Energy Reports 7 (2021) 4460–4469

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Reports
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/egyr

Research paper

Economic and environmental estimated assessment of power

production from municipal solid waste using anaerobic digestion and
landfill gas technologies
∗
Weiping Huang a , , Hadi Fooladi b
a
College of Finance and Insurance, Guangxi University of Finance and Economics, Nanning, Guangxi, China
b
Department of Energy Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: Waste management has always been one of the main challenges of developing countries. So far, several
Received 21 January 2021 methods have been proposed to manage municipal solid waste (MSW) and reduce its environmental
Received in revised form 15 July 2021 impact. The purpose of this paper is to determine the amount of MSW generated in two different cities
Accepted 18 July 2021
in Asia and to investigate the performance of both landfill gas and anaerobic digestion methods for
Available online 28 July 2021
electric power generation. Both Tehran and Beijing have a high rate of daily waste production and can
Keywords: be a good case study to examine the performance of both energy generations technologies from MSW.
Municipal solid waste However, the use of such technologies requires more and more detailed studies in order to encourage
Electricity generation private and government sector investors to use them. In addition, the use of alternative energy sources
Landfill gas such as electricity from waste is inevitable due to the current problems in the field of energy. The
Anaerobic digestion assessment presented in this paper includes the amount of electricity generated in both technologies,
Economic feasibility economic feasibility based on Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) and Payback Time (PBT) calculations
Global warming potential
approaches, and environmental evaluation according to the global warming potential (GWP) under
different three Scenarios. It was found that after a 20-year period, the amount of waste generated in
regions of Beijing is 1.96% lower than in Tehran. The total electricity generated by anaerobic digestion
technology is 45.2% and 41.9% higher than that of landfill gas project in Tehran and Beijing, respectively.
In addition, on the average MSW management under scenarios 2 and 3 in the Tehran and Beijing could
reduce GWP by 79.16 and 92.65%, respectively. The average PBT value for a 20-year period in Tehran
is 1.1 and 0.67 years higher than in Beijing under landfill gas and anaerobic digestion technologies,
respectively.
© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction produced is increasing with increasing population and industri-

In recent decades, the concept of sustainable development
has became more prominent among global policymakers (Maria
et al., 2020). The concept of sustainable development is emerg-
ing to meet the challenges of increasing urbanization and, con-
sequently, changing infrastructure and overuse of underground
resources (Aghajani and Ghadimi, 2018; Shanmugam, 2021). The
goal of sustainable development is to meet the current require-
ments of a society without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own requirements (Costa and Dias,
2020; Damrongsak and Chaichana, 2020). Meanwhile, MSW man-
agement is considered as one of the manifestations of achiev-
ing sustainable global development, where the amount of waste
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: huangwp2001@163.com (W. Huang).
alization (Atanes et al., 2019; Ibikunle et al., 2019). However, in
many countries there is not even a simple infrastructure for waste
management, which has led to problems such as pollution and
loss of profits from waste recycling (Ma et al., 2018; Sözer and
Sözen, 2020). In addition, improper disposal of waste can lead
to difficulties such as groundwater pollution, unsightly odors,
and explosions at landfills (Cao et al., 2019; Gollou and Ghadimi,
2017). Human behavior with MSW is to move it away from
the habitat without considering the health and environmental
consequences (Sivagami et al., 2020; Ağaçsapan and Çabuk, 2020).
However, experts believe that waste management should be a
hierarchical structure based on global standards (Gautam et al.,
2021; Mehrpooya et al., 2021). Such a structure includes landfill-
ing, recycling, energy recovery, reuse and prevention (Jacob et al.,
2016). The economic and social growth of societies is the main
criterion for progress at any level of such a structure (Srivastava
et al., 2020). The highest amount of waste production is related

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.07.036
2352-4847/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
W. Huang and H. Fooladi Energy Reports 7 (2021) 4460–4469

