nergy Conversion ané Management 247 (2021) 114613 Cates ns waa a ScienceDirect Energy Conversion and Management journal homepage: www elsevier-comllocate/enconman Using biogas from municipal solid waste for energy production: \ Comparison between anaerobic digestion and sanitary landfilling Spyridon Mavridis, Evangelos A. Voudrias” Deparment of Eien Engng Demarina Uieniy of Tat, GRS7L 09 Kai Gree Kewer ‘The objective ofthis work Iso compare anaeioble dgestion of che organle fiction of munelpal solid waste Boge COPMSWv) and sanitary lending for combined beat and power (CHE) production, using biogas. The comparison Ene pofucton ito selet the most appoptite method using economic, envionment, technological an hel ster aero ombuion nei "he Fst seen considered, the total noun of 50,000 My (Stig ~ mea ton ~ tonne) eagle Anseobie geen [MSW is disposed of ina sanitary lanl. lathe second stent, 406 of OFMSW foc $0,000 Mg of eon ‘mingled MSW source separated and subject ody, thermophili, anaerobi digestion. The reniinder MSW and ‘he dgescae are disposed of sanitary lanl ASesiiityatalss or 100,000 and 200,000 Mg MSV/Y Was sso eondited Fr both methods, the appropiate CHP engines wete selected, che amounts of prodced Degas, eneigy, GHGS, NOx to the atmosphere, leachate production and the total capital and operation casts were taleuated. Regression equations for ttal cost, net plsent value and gate fee were developed and used fr Sconomnle asesment. Based on energy, enviconmental and leg xieria, CHP production fom ataerobe Aigstion favored, compared co sanitary landing. Based on econonie cates, anerobie igestoniseleced foe MSW productions exceeding 210,000 Mg/y ad 150,000 By, fr the cases the investnet i impenicated with own Funds or draws 5594 fom publi funds, respectively. Fr sales MSW productions, satay landing |e favored, respectively. Although the results ate based on Gieek econone condition, the comparison met ‘logy ean be applet to ather coves. reactor design, organic solids concentration, substrate co-digestion, combination with composting, greenhouse gas emissions have been investigated and reported (9-6). Biogas generated by AD is used for nergy production o, after upgrading, for production of vehicle fuel or Injection into the nacural gas grid (7) In several countries, biogas pro: duction has become an important enengy market [3-10]. AD of OFMSW for biogas and energy production is currently an ative research area in several countries [11-19]. Other recent studies have addressed biogas sand energy production from animal waste (20-22) and agricultural 1. Introduction Limitation of fos fuels and the environmental problems arising from their combustion leads to energy production using renewable re sources. The European Union (EU), init proposal for a renewable en ergy directive, has set a target for 2030 of at least 27% share of renewable energy consumption (1). One important source of renewable ‘energy is biogas produced in sanitary landfills (SLE6) or in digesters by the anaerobic digestion (AD) of organe matte, inching the organic fraction of municipal sola waste (OFMSW). Total primary energy from biogas in EU in 2015 was 654 PJ, >18 billion m of natural gas equiv ‘lent. In the same year, BU biogas electricity installed was 10 GW ‘compared to 15 GW of global capacity. Over the period 2004 2015, EU biogas production from AD plants exhibited remarkable growth while from SLES was about consti (2) Anaerobic digestion is an atractive mature technology for teatavent ‘of OFMSW and other organie waste and is application has been increasing (2|, Process fundamentals, sich as kinetes, microbiology Coxsespoading autor waste [23-25]. [Bogas from SLES can be collected and used as a renewable energy source [26-51]. Conipared to AD, the SLF technology damainates the European market in Portugel, Estonia, Ireland, Greece and UK (2). In Greece there aze wo biogas plants, one atthe landfil of Tagatades in the Profecture of Thessaloniki and the other ac the land of Ano Liosi in the Prefecture of Arti Broun and Satier [82] compared conventional and bioreactor landfills for electricity recovery and greenhouse gas emissions, whereas AAyodele eal 35] compared eletreity generation using AD and SLF of mal addres ntdis@1176.syal gov gt (S. Mali), voudasen th g (EA. Youd). Daps://doLong/10.1016/ enconman.2021.114613 Received 6 May 2021; Accepted 4 August 2021 ‘Availabe online 10 September 2021 (0196-89017 2021 Eee Lid. All ight sete,ery Comrion nt Monge 207 (2021) 14613 Nomenclature Acronyms AD anaerobic digestion cH, methane CHP combined heat and power COsuq carbon dioxide equivalent FU ropean Union GE General Electric GHG Greenhouse gases HHV higher heating value HRT hyerauli residence time IPCC Intergovernmental Pat on Climate Change Law lower heating value MSW municipal solid wa NOx nltogen oxides NPV net presen value WMP _ National Waste Management Plan COrMSW_organie faction of anil sold waste PPC Public Poorer Corporation SLF sanitary lanfil TS tal solids TVS total voile solids UK United Kingdom USEPA. United States Environmental Protection Agency vv volume per volume ww wet Weight bass tite aim mimosphere 8c degree Celsius ay, GW Gigaware (=10" watt) ke ilogram KW llowatt (10° wrt) Mg Megagram (metric tonne) Ma/y —-Megagtams per year M3——‘Megajule (=10" joules) PS Petajonte (10°? joules) Sys A heat exchange surace area AEC annual equivalent cost ddr discount rate in Greece DIT daily TVS input Fo, boundary value of gate fe for investment drawing 0% from public funds GFssx boundary value of gate fe for investment drawing 55Y% from public funds ‘ 1-year time inerement (LandGEM) J 01-year time increment (LandGEM) ke methane generation rate constant (LandGEM) Le potential methane generation capacity (LandGEM) M, mass of waste accepted inthe ih year LandGEND 1" umber of years NCI net eash inflow NCO net eas outflow [NPVoye net present value for Investment drawing O¥6 from public nds NPVisyp net present value fr investment drawing 559% from public funds OLR organic loadin P, MSW produetion in yearn P, MSW production in base year (exe anal methane generation inthe year of calculation (landcEM x heat loss Greek avernge inistion-ndjusted discount rate fy age of the th seetion of waste mass Mf accepted inthe ih year U heat wansfer coufcient digester volume x ual MSW londing now stnal MSW londing xy stnal OFMSW loading n ——_Inndill or anaerobic digestion inital cost Yiu foal unit equivalent cost with respect ro MSW loading Yo landfill or anacrobic digestion operating cost Yor total unit equivalent cost with respect 19 OFMSW loading Greck symbols AT temperature diference t nal rate of ehange ‘OFMSW from the environmental and economic point of view. The latter ‘work was a case study forthe city’ of Ibadan, Nigeria, with annual MSW generation ranging from 477,000 Mg in 2017 to projected 967,000 Mg Jn 2036. Both technologies were economically viable, but AD appeared Detter than SLF from the energetic, environmental and economic point of view. isnot known, however, whether this conclusion holds true for sualler waste loadings arising from smaller populations. {An important question 10 be answered is whiel one of the two, methods (SLF and AD) offers higher economic benefits, lower