfill Gas to Energy

Technologies and Challenges

Faisal Zia Siddiqui and

No claim to original U.S. Government works

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-203-18142-3 (eBook - PDF)

List of figures xiii

1 Landfill gas to energy: International status and prospects 1

2 Planning and design of LFG recovery system 27

3 Landfill gas modeling 77

3.7.3 Methane fraction 115

4 LFG monitoring and economic feasibility evaluation 121

5 Landfill gas treatment technologies 153

5.4.3 Description of LFG Flaring System 163

6 Landfill gas utilization technologies 209

6.9 Power generation using LFG-driven engines 232

7 Remediation of landfill sites 245

7.8.4 Monitoring and management 275

8 Landfill gas case studies 285

8.35 Olavarria LFG to energy project, Argentina 309

9 Challenges in utilization of LFG in developing countries 317

Appendix A Format for monitoring of LFG 333

1.1 Comparison of methane with other greenhouse gases 2

2.21 Schematic of Leachate formation 72

5.24 Process flow diagram for chemical absorption of CO2 189

8.11 LFG Scrubbing, Conditioning & Flaring System of Okhla

1.1 LFG Characteristics 12

5.12 Comparison of yield and purity of different LFG

Chapter 1 provides an overview of the status and prospects of LFG worldwide

Faisal Zia Siddiqui

Landfill gas to energy: International

Figure 1.2 Methane emissions contribution and breakdown of anthropogenic sources

1.2 IMPORTANCE OF LANDFILL METHANE

1.3 INTERNATIONAL LANDFILL INDUSTRY

Global methane emissions from landfills are expected to grow by 9% between

of financial and human resources leads to a failure of compliance. Landfill siting

1.3.2 East Asia and the Pacific

1.3.3 South and West Asia

1.3.5 Latin America and the Caribbean

1.3.6 North America

1.3.9 The Netherlands

1.4 LFG GENERATION MECHANISM

LFG is generated as a result of physical, chemical, and microbial processes occur-

CELLULOSE, FATTY ACIDS

Phases Condition Typical Time Frame

Figure 1.6 LFG Generation Curves

1.4.1 Phases of LFG generation

Figure 1.7 LFG composition over a period of time

1.4.2 Landfill gas properties and hazards

Table 1.1 LFG Characteristics

Constituent Relative Concentration in Notes

Air 1 NA Forms explosive mixture with methane

1.4.3 Factors affecting LFG generation

Figure 1.8 Methane Flammability Range

Figure 1.9 Factors affecting LFG Generation

A difference in waste density exists as a result of compaction practices at land-

• Atmoshpheric Temperature: Cold climates will reduce biological activity in

1.5 FACTORS AFFECTING LFG TRANSPORT

Molecular Diffusion: Molecular diffusion occurs in a gas system when a concentration

1.6 LFG CHARACTERISTICS AND CONDENSATE

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX

Table 1.2 Typical LFG Composition at Methanogenic Phase

Component Volume (% dry weight basis, excluding moisture content)