gas project in Mauritius. Results showed that landfill gas volume

Nomenclature and estimated electricity were 250 m3 /ton and 70 GWh, respec-
C Cost ($) tively. By studying the potential of using landfill gas technology
CW Potential of MSW generation (ton/year) in Turkey, Kale and Gökçek (2020) reported that the maximum
available volume of landfill gas was about 800 million m3 (in
Dw Well depth
province of Balikesir). In addition, in that province the minimum
E Electricity generation (GWh)
electricity production cost was about $0.05/kWh. Ghosh et al.
F Percentage composition of organic (2019) reported a maximum of 1280 Gg for methane emitted
waste in Delhi. Their study was based on the methane emissions from
GR Growth rate waste with landfill gas technology and three different methods.
K Methane generation rate (1/year)/ Ele- Ayodele et al. (2018) investigated the power production from or-
ment composition ganic fraction of MSW in Nigeria based on landfill gas technology.
L0 Potential methane generation capacity Results showed that electricity amount and LCOE were 450 GWh
(m3 /ton) and $0.23/kWh, respectively. They also reported a PBT of about
M Molar mass seven years. Another work was done by Villanueva-Estrada et al.
n Operation years (2019) in Mexico City based on quality of biogas produced loca-
W Waste generation rate per capita tion selection. They reported a maximum of 1100 m3 /h and 68%
Wn Number of wells dug for biogas flux and methane in biogas, respectively. Ayodele et al.
(2020) investigated the electricity generation efficiency influence
Greek symbol on the environmental and economic performance of the landfill
gas project in Ibadan. They found that annual gas and electricity
β Population
generation potentials were 203000 m3 and 368 GW, respectively.
γ Year days number
In addition, collection efficiency had a positive influence on the
η Efficiency project capacity. A similar study based on LEAP method was
Subscripts performed with Tehran case study (Nojedehi et al., 2016). Their
projects were able to generate 500 MWh of electricity, and es-
c Collection timates showed the project could produce 900 MWh of electric
g Generation power by 2034. Cudjoe et al. (2020) examined the operation of
OF Organic fraction generating electricity from waste using both mentioned technolo-
O&M Operations and maintenance gies in different provinces of China. They found that the potential
of first method is higher in electricity generation in all provinces.
Abbreviations Moreover, mentioned project can reduce the GWP by about 93%.
AD Anaerobic Digestion Lee et al. (2017) investigated the lifecycle analysis with con-
GDP Gross Domestic Product sidering marginal analysis for a landfill gas project. They found
GWP Global Warming Potential that the emissions of wood and food MSWs varied by 65 and
4%, respectively. Joseph and Prasad (2020) evaluated electricity
INV Investment
generation using MSW, by different technologies for landfill, mass
LCOE Levelized Cost of Energy
incineration and cogeneration methods in Pacific Small Island
LF Landfill countries. They found that the highest and lowest generations po-
MSW Municipal Solid Waste tential were related to Papua New Guinea and Kosrae, Federated
PBT Payback Time States of Micronesia, respectively. Fei et al. (2019) estimated the
TLCC Total Life Cycle Cost possibility of landfill gas technology by a new approach for a 30-
years period in China. Results showed that peak values of landfill
gas and electricity generation were about 3.3 billion N m3 and
7.5 billion kWh, respectively. Another work (Ayodele et al., 2017)
to industrialized countries, which is due to high production and investigated the performance of landfill gas project in 12 cities of
consumption of goods (Mohammadi et al., 2018). However, the Nigeria by evaluating the LC investigation, GWP and dioxin and
main trait of growth is the culture of MSW management (Zhou furan emission factors. Their study result showed that reducing
et al., 2020). Proper waste management can have benefits such rates of GHG for landfill gas, hybrid of incineration and anaerobic
as reducing waste production, creating a market for recycled digestion and hybrid of incineration and landfill gas to energy
materials and related jobs, and thus reducing unemployment, methods were 75, 76–93 and 75%–85%, respectively.
reducing landfilling and increasing energy recovery (Gopikumar Developing countries allocate about 20 to 50% of municipal
et al., 2020). The two main methods for generating electricity budgets on waste management (Worldbank, 2019). Proper MSW
from waste are: landfill gas to electricity and anaerobic diges- management leads to individual and public health, increasing
tion technology. Since the latter technology is a high quality environmental quality, economic productivity and achieving sus-
biogas recovery process to generate electricity and also produce tainable development. However, to achieve this level of sustain-
fertilizer, it can be considered as the best method for MSW able development requires a culture of families and communities
management (Mlaik et al., 2019). This process is composed of as well as the selection of appropriate technology. The purpose
50%–70% methane (CH4 ) and 30%–50% CO2 with high content of of this paper is to determine the amount of MSW generated
both electric and thermal energies (Ayodele et al., 2017). How- in Beijing and Tehran, and to investigate the performance of
ever, the first method is the oldest and most popular technology both landfill gas and anaerobic digestion methods for electricity
for generating energy from waste and as a renewable energy due generation. Both Tehran and Beijing have a high rate of daily
to the simple collection of landfill gas and its conversion into waste production and can be a good case study to examine the
electricity (Chen et al., 2010). In recent years, both technolo- performance of both energy generations technologies from MSW.
gies had been studied by various researchers in the literature. However, the use of such technologies requires more and more
Purmessur and Surroop (2019) examined the operation of landfill detailed studies in order to encourage private and government
4461
W. Huang and H. Fooladi Energy Reports 7 (2021) 4460–4469

