Energy Conversion and Management 131 (2017) 18–31

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

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

Sustainable waste management: Waste to energy plant as an alternative

to landfill
Federica Cucchiella, Idiano D’Adamo ⇑, Massimo Gastaldi
Department of Industrial and Information Engineering and Economics, University of L’Aquila, Via G. Gronchi 18, 67100 L’Aquila, Italy

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

Article history: The management of municipal solid waste (MSW) has been identified as one of the global challenges that
Received 17 June 2016 must be carefully faced in order to achieve sustainability goals. European Union (EU) has defined as
Received in revised form 3 November 2016 Waste to Energy (WTE) technology is able to create synergies with EU energy and climate policy, without
Accepted 5 November 2016
compromising the achievement of higher reuse and recycling rates. The methodology used in this paper
Available online 11 November 2016
is based on two levels. A strategy analysis defines the amount of waste to incinerate with energy recovery
considering different approaches based on unsorted waste, landfilled waste and separated collection rate,
Keywords:
respectively. Consequently, it is evaluated the sustainability of a WTE plant as an alternative to landfill for
Environmental analysis
Financial analysis
a specific area. Two indicators are used: the Reduction of the Emissions of equivalent Carbon Dioxide
Social analysis (ERCO2eq) and Financial Net Present Value (FNPV). Furthermore, a social analysis is conducted through
Sustainability interviews to identify the most critical elements determining the aversion toward the WTE realization.
Waste to energy The obtained results show the opportunity to realize a 150 kt plant in the only electrical configuration.
In fact, the cogenerative configuration reaches better environmental performances, but it is not profitable
for this size. Profits are equal to 25.4 € per kiloton of treated waste and 370 kgCO2eq per ton of treated
waste are avoided using a WTE plant as an alternative to landfill. In this way, the percentage of energy
recovery ranges from 21% to 25% in examined scenarios and disposal waste is minimised in order to pre-
serve resources for the future.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction site of a closed loop system [9,10]. The opportunity to valorise, as

Sustainability is a cross-disciplinary topic that is analysed by
researchers, policy makers and community members. Protection
of people and the environment and conservation of resources are
the goals of waste management [1–3]. In the context of sustainable
waste management (SWM), sustainability is defined the assess-
ment of environmental, economic, and social impacts of available
waste treatment options [4]. SWM is tangible when the generation
of waste and harmful substances is minimised, the reused (using
materials repeatedly), recycled (using materials to make new prod-
ucts) or recovered (producing energy from waste) materials are
maximised, and disposal waste is minimised in order to preserve
resources for the future [5–7].
The European Commission adopted a Circular Economy Pack-
age, in which the proposed actions can contribute to closing loop
of product lifecycles [8]. Several works have defined that the mate-
rials in informal waste dumps or in structured landfills is the oppo-
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: federica.cucchiella@univaq.it (F. Cucchiella), idiano.dadamo@
univaq.it (I. D’Adamo), massimo.gastaldi@univaq.it (M. Gastaldi).
materials (Waste to Product (WTP)) and/or as energy (WTE), cer-
tain waste streams is strategic for public health and environmental
protection [11,12].
Several methods have been proposed to evaluate SWM, e.g.
exergy analysis, life cycle assessment (LCA), exergetic life cycle
assessment (ELCA), analytical hierarchical process (AHP), life cycle
costing (LCC) and discounted cash flow (DCF) [13,14]. Many works
have reviewed the sustainability of WTE technologies. They defined
it as an opportunity for a sustainable production of energy [15], giv-
ing a contribution for supplying renewable energy [16] and for tack-
ling climate change [17]. Consequently, WTE plant provides a
method of simultaneously addressing the problems of energy
demand, waste management and greenhouse (GHG) emissions [18].
Energy, economic and environmental (3E) impacts of WTE for
MSW management are evaluated by [19], considering several
WTE technologies including the landfill gas recovery system, incin-
eration, anaerobic digestion (AD) and gasification. The 3E results
indicate incineration as the best solution, when combined heat
and power (CHP) is considered. Instead, AD is more favourable,
when only electricity is produced. Other comparisons are proposed
in literature: e.g. WTE present the best performing technology in

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.11.012
0196-8904/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 F. Cucchiella et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 131 (2017) 18–31
comparison to mechanical biological treatment (anaerobic and aer-
obic) in according to environmental, economic and social criteria
[20] and WTE plants present economic and financial benefits,
new employment opportunities and the reduction of GHG emis-
sions as alternative to landfill use [21].
The literature review reveals that a work that analyses together
environmental, economic, and social impacts of WTE plant in a
specific area as an alternative to landfill use is absent in literature.
This paper attempts to fill this gap by evaluating the sustainability
of this technology. A case study of an Italian region (called
Abruzzo) is conducted. A strategic analysis is proposed as the ini-
tial step of a decision-making process. It defines the amount of
waste to send to incineration based on energy recovery. Three dif-
ferent approaches based on unsorted waste, landfilled waste and
separated collection rate are used to define the amount of recov-
ered waste and furthermore, two kinds of energy recovery (CHP
and only electrical configuration) are analysed to evaluate environ-
mental and economic performances.
The remainder paper is organized as follows: initially, the liter-
ature preview is described in Section 2 and data and methods of
waste management in Europe and Italy are presented in Section 3.
Subsequently, methodology and input data are illustrated in Sec-
tion 4. Obtained results are subdivided into two parts: a strategy
analysis is presented in Section 5 and financial, environmental
and social assessments are proposed in Section 6. Conclusions
and some general considerations are presented in Section 7.
2. Literature review
The EU waste hierarchy Directive 2008/98/EC defines the prior-
ities in waste management: it gives preference to waste prevention
and minimization, then to reuse and recycling, then to energy
recovery and finally to disposal (landfill) – Fig. 1.
A WTE technology is a treatment process of recovering energy
in a form of heat, electricity or transport fuels from a waste source
[23]. Mass-burn incineration (MBI) is the most commonly used
WTE technology. This type of incineration includes large-scale
combustion of waste in a single-stage chamber unit where com-
plete combustion or oxidation occurs, characterized by high oper-
ating temperatures [26]. The last generation of WTE plant is
characterized by an improvement concerning the performance of
the chemical conversion process, but also by advanced technolo-
gies for pollution control systems [24]. Consequently, today it
can be seen as efficient industrial unit for destroying hazardous
Fig. 1. Waste management hierarchy [22].
19
organic substances, recovering energy and materials, and saving
landfill space [25].
Non-combustible materials, e.g. glass, metals, inert waste and
the organic fraction of waste (e.g. food waste, agricultural) are
basically eliminated before proceeding to incineration [27]. It trea-
ted several types of waste such as solid, liquid (e.g. domestic sew-
age) and gaseous (e.g. refinery gases). However, municipal solid
waste (MSW) represents the most common application [28]. Six
categories of MSW are examined by [29]. This work has shown that
the best practice is to recycle paper, wood, and plastics, to anaero-
bically digest food and yard waste, and to incinerate textile.
Environmental impacts of MSW management have been stud-
ied extensively, including a number of LCA studies [30]. The dis-
posal of waste in landfills presents serious and dangerous effects
on the ecosystem [31] and incineration with energy recovery
achieved better environmental performances than recovery of bio-
gas from landfill across all impact categories, except for human
toxicity [32]. Environmental improvements concerning the com-
bustion WTE unit can be achieved sending a larger percentage of
bottom ashes to an up-to-date process for recovery of materials
[33]. WTE plants are able to destroy completely hazardous organic
materials, to reduce risks due to pathogenic microorganisms and
viruses and to concentrate valuable as well as toxic metals in cer-
tain fractions [34]. A comparison between two kinds of energy
recovery is proposed by [35]: the environmental convenience cor-
responds to the cogenerative configuration, while the economic
advantages are linked to the only electrical one.
Some successful aspects of applying WTE techniques are: (i)
green fuel pellets utilized for heating supply; (ii) paper and pulping
industry wastes utilized for CHP plant; (iii) animal residues utilized
for biogas production and (iv) MSW/wastewater treatment plant
utilized as a district energy supply centre [18]. Furthermore, the
presence of a low share of biowaste in mixed MSW decreases the
moisture content of the waste, increasing the heating value.
Besides of this, authors have highlighted as a high share of plastic
increases the heating value and the non-renewable share of energy
in the waste material. Also, an high presence of paper and card-
board produce the same effect, although they are characterized
by a lower heating value [36].
WTE can play a key-role in SWM, without compromising
the achievement of higher reuse and recycling rates [37]. In
fact, this technology is able to create synergies with EU energy
and climate policy [38] guided by the principles of the EU waste
hierarchy [8].
20 F. Cucchiella et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 131 (2017) 18–31