environ mental nipact and higher energy production, under the specific condi ‘ons of intrest, sc as: Which ave the critical loadings which make the investments viable and which isthe critical loading fr selecting the on ‘over the other? How this choice is affected ifthe Investment is imple rented with own funds o by partially drawing public funds? This work provided an answer to these questions and this isthe novelty ofthis paper. The study of Ayodele etal 3) made # comparison between SLE ‘and AD for Ibadan, Nigeria, but did not address the above questions Thus, the overall objective of this work seas the evaluation and, ‘comparison of SLF and AD for energy production from tecunologicl environmental, economic and legal point of view. A 20-year period 2017-2037 was considered. Inthe Bist scenatio, the total amount of produced commingled MSW is disposed of in SLF and the produced biogas is recovered and burned in a gas-fired engine for energy pro ution (CHP ~ combined heat and power). Initally, che ease of 50,000 Mg/y production of commingled MSW in 2017 was studied and analyzed (base case). A sensitivity analysis for 100,000 and 200,000 Mg/y was conducted to examine the scale effects on technical, env ronmental and eccnomie performance Inthe second scenario, n part of the OFMSW fs sonrce-separated and subject to dy thermophilic anaerobic digestion, Some of the advantages of this process, compared to mesophilic anaerobic digestion, include better pathogen destruction, higher resetion rate for destruction of Volatile solids, Deter liquid-solid separation on dewatering and higher srowth rate of microorganisms. The higher renction rate results in higher Diogas generation rate, shorter residence time and snuller digester volume. On the negative side, thermophilic AD requires higher feergy Input and suffers from poor stability and reliability (5]. Never: theless, there are many commercial thermophilic AD systems, sch as by5800 ‘5600 200 4600 [MSW Production (thousand Mg/¥) ery Comrion nt Monge 207 (2021) 14613 BPP FP PS PP PP HW” Year Fig 1. MSW production In Gece la thousand ig per year, for 2000 ~ 2015 (Source: Eucostat (57). ‘Table 1 Initial yavty and day ling of anaerobic dieses Ware pe Teil MSW progeced, My oma in MSH, (28) ce oan in MSW. tay vi7a0 ssat0 7.890 Start elec (30) poe ttt oo wase sept colected steam etaing 7.085 14176 2.82 oo waste contatinsepatel collected 7525. 7525.75.25 ‘scam 65) Amount off waste In separately calles 88410667 21,888 ora MSH, (28) Sse 89588 ‘rount a NS, 09 ‘tbo T7700 Serle 9 (39) eo ‘ten waste separately clecedsueam entering 1772584788 ren waste cometin spacey coleced 7525. 7525.75.25 ‘seam, 3 ‘soca extern snacohie lg, Mgy Pager Waste Cora in MSW, (38) ma m2 m2 ‘mount NS, 02°9 Tstoo 22200 4.400 an (38) riper wae smountinsepnaely coleced 33S 0 owas sem eneng anatobie gestion OPSH etcingamcobicdigeton wie Me/y 993193853870 OMMSH eteing anode gece May 750014999 29999 [OMS erring aaeobie gee, ed Dosey stot 52188 ‘Aisunt ful sale QS conten enting 7 WSIS 21.9 meso ies, bg T8| amount ofl volale olds (93.89% conten) S21 9.20120. tering anerbi eget, TY 0) Dranco and Kompogas technology, The produced biogas is burned in @ ‘gas-fired engine for energy production (CHP) and the reminder MSW and the digesate are disposed of in & SLF. As in the fst scenario the ‘ease of 50,000 Mg/y of commingled MSW in 2017 was studied and ‘analyzed (base cas), followed by a sensitivity analysis for production of 100,000 and 200,000 Mg/y. Regression equations for cotal cost, net present value and gate fee for both methods were developed and use for their economic assessment. ‘The choice between SLE aud AD for evergy production is difficult tnd important decision, since i requites significant eapitl investiyent for plant construction snd operation. Other considerations may inchide avea requirements, uty rates for electricity and legal requirements ‘The conclusions of the paper could be used by potential investors, government agencies, poly makers and energy ad waste management companies. 2. Methodology 2.1. MSW compostion and production 21.4. Sanitary landfill According to National Waste Management Plan [4], the average composition (% ww) of municipal solid waste in Greece was: Organic fraction (biowaste) 44.8%, paper and cardboard 22.29, pastes 13.9%, tals 3.9%, glass 4.396, wood 4.6% and others 6.896. Based on aval: ble data, average biovvaste percentage varied from 43% in 2011 ta 45.696 in 2018. Therefore, the above composition was coasidered con: stant over the 20. year study period. The organic fraction consists of food waste from homes, restaurants, catering establishments, retail outlets, associated waste from food processing plants and green waste from Darks and gardens. Green wast is estimated at 20% of biovast [25] ‘Hased on this composition and the typical elemental analysis of Greek MSW components (ood, paper, green waste) [96 the coal vol ale solids content (TVS) of the dry organic faction (Coal solids - 7S) Producing biogas in a sanitary landfill is 89.99 and ite empirical chemical formula is CysathrseOs4sNecS (ash and moisture not considered). [MSW production in Greece from, 2000 to 2015 is presented in Fi. 1. ‘The decrease in profuetion from 2010 10 2015 is due to the economic tris, The annual rite of decrense of —2.26% over this period was computed using the exponential model: o where! , = MSW production in yearn, 2015 (5,249,000 Mg/) , = MSW production in base yar, 2010 (5,917,000 My) ‘= annal ate of change (36) = number of years (n= 5)ery Comrion nt Monge 207 (2021) 14613 fos Des oe tana ech oe Sree’ [>| aan amen vesor | —o-(FS}-] to conn x soe one Li) es casting sytenl a} cng . rare fea Thema Bs Conk Rae +f rower tansomer|—o| Power Newo oan or Fig. 2. Process flow diagram for aneobie digestion and CHP. ‘Tabte2 Sling of anaerobic digesters for dhe thre eases finial MSW production ‘OPS eotting asad digee May Digester volume: Digester duets Digs Belg coun. ke 4 : > For the 20.year period 2017-2037, the following scenario was considered: Over the years 2017-2019 production keeps decreasing at rate equal 19 2.8672 = ~1.18%; over the years 2020-2024 MSW produetion was equal to that of 2019; aver the yours 2025-2037 pro: ‘duction increased ata constant anal rate of 0.9%. ‘Based on dese assumptions, the total aniounts of commingled MSW produced and disposed of in the sanitary landfill over the 20-year period ‘are presented in Table Ai (Append) 2.1.2, Anaerobic digestion ‘The Greek NWMP ['4) promotes the design of separate collection of biowaste networks with « 40% diversion target from sanitary landfilling by 2020. This target 89s considered constant over the 20-year study ‘Table period and was applied to both biowaste components (food and green waste). Souree-separnted biowaste contains a fraction of the paper, which i difficult to be separated, such as food packaging, napkins and Daper tablecloths. This content i estinate at 9.25% ww [38], which is ‘equivalent to 75% based on the produced MSW. Te resulting empirical chemical formula of the dry organic fraction subject to anaerobic digestion 48 C4goHqioOasoNouS (sh and moisture not considered) Loading to anaerobic digesters is shoven in Table 1 22. Sanitary landfill and anaerobic