sector investors to use them. In addition, the use of alternative Table 1

energy sources such as electricity from waste is inevitable due to Typical composition of MSW produced in Tehran and Beijing (Cudjoe and Han,
2020; Pazoki et al., 2015).
the current problems in the field of energy (reduction of fossil
Waste Recyclable components (%) Unrecyclable
fuels and increase of environmental pollution caused by their
components (%)
consumption). The assessment presented in this paper includes
Wood Food Glass Textiles Metal Paper Plastic Other
the amount of electricity generated in both technologies, eco-
nomic feasibility based on LCOE and PBT calculations approaches, Tehran 1.7 70.3 2.4 3.4 3.2 8.1 8.4 2.5
Beijing 1.5 64.9 1.6 3.1 0.6 12.9 15.1 0.3
and environmental evaluation based on GWP. The investigation
was conducted for 22 urban districts of Tehran and compared
with 16 Beijing’s regions for a 20-years period (2020–2039). The
evaluation and comparison model presented in the present study where, LF CH4 , i, j, k, L0 and tij refer to annual CH4 obtained
as well as the results obtained do not correspond to the previous (m3 /year), 1-year and 0.1-year time increments, rate of CH4 gen-
literature. It is hoped that the results presented and the chal- eration (1/year), potential CH4 generation capacity (m3 /ton) and
lenges discussed will be beneficial to investors and environmental age of the jth waste section in ith year, respectively. Internal com-
and energy engineers. bustion engines are the appropriate systems for power generation
by landfill gas, where the gas produced can generate 100–3000
2. Methods KW in a unit. For projects that are capable to produce further
than 3000 kW of electricity, several engines are essential (Ayodele
To evaluate the performance of the energy generation project et al., 2018).
from MSW, the amount of electricity generation, economic feasi- On the other hand, biogas generated in anaerobic digestion
bility and environmental evaluation based on the GWP are pro- technology is composed of CH4 and CO2 . However, the poten-
vided for both landfill gas and anaerobic digestion technologies. tial of the electrical energy generated in this technology largely
Related mathematical equations are presented here to investigate depends on the amount of CH4 obtained, the amount of which
mentioned evaluations. can be estimated according to the Bushwell’s equation as fol-
lows (Amoo and Fagbenle, 2013; Ogunjuyigbe et al., 2017; Salami
2.1. Electricity generation potential
et al., 2011):
(t − r /4 − m/2 + 3q/4) H2 O + Ct Hr Om Nq ⇒
⎧
Both technologies require an organic fraction of MSW to gen- ⎪
⎪
erate electric energy. However, the use of specific components ⎪
(t /2 − r /8 + m/4 + 3q/8) CO2
⎪
⎪
of the organic fraction can be useful in the efficient production
⎪
⎪
⎪
+ (t /2 + r /8 − m/4 − 3q/8) CH4 + cNH3
⎨
of energy by any of the technologies. In the present work, food
(6)
waste and all wastes (except inert and recyclable materials) are ⎪C H O N + π H O ⇒ π CO + π CH + π NH
⎪
used for anaerobic digestion and landfill gas technologies, respec- t r m q 1 2 2 2 3 4 4 3
⎪
⎪
K [C , O, H , N]
⎪
⎪
tively. The amount of organic fraction of MSW (MSW OF in tons/ ⎪
⎩MR =
⎪
year) that is used in any method is determined by (Cudjoe et al., M [C , O, H , N]
2020): where, MR, K and M refer to the mole ratio, element composition
MSWOF = CW .Fx (1) and molar mass of the elements, respectively. Therefore, CH4 vol-
ume that can be captured from the anaerobic digestion method
where, CW and Fx represent the potential of MSW generation is estimated by (Cudjoe et al., 2020):
and percentage of MSW composition, respectively. The typical 16π3 1000
composition of MSW generated in both study areas is provided ADCH4 = ×
t .MolC + r .MolH + m.MolO + MolN 0.717
in Table 1. In addition, the following equation can be used to (7)
estimate the CW (Cudjoe and Han, 2020): π3 = 0.125 × (4t + r − 2m − 3q)
CW = Wc .β.y (2) The constant parameters (r, t, q and m) can be determined by MR
in Eq. (6). According to the literature (Ayodele et al., 2018; Ogun-
where, Wc and β refer the waste generation rate per capita and juyigbe et al., 2017), the actual amount of methane production is
projected population, respectively, and are determined by: less than the amount of theoretical methane:
Wc = (1 + GRGDP )n × Wi (3) ADCH4 (act) = MSWAD .ADCH4 × 0.85 (8)
and Note that, 0.85 is the organic matter fraction used to cell tissue
β = βi × (1 + βr )n (4) synthesis. The gas extraction periods in the landfill gas technology
is composed of three phases namely early phase, optimum phase
where, y, n, βi , βr , GRGDP and Wi represent the operation years, and life phase (Amini et al., 2013). To estimate the r of electricity
days of the year number, current population, growth rates of generated by landfill gas technology, the parameters such as vol-
population and GDP (per capita) and rate of current MSW pro- ume of CH4 obtained from the organic fraction of MSW, electricity
duction, respectively. The next step is to estimate the biogas/ CH4 generation efficiency (ηg ), CH4 collection efficiency (ηc ,CH4 ), etc.
production from MSW organic fraction by both methods. In land-
should be considered (EPA, 2015). Thus, electricity production of
fill gas technology, the amount of electricity generated depends
the landfill gas method can be estimated by (Cudjoe et al., 2020):
directly on CH4 amount captured from the landfill. To estimate
the amount of methane obtained from landfill, the landfill gas
emission model based on LandGEM software is used. Thus, CH4 LFCH4 × 37.2 × ηg × ηc ,CH4 × 0.85
ELF = (9)
that can be produced from landfill is determined by (Ayodele 3.6
et al., 2018): where, Coefficients of 37.2, 0.85 and 3.6 indicate LHV of CH4 ,
n 1 capacity factor and conversion factor from MJ to kWh, respec-
∑∑ MSWLF
LFCH4 = k.L0 . .e−ktij (5) tively (Amini et al., 2013). In addition, by actual methane gen-
10 eration potential for anaerobic digestion technology (Eq. (8)) the
i=1 j=0.1

4462
W. Huang and H. Fooladi Energy Reports 7 (2021) 4460–4469

Table 2
Required relationships to calculate the initial cost of investment and cost of operation and maintenance (Ayodele et al., 2018; Cudjoe
et al., 2020).
Technology INV cost ,x PRC &M ,x
INVcos t ,LF = C1 + C2 + C3 + C4 + C5
C1 = 85 × Wn . (Dw − 10(ft))
⎧
PRO&M ,LF = (5100
( + Wn × 2600))
⎪
⎨C2 = 17 000 × Wn
⎪
⎪
Landfill gas C3 = 4600 × (LFCH4 )0.6 + 25 × 10−3 × ELF
⎪C4 = 700 × Wn
⎪
⎪
C5 = 1.1 × 106 + (1300 × SizeLF )
⎩
Wn : Number of wells dug, SizeLF : Capacity of the internal combustion engine, Dw: Depth of the well

( cos t ,AD × 0.03 )

( )
PRO&M ,AD = INV
INVcos t ,AD = SizeAD × 4339
Anaerobic digestion + 5 × 10−3 × EAD
4339: specific cost of the AD plant, SizeAD : Size of anaerobic digestion plant