3. Current status in Europe
The latest data available in Eurostat database highlight that the
municipal wastes are treated in different ways in the EU 28 in 2014
[39]: 28.2% are recycled, 16.1% are composted (Eurostat shows it as
biological treatment), 27.3% are incinerated (total incineration
including energy recovery) and 28.4% are landfilled. Furthermore,
treatment methods differ substantially among the member states:
on one hand, Germany, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands
and Austria have a share of landfilled waste below 4% and, on
the other hand, it is greater than 50% in thirteen countries – Fig. 2.
As can be seen from Fig. 2, the Italian situation requires urgent
actions because 34% of MSW was conferred into landfills in 2014
and recently the Government has proposed to develop an inte-
grated system of WTE plants. Based on ISPRA data [40], Italian
waste generation amounted to 29,655 kt in 2014 (+0.3% compared
with 2013) and separated collection rate was equal to 45.2% (+2.9%
compared with 2013), reaching the target set by the legislation for
2008 after six years.
Consequently, this value is very far from the European target of
65% fixed for 2012, only Veneto (67.6%) and Trentino Alto Adige
(67.0%) have reached this goal – Fig. 3. Eleven regions have a value
greater than Italian average and three regions (Piemonte, Valle
d’Aosta and Sicilia) present a reduction of separated collection rate
in 2014 than the previous year. In Italy, there are regional differ-
ences in the waste management approaches adopted. A sustainable
approach is followed by Veneto, Trentino Alto Adige and Friuli
Venezia Giulia, that recycle great quantities of MSW, and by Lom-
bardia, that, as well as several virtuous European Countries (Fig. 2),
minimizes the quantities of MSW conferred into landfills, by using
both recycling and energy recovery [22].
The amount of waste recovered by WTE plants has increased
from 5815 kt to 6279 kt (+8%) in 2013–2014 period. It depends
on the amount of special waste (+558 kt), whereas the quantities
of urban waste have decreased from 5396 kt to 5302 kt. The per-
centage distribution is in 2014: unsorted waste (43%), dry fraction
from mechanical biological treatment (27%), secondary solid fuels
(14%) and special waste (16%). A great amount of waste is treated
in the northern regions (e.g. Lombardia 39%, Emilia Romagna 17%,
Piemonte 11%) and a portion of waste is conferred into foreign
WTE plants (e.g. Germany) with related costs [40].
In this paper Abruzzo, an Italian region located in the centre of
the Country, is proposed as case study – Fig. 4. Recycling and
composting activities have been launched, while energy recovery
is not used. The principle of territorial self-sufficiency, which rep-
resents a key-element of EU waste policy, cannot be reached due to
waste that are conferred into landfills. In this direction, Govern-
ment has proposed the installation of a WTE plant in Abruzzo.
4. Materials and methods
The methodology used in this paper is based on two levels. In
the first one, a strategic analysis is proposed (Section 4.1), while
in the second, input data useful to a sustainable analysis are
described (in Sections 4.2–4.4). The definition of the amount of
waste valorisation with energy recovery for a specific area is nec-
essary to quantify the plant size, in order to evaluate environmen-
tal, economic (and/or financial) and social performance.
4.1. The amount of waste valorisation
The amount of waste, that cannot be recycled or composted, has
two options: (i) energy recovery or (ii) landfill. Several papers cited
in Sections 1 and 2, indicated WTE plants as preferable over land-
filling. The proposed strategic analysis quantifies the amount of
waste to be incinerated with energy recovery. This value depends
on two sets of data: (1) the generated waste amount and (2) the
MSW strategy adopted by decision-maker [41]. It can be calculated
through several approaches depending on the following reference
variables:

Unsorted waste.

Landfilled waste.

Separated collection rate.
There is a clear relationship among these three variables and
this paper evaluates the final choice. For example, a strategy anal-
ysis is proposed in Fig. 5 considering values proposed in Fig. 4. It is
based on four steps: (1) inputs are defined in according to statisti-
cal data of the specific area and (2) flows of waste are calculated
considering these values. The amount of treated waste is not
directly comparable with those on waste generation due to
imported and/or exported waste. For this reason, this work
hypothesizes that these values are the same. The amount of sorted
waste is obtained multiplying separated collection rate and the

Recycled (%) Composted (%) Incinerated (%) Landfilled (%)

1 1 1 1 1 4 8
17 18
26 28 28
35 34
39 42
44 48 38 49 53
50 55 56 59 60
54
56 35 74 75 76
81 82 83
17 50 35 27 27 21 12 88 92
18
21 32
16 21 15 12
17 27 6
18 17 16 18 6 19 10 9
17 6 10 2
15 49 11 17 3
47 14 2
34 33 34 12 12 4 2
27 24 26 31 28
22
28 28 28 23 25 21 23 2
21 11
18 16 16 13 6 16 15 4 5
6 5 8 3

Fig. 2. Municipal waste treated in 2014 in the EU 28 [39].

 F. Cucchiella et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 131 (2017) 18–31 21

Year 2014 (%) Year 2013 (%)

70 67.6 67.0
60.4
60 57.6 56.3
55.2 54.3
53.0
48.9 47.6
50 46.1 45.2 44.3
42.9
40 34.6 32.7

30 27.6 25.9
22.3
18.6
20
12.5
10

Fig. 3. Separated waste collection rate in the Italian regions [40].

Generated waste (kt) Sorted waste (%)

662 42.9 46.1

37.9
627 33.0
600 593

2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014

Unsorted waste (kt) Landfilled waste (kt)

248
440
387 342 319
118
93 78

2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014

Fig. 4. Statistical data in Abruzzo [40].

Base Scenario - Separated collection rate

Extra Scenario - Separated collection rate

Base Scenario - Landfilled waste

Extra Scenario - Landfilled waste

Base Scenario - Unsorted waste

Extra Scenario - Unsorted waste

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Fig. 5. The amount of waste to incinerate with energy recovery (kt) – an example.