digestion reactors 22.1. Landfil development plan ‘The sinitary landAill was planned co hold 1,065,835 Mg of com: ‘mingled misw, which ithe tara amount over the 20-year perio for the base scenario of 50,000 Mg/y initial production in 2017 (Table Al). A ‘mixed type Inndil was assumed, having one above and one below sround symmetrical section, with an active square-shaped base area at round level equal ro 65 » 10° m? (255 m x 255 mb). lift height of 2.5 1m and a compressed MSW density of 0.8 M/ni* were assumed. The ftiounts of MSW disposed of in each lift are presented in Table 2. The {otal capacity is 1,075,500 Mg, but landil operation stops a the end of 2037, having received 1,063,899 Mg. Two filling basins, each lke that of “Tle A2, were used for MSW prediction 100,000 Mg/y with operation periods 2017-2027 and 2028-2037, respectively. Four filling besins, each ike tht of Table AZ, were used for MSW production 200,000 Mg/¥ iteia wed for comparison berween sanitary landing aed anaerobic digestion for entay odo et reduction NOyemiatone Complicate operon Newt far sed oprtes specs om sir plans Tecan at consump fr plan‘Table 4 ery Comrion nt Monge 207 (2021) 14613 Biogas and energy production from the sanitary lanl fr inal amount of $0,000 Mg. Year Blogs Blogster ‘Bogs leer power= Thermal power = let energy reduction, ow rate, Does power = Blogs pamer x electele poe» my ms leeeelciney them efelency BOAO x power BEAD 0.90 Soma 825M factor 0.90, My (10% Toss, thy 20s Suos972 233279, ear 1a ose os ue ‘Tables Production of biogas, ele eneigy and ben or MSW Asp in sanitary andl sw broduced and disposed of forenergy fren” powerof_ energy for energy for__——iheatover the heat over the Iouced —fosed af verte” produstion | prouetin CHP le oerthe Sale oerthe CHP car dspored period 3017-2087, production production “MW” production production rid’. —_peiod per Mg oeMey 20172007, Mg Period’? pend pers ered’, period per Mg MWK ornisw Ng Orsi xo Ormsw wate Me nts 109900 2127,658 1,414,893, vangiss 123 1.492, M2764 22 357/612 253 (© Fo inal MSW production 50,000 Mg, the CHP production period is 2021-2089, Fo intial NSW production 100,000 Mj, the CHP production pesiod is 2021-2078 Foal MSW production 20,000 My, the CHP production peed is 2021-2077 ‘with operation periods 2017-2022, 2023-2027, 2028-2032 and 2039-2097, 22.2. Sing of aerobic digesters ‘ased ot the process lowe diagram of Fig. 2, the yearly and daly loadings of anaerobie digestion For the initial MSW productions were ‘compte in Tbe 1, The size of anaerobic digesters vias computed, siven the Incoming amount of organie waste, the Organi Loading Rate (OLR) snd the Hydric Residence Time (HRT). ‘The operational parameters for an one-stage dry, thermophilic ‘anneroble digester and organic ferction separately colleted at homes, ‘restaurants and food stores are: OLR = 4-9 kg TVS/ai'sd and HRT 12-16 d (89), The volume of a digester was ealeulated fron: on oun @ ‘where V = digester volume (n*) DIT = daily TVS input (kg TVS/A) (OLR = organi loading rate (kg TVS/m?.4) ‘The calculated volume should correspond to a hydrate residence time satisfying the above criteria. Thus, the sle of the digesters was calculated for the three initial productions (50,000, 100,000 and 200,000 Mg/) and the results are presented in Table 2, assuming ey lindrial shape, height to iameer ratio 2:1 and conerete as construction material. For comparison, a similar type anserobie digester in Brecht, Belgium, using Dranco technology had an HRT = 14 4 [40]. Regarding size limitations, one-stage dry, thermophilic anaerobic digesters sing Dranco and Valorga tecnology do not exceed $300 n 25 mi in hight [40]. The results of Table 2 do not exceed these limitations According {0 DG ENV.A.2, @ pasteurizer was included before the digester (Fig. 2) for sanitation ofthe waste at 70°C for 1b, because the hydraulic residence time of he digester was <20 4 (1) 2.3. Expected biogas protcton 23.1. Sanitary landfill ‘Considering the composition of MSW, 98CH, and COs In biogas was computed, using Eg. (3) [421ery Comrion nt Monge 207 (2021) 14613 ‘Table 6 (GHG and NOx emisions from the sanitary landfill and the biogas plant over the psiod 2017-2117 50.000 My 100.000 ey "200,000 Mey Diet nition sources NeCam Slee an 50m ByCOoq Welder and Indirect evieions indirect emitione Mabe machinery emieoor essa 1a ose ta misra1 12 ‘Methane Fenkage from SLF gas sate 94 sles? 7.8 yirates a8, Avoided emission soureet sot avoided sot woided ot aided ‘misons ‘esions ‘misions onemicntunsoqwesnion SLE 326756 ensi2 08 on ‘Total avldedemtaione 302911466 100 208364496 100 425,225409 100 Toul GHG emieons gam 244.0 37 079,002 a6 05974 Twatceeminon ony 4 aa ae TaLcticeminom iia/ts to oss ora ‘Total NOx even, bg oan wos 179208 ‘Table? “Total equivalent cost for consetion and operon of the sanitary tan and the biogas plant SW production Mary ‘OPS doped of Mey 525066500 158000, ‘enaroton 77 Tonleqialentcaniorendll operon, 572777 605579 983.766 ey ‘Toul equlent costo Indl core 156599 919086 626199 ‘Toul equslet cntfor ogee past 141950162254 268055 easteton, ‘oul equvlent ctor boetspint «207876 S107 7278 Totlcauslent cet pe MEORUSW ARG SRD 27 ‘posed of ee pened of Mg 0 (PRIMI 9 (HE 2M 4, hab} 204 34-420 oe For the empirical chemical formula of the dry organic fraction pro ‘ducing biogas In the sanitary land, . (8) becomes Cuttin ushsS + 139251401347 STSCH + 292.1250. 4 28NHN + 1S ® Based on stoichiometry, the theoretical biogas composition was: cosas sans nthe landfill environment, biogas production was calculated with, LandGEM Landfill Gas Emission) model, which i based on Eq. (5) [3 o were: ‘cg = annual methane generation in the year of ealeulation (m"/9) year time inerement (year of ealeation) ~ (initial year of waste acceptance) 1-year time inerenent kk =methane generation rate constant (y*) 1 = potential methane generation capacity (m°/31g) (M;= mass of waste accepted inthe ith year (Mg) y= age ofthe jth section of waste mass M;secepred In the Ith year ‘The parameter Ly was estimated using the approach presented by Amini e a. (8), for computing biogas generation by sanitary land filing. This was based on the % content of components contributing to biogas prodetion (fod, green waste, pape) and thelr respective po tential methane generation capacity, a8 determined by Inboratory seasirements [45,40]. This vale was Ly ~ 70 1° methane/M ww of MSW disposed of. Biogas generation potential based on this valle Was computed at 131.3 m'/Mg wiv MSW disposed of Methane generation rave was selected k for areas with rinfall 635 mmy (47,48, considering rainfall daa for Greece (49) 29.2. Anaerobic digestion For the empirical chemical formula of the dry organic faction pro: ducing biogas in anaerobic digesters, Eq, (3) becomes CoH OreNuS + ISIHLOS220H, + ISSCOD + 34NHS + HES (6) For computed moisture content of OFMSW = 73.4% tora solids (13) = 26.6%, total volatile solids TVS = 93.8396 of TS and 65% Aestruction of TYS during one-stage dry, thermophilic snserobie digestion [40], biogas production was 0.693 m/ke incoming TVS, with CH, = 56.35% v/v and CO, = 43.65% v/v. Therefore, the expected biogas production for initial MSW 50,000 Mg/y and incoming TVS 1,869,006 kg/y will be 1,194,205 m/y. For mass to volume