Table 3 In this paper, the following three scenarios are considered for the
Current population of Tehran and Beijing districts (thousand people) (Beijing potential of global warming under waste management:
et al., 2013; Madanipour, 1999).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
493 692 330 971 856 250 312 425 174 326 308
2.3.1. Scenario 1
Tehran Disposal of all MSW except recyclable materials in landfills
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
241 253 489 659 267 278 419 255 367 186 175 without energy recovery
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 By disposing MSW in landfills, CH4 and CO2 are released
851 1220 3739 2186 612 3480 322 1154 1508 1128 2063 from the degradation of biodegradable components that lead to
Beijing
12 13 14 15 16 global warming. CH4 causes 25 times more global warming than
1761 450 448 490 340
CO2 (Ryu, 2010). From the literature (Ayodele et al., 2017), it was
found that the CO2 emissions from biodegradable MSWs are same
as the amount of CO2 absorbed during its life period. Therefore,
electricity production potential of this technology can be deter- in this paper, only CH4 (as a GHG) is considered. According to the
mined by (Ayodele et al., 2018): scenario 1, 90% of the CH4 captured from landfill is released into
the atmosphere and the rest is oxidized directly (or by bacteria)
ADCH4 (act) × 37.2 × ηg × 0.85
EAD = (10) to CO2 (Eggleston et al., 2006). The following equation describes
3.6 the CH4 equivalent of CO2 emissions for Scenario 1:
2.2. Economic feasibility GWP1 = 0.9 × LFCH4 × GWPCH4 × 0.667 (14)
Understanding the economic feasibility of electricity gener- where, GWP CH4 (= 25 kg CO2 ) refer to the GWP of CH4 relative
ation projects by both technologies will help government and to CO2 .
private investors decide the investment issue (Khodaei et al.,
2018; Huang and Marefati, 2020). In this paper, two metrics of 2.3.2. Scenario 2
LCOE and PBT are used for economic feasibility. By calculating Disposal of all MSW except recyclable materials in landfills
the LCOE in $/kWh, the lowest selling price of the produced and capturing the CH4 produced to generate electricity
electricity is determined (Hamian et al., 2018). Furthermore, PBT In the present study, the efficiency of CH4 collection is 75%
metric is used to specify when to start a project return on invest- (Ayodele et al., 2018; Ogunjuyigbe et al., 2017). From the liter-
ment (Odekanle et al., 2020). LCOE is calculated by (Short et al., ature (Ayodele et al., 2017), it can be said that only 25% of CH4
1995): is released into the atmosphere after capturing, leading to global
⎧ TLCCx δ (1 + δ )y warming. The following equation describes the CH4 equivalent of
⎨LCOEx = ×
Ex (1 + δ )y − 1 CO2 emissions for Scenario 2:
(11)
⎩x : LF, AD
GWP2 = 0.75 × LFCH4 × GWPCH4 × 0.25 × 0.667 (15)
where,
2.3.3. Scenario 3
y
∑ PRO&M ,x Using biogas produced through the anaerobic digestion pro-
TLCCx = INVcos t ,x + (12) cess to generate electricity with agricultural fertilizer by-product
(1 + δ )y
1 According to the literature (Eggleston et al., 2006), the GHG
In addition, δ , INV cost ,x and PRO&M ,x represent to discount rate, emissions (such as CO2 ) during combustion is negligible. How-
initial cost of investment and cost of operations and maintenance, ever, about 5% leakages for CH4 from the digester are consid-
respectively. The relationships required to calculate INV cost ,x and ered. The following equation describes the CH4 equivalent of CO2
PRO&M ,x for both technologies are presented in Table 2. In addi- emissions for Scenario 3:
tion, PBT can be determined as:
GWP3 = 0.05 × ADCH4 (act) × GWPCH4 × 0.717 (16)
TLCCx
PBTx = (13)
π .Ex − PRO&M ,x 3. Study area
where, Ex is the electricity production potential (x refers to land-
fill gas or anaerobic digestion technologies). In the present study, two cities of Beijing (in China) and
Tehran (in Iran) were selected as study areas. Fig. 1 shows the
2.3. Environmental impact analysis map of Tehran and Beijing districts. Beijing and Tehran have a
population of about 21.7 and 8.7 million people, respectively. The
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are composed of CH4 , CO2 , N2 O, average daily MSW generated in Beijing and Tehran is 9.3 and
Sulfur hexafluoride, Perfluorocarbons and HydroFluoroCarbons. 7.8 kton, respectively. The organic fraction of MSW in Beijing
4463
W. Huang and H. Fooladi
Fig. 1. Map of Tehran (a) and Beijing (b) districts.
Fig. 2. MSW generation potential for a 20-years period in Beijing districts.
and Tehran is about 45 and 70%, respectively (Beijing et al.,
2013; Madanipour, 1999). On the other hand, most of the world’s
waste is produced in China, and every Iranian produces much
more waste by international standards (Nojedehi et al., 2016;
Zhou et al., 2018). The great amount of MSW produced in two
areas can have devastating environmental effects. However, with
the implementation of the project to generate electricity from
waste can be having a positive view on this issue. Each person
in Tehran and Beijing produces 900 and 450 grams of waste
per day, respectively (Beijing et al., 2013; Madanipour, 1999).
Note that the purpose of this study is to assess the feasibility of
implementing a project to generate electricity from MSW through
both mentioned technologies in both Tehran and Beijing (where
the authors live). Furthermore, information of 2020 is used to
investigate the project implementation and the estimations are
for a 20 years. Also, the rates of population growth in Tehran
and Beijing are considered 1.95 and 0.48%, respectively. Table 3
provides the current population in Tehran and Beijing, respec-
tively (Beijing et al., 2013; Madanipour, 1999). In addition, the
parameters used for the analysis and molar mass organic fractions
of MSW in Tehran and Beijing are given in Tables 4 and 5,
4464
Energy Reports 7 (2021) 4460–4469
respectively. From Table 5, both cities have approximately the
same percentage of organic waste composition (food type).
4. Results and discussion
Herein, the results of amount of waste generation, electricity
generation potential, economic feasibility as well as GWP for
both landfill gas and anaerobic digestion technologies in both
cities are presented and discussed. Note that the amount of
MSW generation for the five-year periods is provided, and for
other parameters the total 20-year performance of the projects
is presented. In addition, it is assumed that the organic fraction
of waste is fixed over the age of the system in two cities. Figs. 2
and 3 illustrate the amount of waste generation for a 20-years
period in Beijing and Tehran districts, respectively. Every person
in Tehran produces twice as much MSW as every person in
Beijing. It was found that the amount of waste generation in
Beijing and Tehran is 3573.6 and 3084.7 kton, respectively. It
is clear that areas with larger populations produce more waste.
Districts 3 and 4 produce the most waste in Beijing and Tehran,
respectively. In addition, districts 7 and 9 produce the least waste
in Beijing and Tehran, respectively. However, after a 20-year
W. Huang and H. Fooladi Energy Reports 7 (2021) 4460–4469

Fig. 3. MSW generation potential for a 20-years period in Tehran districts.