amount of treated waste and consequently, the remaining amount recovery. Subsequently, (3) decision-makers can choose to use as
is called unsorted waste. Landfilled waste is typically a share of variable of reference or the amount of unsorted waste, or the
unsorted waste, that it is not sent to incineration based on energy amount of landfilled waste, or the level of separated collection rate.
22 F. Cucchiella et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 131 (2017) 18–31
For each variable of reference, two levels of analysis (Base and
Extra) are proposed and the criteria used for each scenario is func-
tional to the goal to be achieved (minimise the landfill use). For
example, the amount of treated waste in a WTE plant can be
choose equal to the maximum amount of reference variable in
Extra scenario, while it is equal to the half of previous value in Base
one. Considering, the value in landfill equal to 78 kt (see Fig. 4) the
valorised amount is equal to 78 kt and 39 kt in Extra and Base sce-
narios, respectively. Finally, (4) decision-makers choose the
amount of waste to incinerate with energy recovery in according
to values previously obtained that range from 39 kt to 319 kt.
Given the amount of waste to be incinerated with energy recov-
ery, future scenarios can be evaluated considering (1) the gener-
ated waste amount that ranges during the years and (2) the
target to reach in terms of mix of MSW management. Furthermore,
it is possible to analyse: (i) the comparison between centralized or
decentralized solution and (ii) the plant size. The choice concerns
the decision to locate one (centralized solution) or more (decen-
tralized solution) WTE plants in a given geographical area (e.g.
regional or provincial) is strictly linked to the overall quantities
of waste to treat and it also depends on political intentions. In fact,
the principle of territorial self-sufficiency can be applied specifi-
cally to provincial or regional areas. However, it is appropriate to
satisfy the principle of proximity, under which waste should be
disposed as close as possible to their source of production. The
plant size is a direct consequence of the centralized or decentral-
ized solution [42].
4.2. Environmental inputs
WTE plants, as several industrial activities characterized by a
combustion process, produce emissions and consequently there
are health risks for the population living nearby and the deteriora-
tion of air quality in the zone near the plant [43]. For this reason,
the localization of plants should be far from the urban context.
There are studies, in which is demonstrated that these risks can
be minimised [44] and remarkable external benefits can be
obtained [45].
The technological development has permitted to construct
modern WTE plants with a significantly better environmental
impact than those in the past [46]. Modern multi-stage filter sys-
tems do not only eliminate the bulk of the fly ash, but they are also
capable of removing fine particulates. As consequence, the fly ash
content of flue gas was continuously reduced from >150 mg/N m3
to <5 mg/N m3. Furthermore, there is more than thousand fold
decrease in emissions of lead and cadmium [34]. Air pollution con-
trol systems conducted in WTE units confirm the production of
toxic and hazardous flue gases after the high-temperature inciner-
ation [47]. Consequently, each existing plant requires efficient and
rigorous controls [48].
Environmental assessments are evaluated in terms of sustain-
ability in waste sector considering the land, waterways or air pol-
lution and the GHG emissions capture [5]. This paper does not
propose a new LCA, but it is based on literature values. The goal
is to quantify the emissions of kg of CO2eq avoided by incinerating
a ton of waste with energy recovery instead of placing it in a land-
fill. The indicator used is ERCO2eq (also known as ERcd):
ERCO2equnit ¼ ECO2eq ðLNDÞunit  ECO2eq ðWTEÞunit
ERCO2eq ¼ ERCO2equnit  Q W
where ERCO2eq-unit is the unitary reduction of the emissions of carbon
dioxide equivalent using a WTE plant as an alternative to landfill;
ECO2eq(LND)unit is the unitary amount of the emissions of carbon diox-
ide equivalent released by a landfill; ECO2eq(WTE)unit is the unitary
amount of the emissions of carbon dioxide equivalent released by a
WTE plant and QW is the amount of treated waste.
Literature values (see Sections 1 and 2), Directive 2008/98/EC
and the experience of several European countries (see Fig. 2) high-
light as energy recovery can contribute a significant reduction of
pollutant emissions in comparison to landfill use. The CO2 emis-
sions derive from the landfilling option mainly due to the combus-
tion of methane, while the amount emitted by a WTE plant result
from the combustion of plastics [49].
From one side, emissions from WTE plant and from the other
side, avoided emissions from landfill elimination also from substi-
tuted thermal and electric plants, are characterized by a high
uncertain due to specific operative conditions. In fact, concerning
the landfill there are several configurations as (i) open dumpsites,
(ii) sanitary landfill with no provision for landfill gas capture, (iii)
effective landfill gas collection and flaring and (iv) production of
biogas and its utilization for electricity production. The value of
emissions (ECO2eq(LND)unit) varies in a wide range from 0.09 to
1.2 tCO2eq per ton of waste [50]. Concerning WTE plant, the emis-
sions (ECO2eq(WTE)unit) released depends on: (i) waste feed compo-
sition and different waste collection schemes (189–598 kg fossil
CO2 per ton of waste) [51], and (ii) the characteristics of the com-
bustion process (359–769 kgCO2eq per ton of waste) [52].
Given the uncertain of operative conditions of both WTE plant
and landfill, in this paper is chosen to follow the approach used
in other works. It is based directly on the unitary amount of
avoided emissions by a WTE plant as an alternative to landfill. In
particular, these values are referred as cogenerative configuration:

ERCO2eq-unit between 430 and 480 kgCO2eq per ton of waste in
function of national energetic mix [53].

ERCO2eq-unit between 360 and 500 kgCO2eq per ton of waste in
function of characteristics of landfill [54].

A review on this topic has fixed an average ERCO2eq-unit equal to
500 kgCO2eq/t waste [21].
This paper evaluates two configurations of WTE plant (cogener-
ative and electrical) in according to study proposed by [55]. Envi-
ronmental performances for a plant that treated 421,000 t/y are
proposed in Fig. 6. From one side there is an increase in CO2 and
SOX as a consequence of the activation of the plant and from the
other side there is a decrease in NOX and dust (PM10).
4.3. Financial inputs
Economic assessments are evaluated in terms of sustainability
in waste sector considering the development of new enterprises
and new jobs, affordable access to energy with low level of carbon,
the gain of economic value from materials otherwise considered
waste, and cost savings minimising the amount of residual waste
[5].
The main purpose of the financial analysis is to use the project
cash flow forecasts, whereas the economic analysis is based on
accounting the prices that allow to modify market price distortions
and to consider the externalities which are able to generate social
costs and benefits [56]. The relationship between profitability and
plant size is verified in several works presented below.
Economic Net Present Value (ENPV) is positive also for small
ð1Þ plants and economic results have higher values than financial ones
due to two aspects: (i) the conversion factors have a direct impact
ð2Þ especially on the investment items, determining a reduction of
their weight and (ii) the positive value of social cost of carbon, that
is the estimated price of the economic damages caused by each
addition ton of pollutant emissions released into the atmosphere
[21]. Instead, financial results define as: (i) the minimum sizing
for a positive FNPV is 300 kt; (ii) the profitability is strictly linked
 F. Cucchiella et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 131 (2017) 18–31 23

Cogenerative configuration Electrical configuration

140,000

90,000

25 20 -20 -140 -110 -180

CO2 SOX NOX PM10

Fig. 6. Emissions released in a WTE plant (t/y) [55].

to the subsidies; (iii) larger plants are characterized by very consis- RuSHE;tþ1 ¼ RuSHE;t  ð1 þ rHE Þ ð18Þ
tent profits; (iv) a low reduction in the degree of saturation of the
plant can cause relevant losses and (v) investment costs produce CLCS;t ¼ CINV =Ndebt 8t ¼ 0::ndebt  1 ð19Þ
the most significant changes among all critical variables [57]. Other
works highlight as the profitability of WTE plants can be verified CLIS;t ¼ ðCINV  CLCS;t Þ  rD 8t ¼ 0::ndebt  1 ð20Þ
also for 270 kt plant under specific operative conditions [58] and
  
the discount rate influences significantly Net Present Value (NPV) CLS;t ¼ CuLS;t  Q W quLS 8t ¼ ncons ::n  1 ð21Þ
between 2.1 million $ and 7.4 million $ [59].
In this paper DCF methodology is used and FNPV, Financial Rate CuLS;tþ1 ¼ CuLS;t  ð1 þ rL Þ ð22Þ
of Return (FRR) and Financial Discounted Payback Period (FDPP)
are selected as reference indexes. The financial model is reported  
CLNS;t ¼ CuLNS;t  Q W =quLNS 8t ¼ ncons ::n  1 ð23Þ
below [57]:
X
n
CuLNS;tþ1 ¼ CuLNS;t  ð1 þ rL Þ ð24Þ
FNPV ¼ ðIt  Ot Þ=ð1 þ rÞt ð3Þ
t¼0
CGA;t ¼ CuGA;t  Q W 8t ¼ ncons ::n  1 ð25Þ
FX
DPP
t
ðIt  Ot Þ=ð1 þ rÞ ¼ 0 ð4Þ
t¼0 CuGA;tþ1 ¼ CuGA;t  ð1 þ rGA Þ ð26Þ