conver: sions, te used density valnes of methane and carbon dioxide at 0°C andery Comrion nt Monge 207 (2021) 14613 60 50 B40 = 6 30 > y= 1048.1x02% Zn sitane 10 ° ° 50,000 100,000 150,000 Mg OFMSWly 35 30 25 vase z — Bx = > y= 786.5292 215 R= 0.9939 oe 10 5 ° ° 50,000 100,000 160,000 200,000 250,000 Mg Mswiy Fig. 2, Toa wit gual cos for onstion ae operation of the snarling and he bigs plan ss fneton of asia OFMSW op) an MSW (Govon loading ns {541 Using biogas composition of Section 29.1 slower beating value [NPV of biogas plant avestnent in the suniay Tani Sanitary oni, May capa rom public capital fom puble 200.000 23578504 414465 1 atm were 0.7167 g/Land 1.9768 g/l, respectively [50 24, Selection and sizing of energy production engines 2A.1. Sanitary landfill ves assumed that intermediate and final covers fom soil material Will be placed in the landfill and horizontal collection cenches will be used for capturing biogas. The US EPA defante collection efficiency of 75%, which is a conservative value particularly after landfill closure, was adapted in this study [51-59] Biogts heating value is related to the enthalpy of combustion of methine and was computed using standard thermodynamic procedures (Li) was computed at 19 M/m" ands higher heating value (HH) at 21.08 n/a" Energy production starts in 2021 (Sth Year of anal operation) Fer CHP production, the internal combustion piston engine Jeubacher Type 2J208 of General Eletie with nominal electric power 249 AW, nominal heat power 275 AW, electrical effefeney 39.1% and hermal efclency 43.2% was selected [55]. These eficlencis were considered constant over th engine's fe span, neglecting any aging effets. A toa of thre such engines wl be ised The fst engine starts operating in 2021 at 60% of nominal power, Increasing 10 88% in 2023, as Dlogas prodvcton increases. The second egies ‘erating in 2024 nd the third in 2031, with parallel operation ofa ree engines ntl 2039 (at 9086 of thet nominal ower). In 2040, the three engines willbe gradvally withdrawn, because of decreasing biogas production. In 2085, there will beonly one CHP engine operating at 6O% Of its nominal power, reducing to 28% in 2084. At ts pont the Fc ceases operation, as the engine drops below 5% of is nominal power [56] and produced biogas i ented othe atmosphere ‘The facility wil be working 360 dy (Sd fr maintenance) oF 8640 ly. The produced electe energy was ealeulated by multiplying the produced eletrie power with the numberof operating hours and the Dower factor To avoid fines by the Greek Publie Power Corporation (PPC) (57), the Inter shone have a value >0.9 and this vane asMari ond EA, Vue ery Comrion nt Monge 207 (2021) 14613 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 +,000,000 y=-0.0003%2 + 97.921% Red NPV () -500,000 1,000,000, 1,500,000, 2,000,000, ° 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 MSW (Moly) 5,000,000, 4,000,000 3,000,000 gs 1 =-0.0003%¢ + 96.247 - 5E+06 wea 3 2.000,000 5,000,000 ° 4,900,900, id ° 50,000 100,000 150,000 200.000 260,000, MSW (Moly) 4 NPVs ofthe investment for eoastnecon and option ofthe sanitary’ Indi biogas pla. Top: Investment implemented with own fans. Botton: I ‘esteat implemented by draosing 55% ofits capita rom publi ands, ‘Table 9 Prodtction of biogas elect enetgy and he for MSW ctevng anaerobic digesters MSW entering Dogar for_— logan per clectie power lect people’ produced, neeroble energy Mg power, CHP energy for Seve Maly digester, production, OFMSW, MW” engine, sles WHY produced My ty ae my etre EWAAle diseter 9000 15000 «2360590159 oss mts SIT sot a7 tes ae ‘adapted in this sud pesteurizer operating temperature. Other heating needs were consid ered negligible, Heat loss th 24.2. Arnerobic digestion veetion equation: For CHP production, the internal combustion piston engine Jen. neh walls was computed using the con bbacher 1208 of General Eletric with nominal electic power 330 kw, — AAT 2 nominal heat power 413 kW, electrical efficiency 98.8% and thermal where: cffciency 48.5% was selected (55) Electrical demands ince the operation of pumps, shredders and q)= heat loss, W stirring systems in the digesters. This is estimated at 163 of the pro U = heat transfer coefficient, W/m? °C ‘duced electric energy by the facility, according co the research project AT = temperature difference between the two sides of the wall, °C GERONIMO 2 BIOGAS [55], which conducted a review of operating A= hent exchange surface area, ni? “anserobie digestion and CHD plants in Entope and wens supported by the European Commission. Het input to maintain constant waste temperature was compted ‘Thermal demands of the system comprise the amounts of thermal from [5] (Pits and Sissom, 2011) ‘energy required co heat and maintln incoming waste to digester andery Comrion nt Monge 207 (2021) 14613 10,000 9 200,000 MEY ‘Table 10 (GHG and NOx emisions ftom the anaeobie digestion, the biogas plant and the sanitary andi ver the peiod 2017-2117, 50000 Mey Diet nition sources LeCOmmy— Sealdiee an indie eiaions HCO 5005 indirect enaions indie eens Mabe machinery emieoor sess 13 Entson fom AD operation 325000 os Inve emson sowrees| eco for achat wennent toma 0 eae fer AD operation synzs0 ta Total direct and inane eminsions ——$27.870.770 100, lcs by SL pr enie id "Hee by AD gs engines od T5708 Bae TARTS ea aims oa sseos0 oa ossss0 07 fais oe Ssaset 10 1o0s836 10 ‘Total GHG emissions AE Cam 399 .882,551 Tota GHG emissions AE COs Mg 381 se Reduction of sbove cil GHG Py cisions with respect SLF lone Tote GHG emissions AE COM 973 cisions wth respect SLF lone [5NOx/Ag OFUSW diponed Sa nae 145,098 ‘Table 11 ‘Tova equivalent cost fr eonstetion and opeacon of the aerobic digestion facly and the bogas ps MSW proton May ‘aerodie igesion nd bogs pa, “ot equivalent coat of enero Lr aasee asi6605 ‘pein and eps pany tering anacrobic gestion fait. Cap a= mG,8T ® where: 1.= heat input, W t= vonste mass flv, kg/’s (Gp = waste specifi heat, J/kg °C AT = temperature difference, °C To compute thermal demands, the foll made: assumptions were ‘+ Waste specific lett was considered the same with water, 4200 J/kg “c1s9) ‘© The digester i eylindrinl witha ratio of diameter to height 1:2.and constricted with reinforced concrete «Digester wal is 30 em thick, roof 10m thick and Noor 30 em thick in contact with wet soil ‘+ Temperatutes are: alr 10, soll (ground) 8, waste 10, pasteurizer 70 rand digester 55 °C (thermophilic operation) ‘Thermal demands for the operation of the anaerobic digestion sys tem ranged between 24.6 and 25,9% (ble A). The remainder of produced heat can be sold to nearby industries, but dese economic benefits were not considered in this study. 