Table 4
Parameter used for analysis (Cudjoe et al., 2020; Cudjoe and Han, 2020).
Parameter Value Parameter Value
LHV of methane 37.2 MJ/m3 Fraction of organic matter for cell tissue synthesis 0.85
Oxidation factor 0.9 Electricity generation efficiency 0.35
CH4 collection efficiency 0.75 Methane density 0.717 kg/m3
Capacity factor 0.85 Calculation years 20 years
Feed-in-tariff $0.11/kWh Tehran: 0.9
Waste generation rate (kg/person/day)
Tehran: 1.95 Beijing: 0.45
Population growth rate
Beijing: 0.47

Table 5
Molar mass organic fractions of MSW in Tehran and Beijing (Cudjoe et al., 2020; Mohammadi et al., 2012).
Waste %C %H %O %N %S
Tehran Beijing Tehran Beijing Tehran Beijing Tehran Beijing Tehran Beijing
Food 50.7 47.22 6.7 7.04 39.5 41.15 2.7 3.86 0.4 0.49
Plastic 68.1 86.22 6.7 12.97 25.1 0.73 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.05
Paper 46.6 45.62 6.3 6.01 46.5 47.78 0.2 0.34 0.4 0.22
Wood 50.3 51.35 4.6 6.39 41.2 40.5 3.6 1.59 0.3 0.18
Textile 59.1 54.1 6.6 5.84 29.6 38.1 4.4 1.7 0.3 0.22

period, the amount of waste generated in Beijing’s regions is
1.96% lower than in Tehran. It was also found that in both cities,
the amount of waste production is on the rise due to positive
economic and population growths. This result is confirmed in
Cudjoe et al. (2020). The estimate results revealed after a 20-year
period, the amount of MSW generation in Tehran and Beijing is
growing by 340 and 240%, respectively. Therefore, the potential
for generating electricity from waste in both cities is expected to
be significant.
Electricity generation potential for a 20-year period in Beijing
and Tehran by landfill gas technology is shown in Fig. 4. The
amount of electrical power produced by the MSW belongs on the
volume of methane captured. The content of methane captured
increases linearly with increasing waste production. As a result,
the electricity produced increases with the increase in waste.
Results showed that the districts 3, 6 and 4 in Beijing and districts
4, 5 and 2 in Tehran have a good possible for power production
from MSW. But, districts 7, 16 and 13 in Beijing and districts 9, 22
and 21 in Tehran have a low possible for power production from
MSW among other regions. For a 20-year period, the total power
production potential in urban regions of Tehran and Beijing for
the landfill gas technology is 3149 and 3003.3 GWh, respectively.
Note that, conversion device and collection efficiencies are similar
for both cities. Similarly, the electricity generation is on the rise
due to positive economic and population growths. Ayodele et al.
4465
(2018) showed that positive economic growth and population
growth have a direct impact on the production of electricity from
biogas from the MSW organic fraction in for Ibadan (Nigeria).
In addition, the positive impact of mentioned parameters on in-
creasing electricity generation from waste in different provinces
of China had been reported by Cudjoe et al. (2020)
On the other hand, electricity generation potential for a 20-
year period in Beijing and Tehran by anaerobic digestion tech-
nology is shown in Fig. 5. Comparing Figs. 4 and 5 showed that
the potential for power production by anaerobic digestion site is
higher than landfill gas project in all urban areas of Tehran and
Beijing. These findings are consistent with works in the literature
(Ayodele et al., 2017, 2018; Ogunjuyigbe et al., 2017). In anaerobic
digestion, only food waste is involved in methane production, and
because these wastes are highly degradable, they produce large
volumes of methane, which leads to more electricity. In addition,
the presence of non-degradable waste such as plastic does not
play a role in the methane production process. It was found that
for a 20-year period, the total power production potential in
urban regions of Beijing and Tehran for the anaerobic digestion
technology is 4261.7 and 4571.7 GWh, respectively.
As mentioned, three different scenarios have been considered
to evaluate the environmental impact according to the GWP.
Figs. 6 and 7 illustrate the GWP under three scenarios for different
districts of Beijing and Tehran, respectively. According to the
W. Huang and H. Fooladi Energy Reports 7 (2021) 4460–4469

Fig. 4. Electricity generation potential for a 20-year period in Beijing and Tehran by landfill gas technology.