X
n
ðIt  Ot Þ=ð1 þ FRRÞt ð5Þ CEN;t ¼ CuEN;t  Q W 8t ¼ ncons ::n  1 ð27Þ
t¼0
CuEN;tþ1 ¼ CuEN;t  ð1 þ rEN Þ ð28Þ
It ¼ RUW;t þ ROW;t þ RS;t þ RSPE;t þ RSHE;t ð6Þ
CWA;t ¼ CuWA;t  Q W 8t ¼ ncons ::n  1 ð29Þ
Ot ¼ CLCS;t þ CLIS;t þ CLS;t þ CLNS;t þ CGA;t þ CEN;t þ CWA;t þ CRW;t
þ CISG;t þ CEASW;t þ CR;t þ CRD;t  RV;t  Ctax;t ð7Þ CuWA;tþ1 ¼ CuWA;t  ð1 þ rWA Þ ð30Þ

Q W ¼ Q UW  pUW þ Q OW  pOW ð8Þ CRW;t ¼ CuRW;t  Q W 8t ¼ ncons ::n  1 ð31Þ

RUW;t ¼ RuUW;t  Q UW 8t ¼ ncons ::n  1 ð9Þ CuRW;tþ1 ¼ CuRW;t  ð1 þ infÞ ð32Þ

RuUW;tþ1 ¼ RuUW;t  ð1 þ rW Þ ð10Þ CISG;t ¼ CuISG;t  Q W 8t ¼ ncons ::n  1 ð33Þ

ROW;t ¼ RuOW;t  Q OW 8t ¼ ncons ::n  1 ð11Þ CuISG;tþ1 ¼ CuISG;t  ð1 þ infÞ ð34Þ

RuOW;tþ1 ¼ RuOW;t  ð1 þ rW Þ ð12Þ CEASW;t ¼ CuEASW;t  Q W 8t ¼ ncons ::n  1 ð35Þ

RS;t ¼ RuGC  Q W  pEL  pBF 8t ¼ ncons ::ncons þ nsub  1 ð13Þ CuEASW;tþ1 ¼ CuEASW;t  ð1 þ infÞ ð36Þ

RSPE;t ¼ RuSPE;t  Q W  pEL  pNBF 8t ¼ ncons ::ncons þ nsub  1 ð14Þ CR;t ¼ pR  CE;t 8t ¼ ncons þ nr ð37Þ

RSPE;t ¼ RuSPE;t  Q W  pEL 8t ¼ ncons þ nsub ::n  1 ð15Þ CE;t ¼ pE  CINV ð38Þ

RuSPE;tþ1 ¼ RuSPE;t  ð1 þ rEL Þ ð16Þ CRD;t ¼ pRD  CINV 8t ¼ n  1 ð39Þ

RSHE;t ¼ RuSHE  Q W  pHE 8t ¼ ncons ::n  1 ð17Þ RV;t ¼ pLLP  ðCINV  0:5  CE;t Þ þ pSLP  CE;t 8t ¼ n  1 ð40Þ
24 F. Cucchiella et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 131 (2017) 18–31

Ctax;t ¼ putax  ebt with ebt > 0 8t ¼ 0::n  1 ð41Þ nsub period of subsidies RuSHE unitary price of heat
selling
Ot discounted cash RuSPE unitary price of
Economic nomenclature outflows electricity selling
CE equipment cost pEL % of produced pBF % of biodegradable RuUW unitary revenue of
electricity fraction urban waste
CEASW cost of elimination of pHE % of produced heat treatment
ash and slag waste pE % of equipment cost t time of the cash flow
CEN consumed electricity pLLP % of long life parts
cost
CGA consumed gas cost pNBF % of non Economic and technical inputs data used in this analysis are defined
biodegradable in Table 1. Plant size ranges from 50 kt to 300 kt. This choice
fraction depends by: (i) the minimum sizing for a positive FNPV in CHP con-
CINV investment cost pOW % of other waste figuration is equal to 300 kt [57]; (ii) the economic result in the only
CISG cost of intermediate pR % of replacement cost electric configuration is greater than CHP one [35] and (iii) multi-
services and goods plies of 50 kt are chosen in according to the approach used by [21].
CLCS loan capital share cost pRD % of remediation & Given the FNPV obtained in cogenerative configuration in a pre-
decontamination cost vious work [57], this model is used to calculate financial results in
CLIS loan interest share cost pSLP % of short life parts the only electrical configuration (Fig. 7). It is assumed that there
CLS labour cost (skilled) pUW % of urban waste are no variations of investment costs [35], but however this limit
CLNS labour cost (unskilled) putax % of taxes cost will be exceeded in sensitivity analysis. The minimum sizing for
CR replacement cost QW quantities of waste a positive FNPV become about 150 kt.
CRD remediation and Q OW quantities of other
decontamination cost waste 4.4. Social inputs
CRW raw materials cost Q UW quantities of urban
waste This topic is rarely analysed in literature [60]. The social accep-
Ctax taxes cost quLS quantity of waste for tance of WTE plant requires the involvement of all stakeholders in
employee (skilled) order to reduce phenomena that hinder their realization, as Not-In-
CWA consumed water cost quLNS quantity of waste for My-Back-Yard (NIMBY) and Not-In-My-Term-of-Office (NIMTO)
employee (unskilled) [61]. They have caused intense debates among public opinion,
CLCS loan capital share cost r opportunity cost environmental associations and political groups. Their objections
CuEASW unitary cost of rD interest rate on loan towards these projects have led to major delays or also to their
elimination of ash & withdrawal [62].
slag waste Three ‘‘assumptions” are typically used against the realization
CuEN unitary cost of rEL electricity growth of the project: (i) the emissions released by the combustion pro-
consumed electricity rate cess of a WTE plant are more pollutant in comparison to the
CuGA unitary cost of rEN consumed electricity methane and other harmful substances released by a landfill; (ii)
consumed gas growth rate
CuISG unitary cost of rHE heat growth rate
intermediate services & Table 1
Input definition [22,57].
goods
CuLS unitary cost of labour rGA consumed gas Variable Value Variable Value
(skilled) growth rate CuEASW 8.99 €/t pR 25%
CuLNS unitary cost of labour rL labour cost growth CuEN 1.43 €/t pRD 17.14%
(unskilled) rate CuGA 0.62 €/t pSLP 1.7%
CuRW unitary cost of raw rW waste treatment CINV 38 k€ (50 kt); 58 k€ (100 kt); 80 k€ (150 kt); 94 k€ (200 kt);
118 k€ (250 kt); 144 k€ (300 kt)
materials decreasing real rate
CuISG 4.33 €/t pUW 95%
CuWA unitary cost of rWA consumed water
36,000 €/y
CuLS putax 36%
consumed water growth rate CuLNS 21,600 €/y quLS 25,000 t/employee
ebt earnings before taxes ROW revenues by other CuRW;t 0.87 €/t quLNS 5000 t/employee
waste treatment CuWA 0.02 €/t r 5%
It discounted cash RS revenues by inf 1.5% rD 3%
inflows subsidies n 30 y rEL 1%
inf rate of inflation RSHE revenues by heat ndebt 15 y rEN 0.9%
ncons 3y rGA 1.1%
selling nr 15 y rHE 1%
n lifetime of investment RSPE revenues by nsub 15 y rL 0.4%
electricity selling pBF 51% rW 0.5%
ndebt period of loan RUW revenues by urban pE 55% rWA 0.5%
pEL 60% RuOW 18 €/t
waste treatment
pHE 40% u
RGC 86 €/t
ncons period of construction RuGC unitary revenue by
pLLP 3.1% RuSHE 30 €/t
green certificates pNBF 49% RuSPE 37 €/t
nr period of replacement RuOW unitary revenue by pOW 5% RuUW 12 €/t
other waste QW 50 kt; 100 kt; 150 kt; 200 kt; 250 kt; 300 kt
treatment
 F. Cucchiella et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 131 (2017) 18–31
Cogenerative configuration
50kt 100kt 150kt 200kt 250kt
-10,515
-13,371
-14,875 -14,895 -15,414
Fig. 7. FNPV (k€) based on the plant size [57] and self-made analysis.
a WTE plant reduces recycling activities and it is not seen, instead,
as an alternative to the landfill and (iii) a WTE plant is able to pro-
duce energy, that is also partially renewable, and consequently
there is a great difference with the incinerator [63]. It is opportune
to highlight that when a project is useful to citizens and it is prof-
itable, its delay causes economic losses [64].
Social assessments are evaluated in terms of sustainability in
waste sector considering that minimum social conditions are
met, such as safe working conditions for employees and also the
health and safety levels for the community [5]. This paper proposes
the results of a simple questionnaire where are defined the most
critical issues that determining the aversion towards a WTE plant
construction in a specific area. Face-to-face interviews are used
and this method is preferred to telephone interviews, mailed and
web-based questionnaires [65]. The questionnaire was submitted
to people of all ages and levels of education. Five hundred valid
replies were collected by using the stratified sampling method
and interviews were carried out in universities, public parks,
squares and shopping centres.
5. A strategic analysis
The aim of this section is to compute the quantity of waste val-
orisation in according to approach defined in Section 4.1 consider-
ing values proposed in Fig. 4. Three different approaches are used
in this paper – Fig. 8.