2.3, fvironmenral impact 251. cues Inorder to havea consistent bass of comparison, it was assumed that, the residual waste, after sonrce separation of 40% of the OFMSW frac tion, was disposed of in SLF and the produced biogas was collected and fared, following th collection progenm ofthe fist SLF scenario (Soon 2.4.1), Op emissions derived from decompestion of biomass (food, green, paper waste) were considered casbon-neutral and were not accounted for as GHGs. Similarly, CO, emissions produced from com bustin of bionassderived methane were not accosted for, NoO emissions were accounted for as GHGs [60]. According to PCC (6), the lobal warming potentials of mediane and nitrous oxide are 28 and 298 times that of carbon dioxide, respectively. NOx emissions produced by CHP engines end Maring were not considered GHGS, but were sinply reported as gaseous emissions, 25.2. Bnision sources Total direc, indirect and avoided emissions were estimated forthe ‘neo scenarios of interest, using emission factors of Table A‘. The main souree, the emission of uncaptured methane from SLE to theery Comrion nt Monge 207 (2021) 14613 180 160 2 120 5 100 2 80 40 20 y= 16284x2481 Ris ° 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 $0,000 Mg OFMSWiyear Fig 5. Tota unit equvalent cos for constvetion and operation of anserobie digestion folly and biogas plantas a fneton of annual OFMSW loading ‘Table 12 [NPV of anactobic digestion facity and biogas plant investment, with gate fee 067M RPV of invest nial MSW OFNSW "NPV of nvextmeat Produced, entering drawing oft drawing 59% oe Mey itl rom pubic capital fom puble ‘atmosphere, was quantified by the difference of roxal produced biogas ‘and that collected for energy production or flaring (Sections 2.3 and 2.1) Emission from heavy machinery was estinted rom the amount of diesel consumed, while from leachate treatment (comprising biological treatment denitrification, coagulstion-sedimentation, sand filtration ‘and activated carbon adsorption) according to Wang and Nakakubo [Emissions froma CHP engines and AD operation were based on IPCC 67). The amount of AD digestate was estimated from mass balance principles (lable A5). Indirect emissions were based on electric ‘eonstmption (Table 4). Avoided emissions were based on renewable ‘lecricity supplied to the grid and estimation ofthe amount of carbon ‘sequestration in the SLF (Table Ao), NOx emissions were estimated fom, the technical characteristics of the CHP piston engines selected [5] 26, economic analysis 26.1. Sanitary landfill ‘oral cost included the initial and operating cost of the sanitary landfill, the cost of landfill closure and after care and the initial and ‘operating cost of the biogas plant. The fixed costs are Itemized as follows: Sanitary landfill predevelopment, constuction, closure and aftercare Acquistion and placement of pumps and the piping system for biogas, colletion and its trnsport from the Inndill the biogas plant and, site preparation, buildings, water supply, sewage system, start ip and design of biogas plant and leachate collection and treatment Hydrogen sulfide removal system Biogas cooling system for moisture removal CCHP engines and electrostatic filters Blogs fare nnd contol systent 8. 9. Current transformer Computer and biogas measuring and controlling system The variable coss are itemized as follows: Sanitary landfill operating cost Operating and maintenance cost of CHP engines and other equip: sent of biogas plant Operating cost of biogas clean-up system before entering CHP engines Salaries of biogas plant personnel ‘Cost of biogas plant electric demands Equipment insuran CCompensations 10 muniepality where the biogas plant fs built Iniial and operating costs for sanitary landfilling were estimated sing che cost fanedions published by Tllemou and Panagiotakopoulos 701 y= 3.50007 o yo = 150 a0) where: y= landfill nil ost, € x= annual MSW loading, Mg/y Yo = landfill operating cost, Mtg These costs refer to Year 2003 and were converted to 2017 values using Ea. (11) vou(t +92" ay _y = initial or operating cost, © = Greek average inflation adjusted discount rate over tis period, equal to 1.76 (87,71) ‘The intial cost fs converted 10 annual equivalent cost forthe period 2017-2037 using Eq, (12) (72) arth del 1 (+ de® osnor Coreen Manageme: 247 2021) 114613 2,000,000, 0 -2,000,000 4,000,000 © 6,000,000 > & -8,000,000 2 y = 0.0005x? - 16.7445x - 15,355,807 1 -10,000,000 42,000,000 44,000,000 oar 46,000,000 © 0,000 100,000 180,000 200,000 250,000 MSW (Moly) 20,000,000 = 0,000384x2 + 60 869800x 12,925,611 15,000,000 Reet 4 10,000,000 g 5,000,000 z i oO 5,000,000 10,000,000 48,000,000 © 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 MsW (Maly) 6. NPVs ofthe investment for constuction and operation ofthe anaerobic digestion facility and biogas plant with gate fe 80 €/Mg, Top: Investment ple ened with ewe funds. Botton: Investment implemented by drawing 59% ofits pital rom publle funds ‘Table 13 Bounty value of gate fe fr viable amsecobie digestion facility and biogas Onis Toundary value of Boundary valve of figestion ——_deewing Ow ofits drawing 85% of ts {aelty, Me/y capital om public capital from ble where AEC = annual equivalent cost, € N= numberof years, equal t© 20 (=2087-2017) dd = discount rate in Greece, equal 10 5% (GMA, 2003) (75 ‘The landfill closure and afterenre costs were estimated at $0 €/? wal ‘The biogas plant is constructed in 2017, in parallel with sanitary landfil, and contains initially one CHP engine, Depending on initial “MSW production, additional engines ae added in future years. The cost of technical equipment and the total cost of the biogas plant are pre sented in Tables A7 and A8 Appendix). The operating cost of biogas plant was estimated based on Table 4°. For the economic evaluation, the Net Present Value (NPV) of the biogas plant investment forthe 20 year operation period was caleulated, sing Eq. (13) neo Np a3) wer where: NPV = net present value, € INcr ~ net ensh inflow dising a single year, € [NCO = net eash outflow during the sanve year, €Biogas production 444 mse nan Sige ag OFS) suesteeee?e sw to) Electric energy production 4 44 i i | e L, Wi WZ a EZ GY i — oe Fig. 7, Comparison berween sanitary landflling and anaerobic digestion with respect to biogas production kn m°/Mg OFMSW entering the system (op); let ene proton for sale fn KWI/Mg OFMSIY entering te stem (aides and heat production forsale in KWh/My OFMSW enteting thes tem (bottom) Future inflows outflows for a particular year are adjusted to present values using Eq. (14): wer Neo py =Na_ NCO (Vt ar} 1N = mmber of yents since the reference year r= discount rate in Greece, equal 0 5% (75) A biogas plant investment with a positive NPV will be profitable and investment with a negative NPV will rest in m net Tess, NPV was ‘aleulated fortwo eases (1) The investment is implemented with em Casing its on funds). (2) The investment becomes part of the Greek ery Comrion nt Monge 207 (2021) 14613 development law 4399/2016 and draws from public funds. 