Fig. 5. Electricity generation potential for a 20-year period in Beijing and Tehran by anaerobic digestion technology.

literature (Ayodele et al., 2017), landfill gas without energy re-

covery has the highest GWP among other scenarios. This fact can
be seen in Figs. 6 and 7, so that scenario 1 has the highest GWP in
both Tehran and Beijing. It was found that, GWP value of scenario
1 was 321.4–3734.2 and 454.4–2402.1 kton CO2 eq for Beijing and
Tehran, respectively. GWP of scenario 2 is the second highest
with GWP ranging from 66.9–777.9 and 94.7–500.4 kton CO2 eq
for Beijing and Tehran, respectively. Scenario 3 on the other hand,
has less GWP value compared to other scenarios. GWP of Scenario
3 in the Beijing and Tehran for a 20-years period is 23.6–274.3
and 34.5–182.2 kton CO2 eq, respectively. Calculations show that
the average GWP value for a 20-year period in Tehran is 31.25,
30.8 and 27.2% lower than in Beijing under scenarios 1, 2 and 3,
respectively. In addition, the district’s 3, 6 and 4 in Beijing and
districts 4, 5 and 2 in Tehran have a high GWP values. On the
other hand, districts 7, 16 and 13 in Beijing and districts 9, 22
and 21 in Tehran have a low GWP values among other districts.
It was also found that on the average MSW management under
scenarios 2 and 3 in the Tehran and Beijing could reduce GWP by
79.16 and 92.65%, respectively. Therefore, electricity generation
Fig. 6. Value of GWP under three scenarios for different districts of Beijing.
from waste in addition to renewable energy production leads to
a reduction in GHG emissions.
In this paper the economic feasibility of both mentioned tech-
nologies is presented based on LCOE and PBT metrics. LCOE
4466
W. Huang and H. Fooladi Energy Reports 7 (2021) 4460–4469

Fig. 7. Value of GWP under three scenarios for different districts of Tehran.

Fig. 10. Payback time for different districts of Beijing and Tehran in landfill gas
technology.