A previous work has considered several levels of WTE strategy
basing on bottom-up approach considering unsorted waste
[22]. The values obtained were equal to 400 kt, 250 kt (Extra
WTE - Unsorted waste) and 150 kt (Base WTE - Unsorted
waste). The amount of waste has considerably decreased over
the past three years (from 440 kt in 2011 to 319 kt in 2014).
Consequently, 400 kt scenario is not realistic, because it can
reduce the recycling activities.
Base WTE Scenario Extra WTE Scenario
250 kt
200 kt
150 kt 150 kt 150 kt
100 kt
Unsorted waste Landfilled waste Separated collection rate
Fig. 8. A strategic analysis – plant size.
25
Electrical configuration
1202 39,532
300kt
21,514
12,253
3803
50kt 100kt 150kt 200kt 250kt 300kt
-8584
-2083

Landfilled waste is equal to about 25% of the unsorted waste.
Historical data highlight its decrease during the last three years
(from 248 kt in 2011 to 78 kt in 2014). Considering that 50 kt is
a lower value than 78 kt, this size must be discarded. Conse-
quently, 100 kt (Base WTE – Landfilled waste) and 150 kt (Extra
WTE – Landfilled waste) are proposed in this work. Also, Italian
Government has proposed for Abruzzo region a plant size that
varies from 100 kt to 150 kt.

Separated collection rate is equal to 46.1% in 2014, but European
target of 65% was fixed for 2012. Considering this last input, the
generated waste equal to 593 kt and an up-bottom approach, it
is obtained a value equal to 200 kt (Extra WTE – Separated col-
lection rate). If the separated collection rate increases to 70%
or 80%, consequently new values are obtained and they are equal
to 180 kt and 120 kt, respectively. Their intermediate value is
150 kt (Base WTE – Separated collection rate).
Values varies from 100 kt to 250 kt and consequently, the
cogenerative configuration is discarded. In fact, financial results
proposed in Fig. 5 indicate that the minimum size with positive
FNPV is the 300 kt plant considering CHP configuration, while it
is equal to 150 kt plant considering the only electrical configura-
tion. Furthermore, the assessment of single values highlights that:

100 kt plant is unprofitable.

150 kt plant is the same result of Base WTE – Unsorted waste,
Extra WTE – Landfilled waste and Base WTE – Separated collec-
tion rate scenarios.

200 kt is not ambitious, considering that the separated collec-
tion rate has already exceeded the 65% in Veneto and Trentino
Alto Adige. For the same reason, also 250 kt cannot be consid-
ered an adequate solution.
Results of this analysis define that the plant size is 150 kt in the
only electrical configuration. This paper proposes for Abruzzo
region a centralized solution, in which a single facility provides
the service to the whole region. Given this value, the percentage
of energy recovery within the mix of MSW can be calculated
(Fig. 9). For this goal, two variables are defined as follows:

The amount of generated waste. It is equal to 590 kt in the year
2014 (Fig. 4). In recent years there has been a decline not only
due to consumers’ good habits, but also to economic crisis.
However, waste generated in Italy in 2014 (29,655 kt) has
marked a turnaround with an increase than 2013 (29,573 kt).
So, also the value of 620 kt (obtained as the average of what
generated in the 2011–2014 period, and higher than 30 kt
compared to that of 2014) have been proposed together with
a reduction of the same value, thus obtaining a generated
quantity equal to 560 kt.
26 F. Cucchiella et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 131 (2017) 18–31

Special waste = 5% Total Special waste = 15% Total The only electrical configuration produces an amount of emissions
greater of 14% than cogenerative one. Considering this input data
25%
and given the initial value of 430 kgCO2eq per ton of waste treated
24% in CHP configuration, the unitary value of environmental savings
23% 23% (ERCO2eq-unit) is equal to 370 kgCO2eq/t waste (obtained by multi-
22% plying 430 by 0.86 – Scenario ERavg) in the only electrical configura-
21% tion. ERCO2eq is equal to 55,500 tCO2eq per year considering a 150 kt
plant in the only electrical configuration. While, it would have
amounted to 64,500 tCO2eq per year in CHP configuration –
Fig. 10. The cogenerative configuration leads to lower impact on
560 kt 590 kt 620 kt the local air quality, lower contribution to GHG formation and fur-
thermore, another environmental advantage is obtained by the
Fig. 9. Percentage of energy recovery in municipal waste treatment considering a
domestic boilers that are turned off.
150 kt plant.
In order to give solidity to results obtained, alternative scenar-
ios can be evaluated (Fig. 10). ERCO2eq-unit ranges from 310

The amount of special waste to treated in the WTE plant. It (obtained by multiplying 360 by 0.86 – Scenario ERlow) to 430
ranges from 7% to 16% in the 2011–2014 period. Consequently, kgCO2eq per ton of treated waste (obtained by multiplying 500
two percentage weights equal to 5% and 15% are analysed. In by 0.86 - Scenario ERhigh) in the only electrical configuration.
this way, the amount of treated municipal waste is equal to
142.5 kt and 127.5 kt respectively (considering a 150 kt plant).
6.2. Financial results
For example, the weight of energy recovery is equal to 24% in
The results obtained in this part of the work are based on the
MSW mix considering a production of waste equal to 590 kt with
input data proposed in Section 4.3. Also in this case it is proposed
a share of special waste equal to 5%. It is obtained dividing
a comparison between two configurations, but it is not analysed
142.5 kt by 590 kt.
the same size. In fact, 150 kt plant in CHP configuration has a neg-
The share of the energy recovery varies from 21% to 25% and it
ative FNPV (Fig. 7). The profitability of 150 kt plant in electrical
is an ambitious goal. In fact, virtuous European countries present
configuration is greater than one obtained by a 300 kt plant in
the following values (Fig. 2): Germany 35%, Austria 38%, Belgium
cogenerative configuration (Fig. 11). The difference is very signifi-
44%, Netherlands 48%, Sweden 50% and Denmark 54%.
cant: the first plant reaches a FNPV equal to 25.4 € per kiloton of
treated waste, while the second is only 4.0 € per kiloton of treated
6. Sustainability analysis
waste. FRR and FDPP provide results that are coherent with FNPV:
the first is slightly higher (6.3% and 5.2%, respectively) than the risk
The aim of this paper is to evaluate the sustainability of a WTE
free value (5%, see Table 1) and the second is lower (22 y and 26 y,
plant as an alternative to landfill. It is referred to the assessment of
respectively) than the period lifetime (30 y, see Table 1).
environmental (Section 6.1), financial (Section 6.2), and social (Sec-
Subsidies are the variable that most affects the distribution of
tion 6.3) impacts.
revenues, followed by the sale of electricity. On the side of the cash
outflows, investment costs have a percentage weight greater than
6.1. Environmental results
50% and the treatment of ash and slag waste are the main operative
costs (Fig. 12).
The results of this sub-section are based on the data in the lit-
In order to give solidity to results obtained a sensitivity analysis
erature proposed in Section 4.2 that show how the construction
is proposed (Fig. 13). The critical variables are been defined in a
of a WTE plant collides with the waste hierarchy, if it is realized
previous work [57]: selling price of electricity, subsidies, invest-
in place of the recycling and composting activities. When, instead,
ment cost, cost of ash and slag waste elimination, degree of satura-
the energy recovery is an alternative to landfills, an environmental
tion, risk free and lower heating value.
damage is avoided. However, WTE plant can be not defined as a
The profitability is verified in baseline scenario, while FNPV is
complete alternative to the landfill due to its final residues.
positive only in 48% of scenarios evaluated in sensitivity analysis.
In order to calculate ERCO2eq, it is necessary to multiply the vol-
The maximum value is obtained considering a reduction of 20%
ume of the treated waste for the unit value of environmental sav-
of investment costs (19,638 k€), while the minimum value is veri-
ings (Eq. (2)). This method is based on the assumption that all
fied with a degree of saturation equal to 80% (12,793 k€). The
waste covered in this plant would have otherwise been sent in
reduction of the grade of saturation and the decrease of subsidies
landfill. Values found in the literature have proposed a range of
cause the unprofitability of project. From one side, WTE plant is
360–500 kgCO2eq per ton of waste treated in CHP configuration.
Its average value, equal to 430 kgCO2eq/t waste, can be used as ref-
erence value. Cogenerative configuration Electrical configuration
The comparison between CHP and electrical configuration is
75,000
analysed. It is possible to calculate GHG emissions released by a
64,500 64,500
WTE plant in terms of carbon dioxide equivalent. The corrective
54,000 55,500
coefficients (1 for CO2 and 310 for NOX), proposed by the IPCC Sec- 46,500
ond Assessment Report, are used. This tool not analyses SOX and
PM10 emissions, but the role of CO2 in these plants is determinant
[66]. It is calculated as follows:
90; 000  1  20  310 ¼ 83; 800 t=y in CHP configuration ð42Þ