5906 ofits investment capital 26.2. Anaerobic digestion ‘oral investment cost included the inital and operating cost ofthe sanserobie digestion facility and of the biogas plant. The initial costs Included “predevelopment costs (site characterization, environmental assessment, hydrogeological investigation, land aequistion, engineer ing design) + consrution casts land cleaning, excavation, bulingsand other eonstruction works, equipment and furnishing of facilites)” technical equipment (for waste pretreatment, anaerobic digestion, biogas cletn-up and storage, CHP produetion, pumps, heat exehanges, diges tate disposal) + ifasirucrure access roads, water an electieltysmpply, sewerage system), The operating costs inchded expenses for aw mn terials, Inboratory tests (reagents, chemical, et.), energy and other uulities, wastewater disposal, labour slates, supervision, maintenance of digesters, CHP engines, biogas clean-up system, heat exchangers, Insurance, overheads, raining programs, etc. The operating cost does not include eapital recovery eost (70 Intnl and operating costs for anserobie digestion were estimated sing che cost fanetions published by Tllemou and Panagiotakopoulos 70k 35,000 % as) yo = 17,0008 a6) ‘The rernis are the sume with those explained for Eqs. (9) and (10), Eq. (11) was used to convert 2003 cost estimates to 2017 cost estimates ‘and Eq, (12) to comipite ABC. The total cost was redueed per Me. of OFMSW entering the facility For the economic eveluation, the NPV ofthe anweroble digestion and biogas plant investment forthe 20.year operation period was calculated, using Eqs. (13) and (14) and discount rate in Greece, equal 0.5% [73) Revenues ftom sale of produced electricity and gate fee collection were considered as net cash inflows. Gate fee was selected at 806/Mg of (OFMSW entering the felly [85-89]. The investment was implemented with ov funds and with 5596 of is apital fem public fands, sn the ‘ase of sanitary landfill. The boundary value of the gate fee for viable lavestment was ealeulated for both cases. 2.7. Comparison berween sanitary lanjiling and anaerobic digestion ‘The comparison berwcen the two nlethods was conducted consid ering energy, environmental, technological, economic and legal eriteria Table 3). ‘3. Results and discussion 5.1. Using biogas from sanitary land for energy production “Table 4 presents indicative enlelations for production of electric energy and heat ftom biogas co be used as fuel ofa CHP engine for inital MSW production 50,000 Mg/y. According to PPC [71, annual elec trieity consumption in Greece In 2014. was 3282 kWh/person/y Assuming constant consumption, the produced eleetricity in 2021 will serve 355 people. The produced thermal energy was calculated by rutiplying the produced thermal power (column 7, Table #) with the umber of operating hours and the thermal factor (0.0), accounting for hese losses. A similar approach was followed when initial MSW pro Auction i 100,000 and 200,000 Mg Total generation of biogas, renewable electric energy and heat for the three MSW productions are presented in Tobie 5, GHG and NOx ‘issions from direc, indirect aad avoided sources are listed in Table 6. ‘The largest GHG emission isthe discharge of uncaptured methane tothe rxmosphere, secounting for >88%, followed by methane leskage fromery Comrion nt Monge 207 (2021) 14613 TOTAL GHG EMISSIONS kg CO2eq/Mg MSW Moi se ed 8 100,000" MSW produced (Mgiy) o* ws oF soo na nteg ug somevecemter ed ssn emme 8 m2 “hmmismir: 0 . UNCAPTURED METHANE FROM SLF kg CO2eq/Mig MSW produced 8 € 8 & 8 “s0,000" 100,000" MSW produced (Maly) 00 3 posed we 3 santa nating 3 soa 2 rAnserobe digestion + Serine Sanitary lading 200 3 Statay nating 100 2 ° Fig. . Comparison benscen sanitary Indfiling and anaetobeaiestion with respect to greenhouse gas emissions op) and uneaprued methane emissions fom he scary lnls (bottom. ‘gs engines (7.9-9.496). Renewable lecrieity supplied to grid counts for 99.79 of avoided sources, Total GHG enssions ranged from 404 £0 461 kg, COzey/Mg MSW generated or 600-684 kg COzey/Mg OFMSW disposed of. These values ate ower than those reported by Perez etal 00] for SLE with biogas recovery for Madrid (510 kg COzeq/Mg MSW) and by Lit etal (1) for Shanghat (602 kg COauq/Mg MSW in 2014). However, such comparisons are difficult, because of large diversity in ‘waste components and operational practices. For example, Liu etal. (91) reported for Shanghal landfills biogas recovery 0-50%, compared co 7506 sed in ont study, NOx emissions ranged from 61.5 10 65.2 2/Me OFMSW disposed of (Table 0). ‘Table 7 presents the total equivalent cost for construction and ‘operation ofthe saaitary landfill and the biogas plant and the rota unit, ‘equivalent cost per Mg of OFMSW and Mg of MSW entering the sanitary landfill. The later range from 32.34 to 21.46 €/Mg MSW disposed of, Indicating economies of scale. Total unit equivalent cost as a function oF ‘annial OFMSW and MSW londing is presented in ip. and described by qs. (17) and (18) iy = 0, an as) where: oq = total unit equivalent cost, €/Mg OFMSW entering landfill Yow = total unit equivalent cost, £/Mg MSW entering landfill ‘y= annual OFMSW loading entering landfill, Mg/y “qa = annual MSW loeding entering landfill, Mg/ ‘The NPVs ofthe investment for construction and operation of the biogas plant are presented in Table 8 and Fig. 4. Bqs. (19) and (20) represent best At curves of the data of Fig, NPV 310-4, +9792 6 1 a9) NP¥.gg = = 3 104, + 96.247 sy 5% 1 20)ery Comrion nt Monge 207 (2021) 14613 NOx EMISSION Iilk “sooner 10,00 MSW produced (Maly) LEACHATE PRODUCTION FROM SLF m/Mg MSW produced MSW produced (Mg!y) ° -. B sentry ening 8 “7 Anaerobic digestion + wo Z “Siiaylnine 5 ssmiemey 205 -snmonidignton Sentry onion ° “anos » ” ud tae "Santayana 10S “Aramonie digo 2 snayieny s@ ‘= Sanitary landfiting | ee : ‘Santry eeting Fig. 9. Comparison berween sanitary landing and anaerobic digestion with respect to NOx emissions (top) and leachate production from the sanitary Jan Als (oom, ‘Based on Eq. (19), when xypy is approximately 71,000 Mg/¥, NPVin, becomes 0 €. This means that for loadings >71,000 Mg MSW/, NPV becomes postive and the biogas plat investment is viable. ln the second ‘ase, te investment draws 554% publi funds and becomes viable when, now > 57,000 Mg MSW/y (Eq, 20). As expected, public financing re ‘duces the MSW annval Toading required for a viable biogas plant lavestment. 4.2, Using biogas from anaerobic digestion for energy production ‘able 9 presents the results for production of biogas, electric energy ‘and heat. Applying the sanitary Inndfill assumptions on number of ‘operating days and electricity demand, the produced electricity in 2017 will serve 664 people, Table 10 presents GHG and NOx emissions from the anaerobie digestion, the biogas plant and the sanitary landfil over the period 2017-2117. Asin the first scenario (SLF alone), discharge of uncaprured methane tothe atmosphere is the largest source, accounting for >879% of total diteet and indirect emissions. This is followed by ‘anaerobic digestate disposal to SLF (25%) aud methane leakage fom AD gas engines (>396). Emissions from SLF leachate treatment and AD ‘operation remsin low, Le, <1 and <2%, respectively. Renewable electricity supplied to grid secounts for 998 of avoided sources, Since there is no power production from the SLF inthis scenario, the respec LUve avoided emissious are zero, Toral GHG emissions ranged from 381 {0427 kg COau/Mg MSW or 573-642 kg COnay/Mg OFMSW produced. [NOx emissions ranged from S18 to 54.1 g/Mg OFMSW disposed of (rable 10), The rests suggest chat in order (0 decrease dhe overall tatbon footprint of this scenario, st IS necessary to: (1) Decrease the ugive methane emission by increasing the biogas eaptue efficiency ‘and (2) decrease biogas production in he SLF by ineresing the amount OF OFMSW which is source sogrogared and subject to anaerobic diges tion. These conclusions are in agreement with other authors [92,65) While thee is an 85% reduction