values for different districts of Beijing and Tehran in landfill

gas and anaerobic digestion technologies are depicted in Figs. 8
and 9, respectively. A comparison of the two Figures shows that
the anaerobic digestion project has a preferable economic ratio-
nalization than the landfill gas. By investigation the electricity
generation potential from MSW in some cities of Nigeria, Ogun-
juyigbe et al. (2017) reported that from the economic viability
point of view, anaerobic digestion method is the best option
in all the studied areas. High rate of biogas production from
the anaerobic digestion technology for electric power production
has a remarkable role in the cost feasibility in both cities of
Tehran and Beijing. LCOE of anaerobic digestion in Beijing and
Tehran over the 20-years period is 0.0319–0.0424 and 0.0335–
0.0426 $/kWh, respectively, while that of landfill gas technology
is 0.0603–0.0767 and 0.0663–0.0819 $/kWh, respectively. In ad-
dition, PBT of anaerobic digestion in Beijing and Tehran over
the 20-years period is 0.73–1.86 and 1.17–2.37 years, respec-
Fig. 8. LCOE values for different districts of Beijing and Tehran in landfill gas
technology.
tively, while that of landfill gas technology is 1.34–3.43 and
2.08–4.2 years, respectively (see Figs. 10 and 11). Therefore, in
all areas of both cities, the anaerobic digestion project is more
economical than landfill gas project. Calculations show that the
average PBT value for a 20-year period in Tehran is 1.1 and
0.67 years higher than in Beijing under landfill gas and anaerobic
digestion technologies, respectively. Furthermore, both projects
in districts 3, 6 and 4 in Beijing and districts 4, 5 and 2 in Tehran
have better economic justification than other districts.
Tehran has a much smaller population than Beijing. Every
citizen of Tehran produces about twice as much waste as every
citizen of Beijing. On the other hand, Tehran’s population growth
rate is higher than Beijing (1.95 vs. 0.47). It was found that,
the implementation of both landfill gas and anaerobic digestion
projects to produce electricity in Beijing has a good economic ra-
tionalization compare to in Tehran. Moreover, political sanctions
imposed on Iran hinder the rapid development of technology in
the country.
Economic factors such as discount rate affect the economic
evaluation of both projects in both cities. Obviously, as the dis-
count rate rises, the LCOE value of both projects will increase. Ef-
ficiency of electricity generation is another parameter that affects
Fig. 9. LCOE values for different districts of Beijing and Tehran in anaerobic the performance of both projects. Clearly, increasing efficiency
digestion technology. of electricity generation leads to increased amount of electricity
4467
W. Huang and H. Fooladi
Fig. 11. Payback time for different districts of Beijing and Tehran in anaerobic
digestion technology.
generated by both technologies. In the present study, the effi-
ciency of electricity generation for both technologies in both cities
is considered equal. Note that, in practice the electricity genera-
tion and waste collection efficiencies will be different not only in
each city but also for each region. Therefore, it is recommended
to implement a small-scale prototype experimentally before im-
plementing large-scale projects; because practical work is faced
with hundreds of unforeseen parameters compared to theoretical
study. Based on what was discussed, significant differences in the
value of factors such as population growth rate and per capita
waste production in the two cities make the impact of other
factors (such as differences in culture and eating habits as well as
population in the two cities) on the final performance of projects
less significant. Therefore, the projects in both cities have a close
performance after a 20-year estimated period.
5. Conclusions
In the present research, the project of electric power genera-
tion potential from waste in two cases study (Beijing and Tehran)
under two landfill gas and anaerobic digestion technologies was
investigated. For this purpose, the rate of MSW produced in
different regions of the two cities over a 20 years-period was
determined. Then, environmental and economic feasibility assess-
ments, respectively, based on GWP and LCOE and PBT metrics
were presented and discussed. It was found that after a 20-year
period, the amount of waste generated in regions of Beijing is
1.96% lower than in Tehran. The total electric power generated
by anaerobic digestion technology is 45.2% and 41.9% higher than
that of landfill gas project in Tehran and Beijing, respectively.
Among the three scenarios considered for environmental as-
sessment of projects based on GWP, Scenario 3 (Using biogas
produced through the anaerobic digestion process to generate
electricity with agricultural fertilizer by-product) offers the great-
est ability to reduce global warming; where, on the average MSW
management under scenarios 2 and 3 in the Tehran and Beijing
could reduce GWP by 79.16 and 92.65%, respectively.
In all areas of both cities, the anaerobic digestion project is
more economical than landfill gas project. Results showed that
the average PBT value for a 20-year period in Tehran is 1.1 and
0.67 years higher than in Beijing under landfill gas and anaerobic
digestion technologies, respectively. Furthermore, both projects
4468
Energy Reports 7 (2021) 4460–4469
in districts 3, 6 and 4 in Beijing and districts 4, 5 and 2 in Tehran
have better economic justification than other districts.
In the present study, limitations such as assuming the compo-
sition of the organic fraction of MSW to be constant, this can be
changed due to factors such as weather conditions. In addition,
parameters such as the amount of capital, maintenance cost of
projects equipment, waste collection efficiency, the amount of
moisture in the waste, technology development, etc. can affect
the performance of projects. Therefore, the study of the effect of
these parameters can be considered in future studies. However,
with the conditions and limitations considered for the present
study, the results indicate that the implementation of both land-
fill gas and anaerobic digestion projects to produce electricity in
Beijing has a good economic rationalization compare to in Tehran.
Since, the electricity generation from waste in addition to renew-
able energy production leads to a reduction in GHG emissions,
the purpose of the present study is to provide a framework of
the operation of landfill gas and anaerobic digestion projects in
the generation of electricity from MSW, and the results can be
useful for government and private investors to make appropriate
decisions.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Weiping Huang: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investi-
gation, Methodology, Software, Writing – original draft, Review &
editing. Hadi Fooladi: Conceptualization, Investigation, Method-
ology, Software, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The study was supported by ‘‘Innovation Project of Guangxi
Graduate Education, China (Grant No. JGY2019181)’’; The study
was supported by ‘‘Guangxi Vocational Education Teaching Re-
form Research Project, China (Grant No. GXGZJG2018B136)’’
References
Aghajani, G., Ghadimi, N., 2018. Multi-objective energy management in a
micro-grid. Energy Rep. 4, 218–225.
Amini, H.R., Reinhart, D.R., Niskanen, A., 2013. Comparison of first-order-decay
modeled and actual field measured municipal solid waste landfill methane
data. Waste Manage. 33 (12), 2720–2728.
Amoo, O.M., Fagbenle, R.L., 2013. Renewable municipal solid waste pathways for
energy generation and sustainable development in the Nigerian context. Int.
J. Energy Environ. Eng. 4 (1), 1–17.
Atanes, E., et al., 2019. A mixed separation-immobilization method for soluble
salts removal and stabilization of heavy metals in municipal solid waste
incineration fly ash. J. Environ. Manag. 240, 359–367.
Ağaçsapan, B., Çabuk, S.N., 2020. Determination of suitable waste transfer station
areas for sustainable territories: Eskisehir case. Sustainable Cities Soc. 52,
101829.
Ayodele, T., Alao, M., Ogunjuyigbe, A., 2020. Effect of collection efficiency and