140; 000  1  140  310 ¼ 96; 600 t=y in electrical configuration ERlow ERavg ERhigh
ð43Þ Fig. 10. Environmental results (tCO2eq avoided per year) for a 150 kt plant.
 F. Cucchiella et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 131 (2017) 18–31 27

FNPV (k€) FRR (%) FDPP (y)

3803 6.3 26
5.2

1202 22

300 kt - 150 kt - 300 kt - 150 kt - 300 kt - 150 kt -

Cogenerative Electrical Cogenerative Electrical Cogenerative Electrical
configuration configuration configuration configuration configuration configuration

Fig. 11. Financial results.

Discounted cash inflows Discounted cash outflows

Subsidies Selling electricity

Investment Treatment of ash & slag waste Other costs
Selling heat Other revenues

18 16
28 31
23 40 18 16
28
44 54 53
31

300 kt - Cogenerative 150 kt - Electrical 300 kt - Cogenerative 150 kt - Electrical

configuration configuration configuration configuration

Fig. 12. Distribution of cash flows (in percentage).

able to reduce the amount of waste conferred in landfill. However,
when an oversized plant is chosen, there is the risk of not having
enough waste to treat and/or the reduction of recycling and com-
posting activities. From the other side, the decrease of subsidies
is been applied to renewables during the last years.
6.3. Social results
On the basis of Section 4.4, the results obtained from the admin-
istered questionnaire in the Abruzzo region are reported below
(Table 2).
The results of this analysis show that more than half of the peo-
ple being interviewed believe that recycling cannot be the only
method of waste treatment. Despite that, as shown by the waste
hierarchy, landfill and WTE are placed on the same level (question
1). A role is played by the NIMBY phenomenon: the majority of cit-
izens support the construction of a WTE plant if the plant is built
within the region. When, instead, WTE plant site selection falls
within their city, a landfill is preferred (questions 2 and 3).
There is still an unclear perception of what makes a WTE plant.
In fact, only half of the interviewed people know it as a technology,
in which the combustion process is followed by the energy produc-
tion (question 4). The reduction of emissions is the main critical
factor in the original design of a WTE plant, but also the opportu-
nity to handle a variety of waste is defined interesting (question 5).
Concerning this last aspect, it is widely considered as unsorted
waste and secondary solid fuels are the potential inputs of a WTE
plant. Instead, the recovery of both special waste and residues of
other treatment methods are not taken into consideration
(question 6).
The people’s concern does not stem from reasons related to a
non-confidence with this technology, but it is connected to lack
of control. In fact, in a scenario characterized by a release of emis-
sions higher than legal limits, there is the feeling that this would
not be pursued. This aspect is, also, coupled with the common con-
sideration that the emissions from combustion process can be
much more harmful to those emitted by landfills (question 7). A
further important finding is related to the contribution of WTE
plant to sustainability. This concept is present only in a third of
the interviewed people. They see as the first impact the emissions
released by a WTE plant on local population (question 8).
People are responsible for waste production, but they could
play a relevant role with good practices, as an adequate separate
collection. Unlike what occurs, this effect should be detectable in
bills. On the contrary, 90% of the interviewed people have noticed
an excessive cost growth (question 9). So, it is therefore necessary:

to identify more direct communication, for example, how many
kilograms of plastic and glass have been recovered from the
recycling and what was done subsequently with these
materials.

to reduce costs sustained by people, when performance results
are achieved.
Half of the interviewed people have defined as a project must be
realized not only to contrast the climatic change, but also to pro-
duce profits (question 10). A slight majority of adverse answers
is obtained considering the question of whether they agree or
not with the construction of a WTE plant in a region. However,
people in favour do not support this choice because can be sustain-
able, but only to reduce the electrical and thermal energy costs
28 F. Cucchiella et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 131 (2017) 18–31

Selling price of electricity (37 €/t) Subsidies (86 €/t)

12,970 706

8387
68.8 €/t 73.1 €/t 77.4 €/t 81.7 €/t

-2391

29.6 €/t 33.3 €/t 40.7 €/t 44.4 €/t

-780 -5488

-5364
-8585

Investment cost (80 k€) Cost of elimination of ash & slage waste (9 €/t)

19,638
7633

11,721 5718

1888

96 k€ 88 k€ 72 k€ 64 k€

-4114 10.8 €/t 9.9 €/t 8.1 €/t 7.2 €/t

-27
-12,032

Degree of saturation (100 %) Risk free (5%) Lower heating value (10.4 MJ/kg)
6609
80% 85% 90% 95% 11,614
-346 5081
7359
-4495
2662
824
-8644
7% 6% 4% 3%
- -1679
9.2 MJ/kg 10.9 MJ/kg 12.6 MJ/kg
12,793

Fig. 13. Sensitivity analysis – FNPV (k€).

(question 11). Delays in the development of these technologies are
due mainly to political reluctance (such as NIMTO or aversion for
long-term choices), but other aspects that affect these choices are
the lack of information (for example, that a landfill is more pollu-
tant than a WTE plant), the defence of ecosystems and the capacity
of local authorities to protect their territories from projects
believed unsuitable (question 12).
7. Conclusions
Waste management is a topic characterized by intense public
debate, in which fear of pollution is very high. Information regard-
ing the waste stream is not always known and often is not clear at
the final destination. The transfer of waste products towards other
countries is not an optimal solution; on the contrary, it is neces-
sary to encourage the short chain and the disposal of waste as
close as possible to the place of production. The opportunity to
valorise it, as materials and/or as energy, is applied by several
countries.
This paper proposes a comparison between WTE plant and
landfill. There is a tendency to hinder the construction of a WTE
plant based on the argument that it produces pollution. A share
of consumed products cannot be separated and also, this amount
of waste must be treated in a sustainable way. The results of this
work, in line with the others proposed by both European Commis-
sion and literature, confirm that WTE plant is a reasonable and sus-
tainable alternative technology to landfill without compromising
reuse and recycling rates.
 F. Cucchiella et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 131 (2017) 18–31 29

Table 2
Statistical analysis of survey results.