of anaerobic digestate emission in the SLF compared to initial MSW, its contribution remains significant (>5% of total) and should not be dstegarced in che overall emission balance. ‘able 11 presents the total equivalent eost for construction and operation of the anserobie digestion facility and the bioges plant and the ‘otal uni equivalent cost pee Mg of OFMSW. The latter range ftom 179 091 €/Mg OFMSW, indicating economies of scale. Total unit equivalent cost ns fanetion of sual OFMSW loading is presented in Fig. 5 and described by Eq. 2D:y= renee Rat © 20000 40,000 Mg OFMSWiy ery Comrion nt Monge 207 (2021) 14613 Anaerobic Digestion 40% of oruew ‘mSankary Landtiing 160,000 90,000 100,000 120,000 +40,000 Fig. 10. Compatisonberween sanitary laniling and anseroble digestion wit respect to oa constreson and operation eos of CHP proton unit. vy = 16,288" en where Yor = total unit equivalent cost, €/Mig OFMSW entering anaerobic digestion feclity oj = annual OFMSW londing entering anaerobie digestion facili, Mery The NPVs ofthe investment for construction aud operation of the ‘snwerobie digestion ane the bioges plant with gate fee 80 €/Mg OFMSW ‘are presented in Table 12 and Fis. 6 Eqs (22) and (23) represent best fr curves of the data of Fi. 6: NPV, = 5 % 10 48, — 167g, — 15,390 2) NPVs, 12,930) (23) Based on Eq. (22), when produced naw Is approsimately 196,000 Mg/¥, NPVon beconnes 0 €, This menns that for productions >196,000 Mg MSWy and gate fee 80 €/4g OFMSW, NPVpx, becomes postive and the investment is viable. In the second case, the investment draws 55% public funds and for gate fee 80 €/Mg OFMSW becomes viable when produced xmey > 120,000 Mg MSW/y (Eq. (23). As expected, public financing reduces the MSW annual production required for & viable ‘Boundary values of gate fe (GF, which are required ro render viable investment drawing 096 and 559 ofits capital from public funds, 210, + OO8TI oy respectively, are presented in Tele 15. Eqs. (24) and (25) represent best fir curves of the data in Table 1% Fy = 71,932 en GFyy = 192,5760,27 29) 1m both eases, boundary gate fee values are decreasing. with Increasing OFMSW loading, indicating economies of scale. 3.3. Comparison berween sanitary landing and anaerobic digestion ‘with respect o energy proucton Based on energy criteria, anaerobic digestion is superior to sanitary landfilling as shown in is. 7. Total GHG emissions, as computed in Tables 6 10, ate compared, in ip 8 Gop) mall eases, emssions rom AD-SLF are lower than fom SLE alone. The diferences ae small, ranging ftom 5.8 to 7.9% Cable 10) when emissions are expressed per Mg MSW produced and become smaller (4.56.14) when expressed per Mg OFMSW produce. ‘The reduced emissions are minly due to lower biogas generation inthe SUF ofthe second senaro,bentse 4038 ofthe OFMSW is diverted from SLF and subject to AD. Is expected total GHG enssion to decrease, a 9 OFMSW diverted to AD sincreased Theeefore, the Greek goverment las iiited plans to maxinize separate biowaste collection for bio logical reatment ‘Uncaptuzed methane emission From AD-SLF, expressed per Mg MSW produced i lower than fom SLF alone (0. & bottom), with eduetion 20.59% The ference drops to 6.5% if emision is expressed per Mg MSW dlsposed of. The reduced emission is again de to loner biogas generation in the SLF of the second scenario and, therefore, loier discharge othe atmosphere [NOs emissions from AD SLF are lower than fom SLF (is. 9 top) with iferences in the range 18.8-17.1%. This tenis from the fact that NOx from flare emission i lower thn from AD gs engines. Compare 02651 g/m methane 00.5 g/m biogas combusted (Table) Finally, leachate production ftom AD.SLE, expressed per Mg MSW produced i ower than from SLF alone (i. 9 boom), wih eduction 17.2%. The diference drops to 2.6% leachate production i expressed er Mg MSW disposed of, The educed lenchate proton is deco the Salle aiount of MSW disposed of and accordingly the staler active lene requited, thus accepting seller amount of precipitacon leading to lower leachate production, Each of the SLF basins of the frst scenario requires mn arer of 65,000 ay? (Seton 221), wheres the respective ares forthe second scene is 53,824 m®, Le, 17.2% sl. “The drop in leachate production exresed per Mg MSUY with increase of waste dispsal set the face that the SLF basins are completed faster, ie ae eft open for shorter time, chs accepting less precipitation, ‘Therefore, based om the above environnietal exter, anaerobic digestion is favored compared to sanitary lanling. Conpaison with respect to the technological erteria evens the following 1. Electricity demands for CHP production from sanitary landfilling and anaerobic digestion are estimated a1 8 and 1696 of produced electric energy, respectively, The higher demand of the latter is due (0 operation of more mechanical equipment, such as shredders, ster, pumps. Heat demands are negligible for sanicary landfilling but4,000,000 2,000,000 ° 2,000,000 4,000,000 6,000,000 8,000,000 NPV (€) 10,000,000 12,000,000 14,000,000 « 16,000,000 © 50,000 100,000 MSW (Mgly) 16,000,000 nor Coreen Manageme: 247 2021) 114613 Sanitary landfilling ‘© Anaerobie Digestion 10,000 200,000 250,000 44,000,000 412,000,000 410,000,000 +,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 NPV (€) . 2,000,000 4,000,000 6,000,000 8,000,000 a Jasanitary Landing je Anaerobic Digestion 10,000,000 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 MSW (Mgiy) Fig. 11. NPV compariso for CHP production inestmnea wit between sanitary landfilling and anaetobe digestion. To: Investment inplemeated with own Sands orton tnvestment iniplemeated By dining 55% of enptal fom publ i reach 25% of produced heat fr thermophilic anaerabic digestion (nble 9), becatise of resctor heating and pasteurization. 2, Maintenance of the bioges plant of sanitary landfills easy because it is accomplished by shutting dawn biogas flow at the header pipe and diverting it to flare. The same can be applied to the biogas plant of fangerobie digestion, but maintenance of is unit operations and processes is more complicated and requires special attention (25) 8, The opetation of the biogas plant of both sanitary landfill and anaerobic digestion is relatively simple, because of the few opera tional pares). Inthe former ease, the plant can operate for several ‘years after landfil closure because biogas production continues, The Simplicity holds true for operation of the biogas plant of anaerobic digestion, but not for the anseroble textment facility. Because nde microorganisms are sensitive to changes in environmental conditions [the operation of the latter is dificult and good synchronization ofits unit operations and processes is required (95), CCHP production from sanitary landilis Nexible regarding changing waste loads. Biogas collection is controlled to maintain constant flow, until # new internal combustion engine is added. in contrast, anaerobic digestion is not flexible to changing waste loads and re ‘quires continuous and strict control of OLR to digesters and volu siete loading to CHP engines (39) Morte skilled operators for CHP production from annerobie digestion faze needed than from sanitary land6. In Greece, there is significant technical experience