oxidation factor on greenhouse gas emission and life cycle cost of landfill
distributed energy generation. Sustainable Cities Soc. 52, 101821.
Ayodele, T., Ogunjuyigbe, A., Alao, M., 2017. Life cycle assessment of waste-to-
energy (WtE) technologies for electricity generation using municipal solid
waste in Nigeria. Appl. Energy 201, 200–218.
Ayodele, T., Ogunjuyigbe, A., Alao, M., 2018. Economic and environmental
assessment of electricity generation using biogas from organic fraction of
municipal solid waste for the city of Ibadan, Nigeria. J. Cleaner Prod. 203,
718–735.
Beijing, Z., et al., 2013. City profile: Beijing. Cities 31, 491–506.
W. Huang and H. Fooladi
Cao, Y., et al., 2019. Optimal operation of CCHP and renewable generation-based
energy hub considering environmental perspective: An epsilon constraint
and fuzzy methods. Sustain. Energy Grids Netw. 20, 100274.
Chen, Z., et al., 2010. Overview on LFG projects in China. Waste Manage. 30 (6),
1006–1010.
Costa, I., Dias, M.F., 2020. Evolution on the solid urban waste management in
Brazil: A portrait of the Northeast Region. Energy Rep. 6, 878–884.
Cudjoe, D., Han, M.S., 2020. Economic and environmental assessment of landfill
gas electricity generation in urban districts of beijing municipality. Sustain.
Prod. Consump..
Cudjoe, D., Han, M.S., Nandiwardhana, A.P., 2020. Electricity generation using
biogas from organic fraction of municipal solid waste generated in provinces
of China: Techno-economic and environmental impact analysis. Fuel Process.
Technol. 203, 106381.
Damrongsak, D., Chaichana, C., 2020. Biogas initiative from municipal solid waste
in northern Thailand. Energy Rep. 6, 428–433.
Eggleston, H., et al., 2006. IPCC IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories. Volume 1: General Guidance and Reporting.
EPA, 2015. F. LFG Energy Project Development Handbook. Landfill Methane
Outreach Program (LMOP.
Fei, F., Wen, Z., De Clercq, D., 2019. Spatio-temporal estimation of landfill gas
energy potential: A case study in China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 103,
217–226.
Gautam, A., Shankar, R., Vrat, P., 2021. End-of-life solar photovoltaic e-waste
assessment in India: a step towards a circular economy. Sustain. Prod.
Consum. 26, 65–77.
Ghosh, P., et al., 2019. Assessment of methane emissions and energy recovery
potential from the municipal solid waste landfills of Delhi, India. Bioresour.
Technol. 272, 611–615.
Gollou, A.R., Ghadimi, N., 2017. A new feature selection and hybrid forecast
engine for day-ahead price forecasting of electricity markets. J. Intell. Fuzzy
Systems 32 (6), 4031–4045.
Gopikumar, S., et al., 2020. A method of landfill leachate management using
internet of things for sustainable smart city development. Sustainable Cities
Soc. 102521.
Hamian, M., et al., 2018. A framework to expedite joint energy-reserve payment
cost minimization using a custom-designed method based on mixed integer
genetic algorithm. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 72, 203–212.
Huang, W., Marefati, M., 2020. Energy, exergy, environmental and economic
comparison of various solar thermal systems using water and Thermia Oil
B base fluids, and CuO and Al2O3 nanofluids. Energy Rep. 6, 2919–2947.
Ibikunle, R., et al., 2019. Estimation of power generation from municipal solid
wastes: A case study ofIlorin metropolis, Nigeria. Energy Rep. 5, 126–135.
Jacob, C., Pioch, S., Thorin, S., 2016. The effectiveness of the mitigation hierarchy
in environmental impact studies on marine ecosystems: A case study in
France. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 60, 83–98.
Joseph, L.P., Prasad, R., 2020. Assessing the sustainable municipal solid waste
(MSW) to electricity generation potentials in selected Pacific small island
developing states (PSIDS). J. Cleaner Prod. 248, 119222.
Kale, C., Gökçek, M., 2020. A techno-economic assessment of landfill gas
emissions and energy recovery potential of different landfill areas in Turkey.
J. Cleaner Prod. 275, 122946.
Khodaei, H., et al., 2018. Fuzzy-based heat and power hub models for
cost-emission operation of an industrial consumer using compromise
programming. Appl. Therm. Eng. 137, 395–405.
Lee, U., Han, J., Wang, M., 2017. Evaluation of landfill gas emissions from
municipal solid waste landfills for the life-cycle analysis of waste-to-energy
pathways. J. Cleaner Prod. 166, 335–342.
Ma, J., et al., 2018. An analysis of influencing factors on municipal solid waste
source-separated collection behavior in Guilin, China by using the theory of
planned behavior. Sustainable Cities Soc. 37, 336–343.
4469
Energy Reports 7 (2021) 4460–4469
Madanipour, A., 1999. City profile: Tehran. Cities 16 (1), 57–65.
Maria, C., Góis, J., Leitão, A., 2020. Challenges and perspectives of greenhouse
gases emissions from municipal solid waste management in angola. Energy
Rep. 6, 364–369.
Mehrpooya, M., et al., 2021. Numerical investigation of a new combined
energy system includes parabolic dish solar collector, Stirling engine and
thermoelectric device. Int. J. Energy Res..
Mlaik, N., et al., 2019. Enzymatic pre-hydrolysis of organic fraction of municipal
solid waste to enhance anaerobic digestion. Biomass Bioenergy 127, 105286.
Mohammadi, A., Ebrahimi, A., Amin, M.M., 2012. Feasibility energy recovery
potential of municipal solid waste in northwest of Iran. Int. J. Environ. Health
Eng. 1 (1), 14.
Mohammadi, M., et al., 2018. Small-scale building load forecast based on hybrid
forecast engine. Neural Process. Lett. 48 (1), 329–351.
Nojedehi, P., et al., 2016. Environmental assessment of energy production from
landfill gas plants by using long-range energy alternative planning (LEAP)
and IPCC methane estimation methods: A case study of Tehran. Sustain.
Energy Technol. Assess. 16, 33–42.
Odekanle, E.L., et al., 2020. Potential for cleaner energy recovery and electricity
generation from abattoir wastes in Nigeria. Energy Rep. 6, 1262–1267.
Ogunjuyigbe, A.S.O., Ayodele, T.R., Alao, M.A., 2017. Electricity generation from
municipal solid waste in some selected cities of Nigeria: An assessment
of feasibility, potential and technologies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 80,
149–162.
Pazoki, M., et al., 2015. Gas production potential in the landfill of tehran by
landfill methane outreach program. Jundishapur J. Health Sci. 7 (4).
Purmessur, B., Surroop, D., 2019. Power generation using landfill gas generated
from new cell at the existing landfill site. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 7 (3),
103060.
Ryu, C., 2010. Potential of municipal solid waste for renewable energy production
and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in South Korea. J. Air Waste
Manage. Assoc. 60 (2), 176–183.
Salami, L., et al., 2011. Characterisation study of solid wastes: a case of lagos
state. Int. J. Appl. Sci. Technol. 1 (3).
Shanmugam, P., 2021. Correlation between empirical formulae based stoichio-
metric and experimental methane potential and calorific energy values for
vegetable solid wastes. Energy Rep. 7, 19–31.
Short, W., Packey, D.J., Holt, T., 1995. A Manual for the Economic Evaluation of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Technologies. National Renawable
Energy Laboratory Publication.
Sivagami, K., et al., 2020. Catalytic pyrolysis of polyolefin and multilayer
packaging based waste plastics: A pilot scale study. Process Saf. Environ.
Protect..
Sözer, H.c., Sözen, H.n., 2020. Waste capacity and its environmental impact of a
residential district during its life cycle. Energy Rep. 6, 286–296.
Srivastava, V., et al., 2020. Analysis and advanced characterization of municipal
solid waste vermicompost maturity for a green environment. J. Environ.
Manag. 255, 109914.
Villanueva-Estrada, R.E., et al., 2019. Energy production from biogas in a closed
landfill: A case study of Prados de la Montaña, Mexico city. Sustain. Energy
Technol. Assess. 31, 236–244.
Worldbank, 2019. Solid waste management. Available from: https://www.
worldbank.org/.
Zhou, Z., et al., 2018. Environmental performance evolution of municipal solid
waste management by life cycle assessment in hangzhou, China. J. Environ.
Manag. 227, 23–33.
Zhou, X., et al., 2020. Rapid in-situ composting of household food waste. Process
Saf. Environ. Protect..