1. Which of these treatment methods is correct?

Recycling 25%
Recycling + Waste to energy 35%
Recycling + landfill 30%
Waste to energy 2%
Landfill 5%
Indifferent 3%
2. Do you prefer a Waste to energy plant or a landfill in your town?
Waste to energy plant 40%
Landfill 60%
3. Do you prefer a Waste to energy plant or a landfill in your region?
Waste to energy plant 65%
Landfill 35%
4. What is a Waste to energy plant?
A combustion process of waste with energy recovery 50%
A combustion process of waste 45%
I do not know about 5%
5. What factors do you consider most critical in the original design of a WTE plant?
Ability to manage more waste 26%
Ability to produce more energy 14%
Emissions of air pollutants 54%
Aesthetic of plant 2%
Local traffic burden 2%
Job creation 2%
6. What are the inputs of a WTE plant? You can choose one or more answers.
Unsorted waste 97%
Dry fraction from mechanical biological treatment 44%
Secondary solid fuels 76%
Special waste 25%
I do not know about 2%
7. How safe do you feel with the technological development of a WTE plant?
Not at all, since controls will be weak 25%
Not at all, since technologies will be not adequate 3%
Enough, if heavy fines will be imposed 21%
Not at all, for reasons of corruption in the control phase 30%
Enough, if monitoring will be intense 18%
I feel very safe 3%
8. The emissions released by a WTE facility affect . . .
Present generations 8%
Present and future generations 30%
Local population 58%
National population 4%
9. What is the effect of waste treatment (separate collection, recycling, WTE) on bill’s cost?
Substantial reduction 3%
Minimum reduction 5%
Minimum increase 40%
Substantial increase 52%
10. In your opinion a WTE plant must be realized if . . .
It is profitable 32%
It is green and also profitable 48%
It is green, but is not profitable 5%
Its benefits are greater than its costs 15%
11. Are you agree or disagree, if a WTE plant is built in your region?
I agree since electricity and heating costs are reduced 43%
I agree because it is a sustainable choice 4%
I disagree since it degrades the aesthetic 14%
I disagree because it is dangerous to local public health 28%
I disagree because there are other sustainable strategies 11%
12. What are the main reasons for delays in the development of WTE plants? You can choose more answers
Incomplete legal framework 5%
Political reluctance 31%
Lack of information 24%
Local authorities strong 19%
Opposition of public opinion 12%
Increased costs 6%
Increased environmental burden 22%
Technological constraints 3%
30 F. Cucchiella et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 131 (2017) 18–31
A case study is analysed in this paper and proposes a WTE plant
to achieve the goal of SWM in Abruzzo region. The amount of
waste, to valorize through the production of energy, is determined
by three different approaches based on unsorted waste, landfilled
waste and separated collection rate, respectively. The choice size
is 150 kt in the only electrical configuration. In fact, the cogenera-
tive configuration is not profitable for this size and, consequently
the maximization of both environmental and economic perfor-
mances is not possible. The percentage of energy recovery in
municipal waste treatment ranges from 21% to 25% representing
a very ambitious goal obtained in the virtuous European countries.
The implementation of this project is characterized by a FNPV
equal to 3803 k€ and ERCO2eq equal to 55,500 tCO2 per year. Fur-
thermore, a sensitivity analysis is conducted to give solidity to
results obtained. From a social perspective, the reduction of costs
in waste bills and a rigid and continuous control on emissions
are able to support the realization of new plants. However, their
implementation requires the approval of public.
References
[1] Brunner P. Clean cycles and safe final sinks. Waste Manage Res 2010;28:575.
[2] Stanisavljevic N, Vujovic S, Zivancev M, Batinic B, Tot B, Ubavin D. Application
of MFA as a decision support tool for waste management in small
municipalities – case study of Serbia. Waste Manage Res 2015;33:550–60.
[3] Stanisavljevic N, Brunner PH. Combination of material flow analysis and
substance flow analysis: a powerful approach for decision support in waste
management. Waste Manage Res 2014;32(8):733–44.
[4] Soltani A, Sadiq R, Hewage K. Selecting sustainable waste-to-energy
technologies for municipal solid waste treatment: a game theory approach
for group decision-making. J Cleaner Prod 2016;113:388–99.
[5] International solid waste association. Sustainable solid waste management
and the green economy; 2013.
[6] Tot B, Srdević B, Vujić B, Russo MAT, Vujić G. Evaluation of key driver
categories influencing sustainable waste management development with the
analytic hierarchy process (AHP): Serbia example. Waste Manage Res 2016;34
(8):740–7.
[7] Singh J, Ordoñez I. Resource recovery from post-consumer waste: important
lessons for the upcoming circular economy. J Cleaner Prod 2016;134(Part
A):342–53.
[8] European commission. Circular economy package: question & answers.
Brussels; 2015.
[9] Bosmans A, Vanderreydt I, Geysen D, Helsen L. The crucial role of waste-to-
energy technologies in enhanced landfill mining: a technology review. J
Cleaner Prod 2013;55:10–23.
[10] Jones PT, Geysen D, Tielemans Y, Van Passel S, Pontikes Y, Blanpain B, et al.
Enhanced landfill mining in view of multiple resource recovery: a critical
review. J Cleaner Prod 2013;55:45–55.
[11] Song J, Yang W, Li Z, Higano Y, Wang Xe. Discovering the energy, economic and
environmental potentials of urban wastes: an input–output model for a
metropolis case. Energy Convers Manage 2016;114:168–79.
[12] Van Passel S, Dubois M, Eyckmans J, de Gheldere S, Ang F, Tom Jones P, et al.
The economics of enhanced landfill mining: private and societal performance
drivers. J Cleaner Prod 2013;55:92–102.
[13] Vandermeersch T, Alvarenga RAF, Ragaert P, Dewulf J. Environmental
sustainability assessment of food waste valorization options. Resour Conserv
Recycl 2014;87:57–64.
[14] Soltani A, Hewage K, Reza B, Sadiq R. Multiple stakeholders in multi-criteria
decision-making in the context of municipal solid waste management: a
review. Waste Manage 2015;35:318–28.
[15] Tozlu A, Özahi E, Abusßoğlu A. Waste to energy technologies for municipal solid
waste management in Gaziantep. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;54:809–15.
[16] Cheng H, Hu Y. Municipal solid waste (MSW) as a renewable source of energy:
current and future practices in China. Bioresour Technol 2010;101:3816–24.
[17] Udomsri S, Petrov MP, Martin AR, Fransson TH. Clean energy conversion from
municipal solid waste and climate change mitigation in Thailand: waste
management and thermodynamic evaluation. Energy Sustain Develop
2011;15:355–64.
[18] Pan S-Y, Du MA, Huang IT, Liu IH, Chang EE, Chiang P-C. Strategies on
implementation of waste-to-energy (WTE) supply chain for circular economy
system: a review. J Cleaner Prod 2015;108(Part A):409–21.
[19] Tan ST, Ho WS, Hashim H, Lee CT, Taib MR, Ho CS. Energy, economic and
environmental (3E) analysis of waste-to-energy (WTE) strategies for
municipal solid waste (MSW) management in Malaysia. Energy Convers
Manage 2015;102:111–20.
[20] Antonopoulos IS, Perkoulidis G, Logothetis D, Karkanias C. Ranking municipal
solid waste treatment alternatives considering sustainability criteria using the
analytical hierarchical process tool. Resour Conserv Recycl 2014;86:149–59.
[21] Cucchiella F, D’Adamo I, Gastaldi M. Sustainable management of waste-to-
energy facilities. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;33:719–28.
[22] Cucchiella F, D’Adamo I, Gastaldi M. Strategic municipal solid waste
management: a quantitative model for Italian regions. Energy Convers
Manage 2014;77:709–20.
[23] Luz FC, Rocha MH, Lora EES, Venturini OJ, Andrade RV, Leme MMV, et al.
Techno-economic analysis of municipal solid waste gasification for electricity
generation in Brazil. Energy Convers Manage 2015;103:321–37.
[24] Arena U, Di Gregorio F. Element partitioning in combustion- and gasification-
based waste-to-energy units. Waste Manage 2013;33:1142–50.
[25] Vehlow J. Air pollution control systems in WtE units: an overview. Waste
Manage 2015;37:58–74.
[26] Papageorgiou A, Barton JR, Karagiannidis A. Assessment of the greenhouse
effect impact of technologies used for energy recovery from municipal waste:
a case for England. J Environ Manage 2009;90:2999–3012.
[27] Solheimslid T, Harneshaug HK, Lümmen N. Calculation of first-law and
second-law-efficiency of a Norwegian combined heat and power facility
driven by municipal waste incineration – a case study. Energy Convers Manage
2015;95:149–59.
[28] Fazeli A, Bakhtvar F, Jahanshaloo L, Che Sidik NA, Bayat AE. Malaysia0 s stand on
municipal solid waste conversion to energy: a review. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2016;58:1007–16.
[29] Arafat HA, Jijakli K, Ahsan A. Environmental performance and energy recovery
potential of five processes for municipal solid waste treatment. J Cleaner Prod
2015;105:233–40.
[30] Laurent A, Clavreul J, Bernstad A, Bakas I, Niero M, Gentil E, et al. Review of LCA
studies of solid waste management systems – Part II: Methodological guidance
for a better practice. Waste Manage 2014;34:589–606.
[31] Bovea MD, Ibáñez-Forés V, Gallardo A, Colomer-Mendoza FJ. Environmental
assessment of alternative municipal solid waste management strategies. A
Spanish case study. Waste Manage 2010;30:2383–95.
[32] Jeswani HK, Azapagic A. Assessing the environmental sustainability of energy
recovery from municipal solid waste in the UK. Waste Manage
2016;50:346–63.
[33] Arena U, Ardolino F, Di Gregorio F. A life cycle assessment of environmental
performances of two combustion- and gasification-based waste-to-energy
technologies. Waste Manage 2015;41:60–74.
[34] Brunner PH, Rechberger H. Waste to energy – key element for sustainable
waste management. Waste Manage 2015;37:3–12.
[35] Panepinto D, Senor A, Genon G. Energy recovery from waste incineration:
economic aspects. Clean Technol Environ Policy 2015;18:517–27.
[36] Horttanainen M, Teirasvuo N, Kapustina V, Hupponen M, Luoranen M. The
composition, heating value and renewable share of the energy content of
mixed municipal solid waste in Finland. Waste Manage 2013;33:2680–6.
[37] Ng WPQ, Lam HL, Varbanov PS, Klemeš JJ. Waste-to-energy (WTE) network
synthesis for municipal solid waste (MSW). Energy Convers Manage
2014;85:866–74.
[38] D’Adamo I, Rosa P. Current state of renewable energies performances in the
European Union: a new reference framework. Energy Convers Manage
2016;121:84–92.
[39] Eurostat. Statistics database. Eurostat Luxembourg; 2016.
[40] ISPRA. Municipal waste report; 2015.
[41] Ouda OKM, Raza SA, Nizami AS, Rehan M, Al-Waked R, Korres NE. Waste to
energy potential: a case study of Saudi Arabia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2016;61:328–40.
[42] Cucchiella F, D’Adamo I, Gastaldi M. Municipal waste management and energy
recovery in an Italian region. Waste Manage Res 2012;30:1290–8.
[43] Evangelisti S, Tagliaferri C, Clift R, Lettieri P, Taylor R, Chapman C. Life cycle
assessment of conventional and two-stage advanced energy-from-waste
technologies for municipal solid waste treatment. J Cleaner Prod
2015;100:212–23.
[44] Ragazzi M, Tirler W, Angelucci G, Zardi D, Rada EC. Management of
atmospheric pollutants from waste incineration processes: the case of
Bozen. Waste Manage Res 2013;31:235–40.
[45] Lim S-Y, Lim K-M, Yoo S-H. External benefits of waste-to-energy in Korea: a
choice experiment study. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;34:588–95.
[46] Tabasová A, Kropáč J, Kermes V, Nemet A, Stehlík P. Waste-to-energy
technologies: impact on environment. Energy 2012;44:146–55.
[47] Astrup TF, Tonini D, Turconi R, Boldrin A. Life cycle assessment of thermal
waste-to-energy technologies: review and recommendations. Waste Manage
2015;37:104–15.
[48] Sciubba E, Tocci L, Toro C. Thermodynamic analysis of a Rankine dual loop
waste thermal energy recovery system. Energy Convers Manage
2016;122:109–18.
[49] Assamoi B, Lawryshyn Y. The environmental comparison of landfilling vs.
incineration of MSW accounting for waste diversion. Waste Manage
2012;32:1019–30.
[50] Barton JR, Issaias I, Stentiford EI. Carbon – making the right choice for waste
management in developing countries. Waste Manage 2008;28:690–8.
[51] Schwarzböck T, Rechberger H, Cencic O, Fellner J. Determining national
greenhouse gas emissions from waste-to-energy using the balance method.
Waste Manage 2016;49:263–71.
[52] Astrup T, Møller J, Fruergaard T. Incineration and co-combustion of waste:
accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming contributions. Waste
Manage Res 2009;27:789–99.
 F. Cucchiella et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 131 (2017) 18–31
[53] Fruergaard T, Christensen TH, Astrup T. Energy recovery from waste
incineration: assessing the importance of district heating networks. Waste
Manage 2010;30:1264–72.
[54] De Stefanis P, Coronidi M, Iaboni V. Municipal waste management:
technical and environmental effects. Energ ambiente innovazione 2006;52:
29–40.
[55] Panepinto D, Genon G. Environmental evaluation of the electric and
cogenerative configurations for the energy recovery of the Turin municipal
solid waste incineration plant. Waste Manage Res 2014;32(7):670–80.
[56] European commission. Guide to cost-benefit analysis of investment projects;
2008.
[57] Cucchiella F, D0 Adamo I. Waste to energy plant as an energy renewable source:
financial feasibility. JP J Heat Mass Transf 2016;13:93–117.
[58] Inglezakis VJ, Rojas-Solórzano L, Kim J, Aitbekova A, Ismailova A. Comparison
between landfill gas and waste incineration for power generation in Astana,
Kazakhstan. Waste Manage Res 2015;33:486–94.
[59] Xin-gang Z, Gui-wu J, Ang L, Yun L. Technology, cost, a performance of waste-
to-energy incineration industry in China. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2016;55:115–30.
31
[60] Chong YT, Teo KM, Tang LC. A lifecycle-based sustainability indicator
framework for waste-to-energy systems and a proposed metric of
sustainability. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;56:797–809.
[61] Gu B, Wang H, Chen Z, Jiang S, Zhu W, Liu M, et al. Characterization,
quantification and management of household solid waste: a case study in
China. Resour Conserv Recycl 2015;98:67–75.
[62] Kikuchi R, Gerardo R. More than a decade of conflict between hazardous waste
management and public resistance: a case study of NIMBY syndrome in
Souselas (Portugal). J Hazard Mater 2009;172:1681–5.
[63] Cucchiella F, D0 Adamo I, Rosa P. Urban waste to energy (WTE) plants: a social
analysis. JP J Heat Mass Transf 2016;13:421–44.
[64] Cucchiella F, D’Adamo I, Gastaldi M. A multi-objective optimization strategy
for energy plants in Italy. Sci Total Environ 2013;443:955–64.
[65] Achillas C, Vlachokostas C, Moussiopoulos N, Banias G, Kafetzopoulos G,
Karagiannidis A. Social acceptance for the development of a waste-to-energy
plant in an urban area. Resour Conserv Recycl 2011;55:857–63.
[66] Fuglsang K, Pedersen NH, Larsen AW, Astrup TF. Long-term sampling of CO2
from waste-to-energy plants: 14C determination methodology, data variation
and uncertainty. Waste Manage Res 2014;32:115–23.