for CHP produc ‘don from landfilling (e.g Ano Liosia, Tagarades) but not yet fom, anaerobic digestion, In conclusion, CHP production from sanitary landfilling is favored. from the technological point of view, because its less compliceted with fever insalled meclanical equipurent, smaller energy demands and ‘easier plant operation and maintennce compared to dry thermophilic ‘angerobie reatmient. Total construction and operation cost of CHP production from sani tary landfilling i lower compared to anaerobie treatment (Fg. 10). ‘The comparison based on NPV of the energy production investaent ‘hows that the critical MSW produetions for choosing berween the two methods are approximarely 210,000 Mg/y when the investment is implemented with own funds snd 150,000 Mg/y when i dress 5% oF its capital from public funds. CHP production from sanitary landing is favored for MSW productions sualler than these critical values, whereas jeroble digestion Is favored for larger MSW productions (Pg. 11) From the legal point of view, CHP prodiction from snserobie digestion is favored, becanse it complies with Pranevtork Directive 2008/98/EC. In contrast, sanitary landfilling of the total amount of MW produced does not comply with the Frantework Ditectve. 4. Conclusions ‘This work compared sanitary landfilling and dry dhermophili ‘anaerobic digestion used for CHP production and the folowing con ‘lusions were drase: 1. In the SLF scenario, total GHG emissions ranged from 404 to 461 kx (C0any/Mg MSW produced and NOx enussions ranged from 61.5 (0 65.2 4/Mg OFMSW disposed of Inthe AD + SLF scenario, total GHG femssions ranged from $81 10-427 kx COany/Mg MSW produced and [NOx emissions ranged from S18 1054.1 #/Mg OFMSW disposed of 2, Based on energy, environmental and legal criteria, CHP production fom anaerobic digestion is favored. 8. Based on technological criteria and the total construction and oper ation cost for CHP production, sanitary landfilling is favored. 4, Based on NPV, when the energy investment is implemented with own finds and MSW production exceeds 210,000 Me/¥, anaerobic digestion is favored. For smaller productions, sanitary landfilling ast be selected, 5. Based on NPV, when the energy investment draws 55% ofits eapital from public funds and MSW production exceeds 150,000 Mg/y, anaerobic digestion is favored. For smaller productions, sanitary Jandfiling must be selected, 6. Boundary gate fee values, for rendering viable the anaerobic diges tion investment, are decreasing with increasing OFMSW loading, Indicating economies of scale, This could provide an incentive for evoperation of counties in the same region to pool their MSW to be treated by anaerobic digestion for CHP production. This is an neentive to inerease diversion of OFMSW from landfilling for fannerobie treatment and CHP production, 7, From the point of view of n Greek Region emphasizing on quality of life ofits etizens, environmental protection and compliance with, legislation, CHP production using anaerobic digestion is favored 8. A company producing sd selling energy emphesizes on economic benefits and from its point of view CHP production using sanitary landfilling must be selected if imitations of conclusions 4 and 5 are Punding This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not for profit sectors, ery Comrion nt Monge 207 (2021) 14613 (CRedit authorship contribution statement Spyridon Mavridis: Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, nvestigaion, Writing original draft, Visualization. Evangelos A. Voudrias: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing — original deft, Writing - review & editing, Visualization, Supervision. Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing nancial Interests or personal relationships tha could have appeared ta influence the work reported in this pape, Acknowledgement ‘The authors wish to thank Mr. Ionnais Pepaspyros for his assistance in preparation of some figures. Appendix A ‘Table At ‘Tova amounts of commingled MSW produced and disposed of inthe sanitary landfill ove the 20-year psi, Ghnge —50.000aMp/y 100.000 %/ —20,000 a5, som 1ooc00 200,000 tai rast 195308 ° ed ras 195.308 ° pred 195.308 os sizi8 teas 20472 oe “Table A2 Amounts of MSW disposed of in each Mt ver the 20-year period for initia roseion 50,000 Ng Lift heigh ~25 mand inst MSW density = OM ‘Sie flit ae wit volame a NSW among Som 16 eas sso 50 180 sao 00 a0 185 ss63 76050 195,300 255 162383 630,000Table AB ‘Taeemal demands ofthe one stage dy, thermophilic anaerobic digestion sy tem with the nse of a paseuriaen, ery Comrion nt Monge 207 (2021) 14613 ‘Table A6 Estimation of eatbon sequestration in the sanitary lanl Reference o eacation ‘nil MSW prededn, “a6 SH Ww Tiss epic chen aoe 199000 700.00 formal, Secon 231 “ort ie ot or cass omichameny, wel ‘esi OPW mar om Baa “ula 1 dst Na can ena Fran BO a ma a a a a = Ns sw 0701 Sesion 238 aa nen cage, i 5 i {ice fo 62 “Gooxae70159 aan oe aegayrmeenion 2 foc et 286 22 28 CenecmatorerSeceaton tg Cig 00844 1154 104548 100) ‘able at Enon ctor ane other amet se ion sures eG NO Oing_ Other Relrenee ‘Die consmpton yb mache SE LG wate 2 Cheeta sa Entnce el compo ge gots 26 aon (nena p19 [6] ‘Neto on os ence stot gC BOD, A 0g as tame Wang sed abe eens roma BOD wanes am rue wants aches Fa .t98 nga Nakane and sean Tobrag wane we tone Aprons igen test om ng wo tole Fe 0.254 Wang maka tan efaenee Tvs wane we ean mee ect ene Eh? 253 Wangan Naka [and seat vino ely prdtn in Gece, aw 0 EEA (ot ue te pol fin Eg Cant ie 0 nanan Vino (6) Ansersie digestion Enon om AD acy. CH xp wae os edie Ce: 06, sega ements wate pasion ect fo AD operon Ae genase so Tine 5) ander therein Dien prdason b/g OPW ajo AD, Swe for Tie A Appi {alae CaP ears s Neale 1, 206 platens awe, master leskge om se Nepigle Nestle Ths 206 lp ene fel wae ton Nox fom bloga ang, k/A0 dn Cy combusted NOx om CUD expos Boga combaned en USEPA (03) 0s GE nOWER ss) “Table AS Estimation of anerobe dgestate production. Parameter vane Reference or cueeation Sef OMS, se oy ‘econ 2532 TV8/75 ass Fabled {vs dsacion 5 Secon 23.2 {WV in 100g OFS, Eg ns (aes /09,9083/100) ‘chi 100 be OF Sg 1s orerty Non bedegrdsbe VS kg 8 Sasso) ‘leprae TS, be tea Se249y65/100) sib | TVS wage be tea Weer to igetate ep a7 Maso get bp sas Mostue of eget, oa =1100469:7/8038) {VS indigent, de sa “a0oys.7/10 Tender 8 Savo.004/s0.9) Digetteprodcton yg OFM subject to AD; we 50.1 (100\6013/100)‘Table A7 {Cost of etna equpmeat of sanitary Indi biogas pant, in 2017 prices (6. ery Comrion nt Monge 207 (2021) 14613 Ina SW production, May Bguipnent 5000 100.000 200,000 _Junifeation Source ‘GHP engine nd ecw er 360,000 510000 e000 Geo Power Ses Lid, Nex Seyens Abn, Gres 75), ‘eansormer and hgh vlege ch mo000 48000 $0000 ABB, the Cree (75). Boge pune 12000 150000000 Cannel Camrent BS), Kay [77 oper cooing nite 21250 35,500 7000. Progen Sel Camera (BS), ny 8 Arta logue Xanti SA Grece 75) ope dare at 2.000 35.000 47000. Progen Se Camera (BS), ny 5 Arta Bogue Nnt SA rece | ops eae ster 158750 251.968 8000 ZISEAM haere (21) (Compu and eparmesruingandconselingeyem 2000 40,000, $0000" Conera i Caeszata (BS) (77) ‘opus wane pipe (500m, 500,125 sum) ‘2000 9200092000 tm, Loa rec mat Ofte (3) 13500 1350014800 Fretted, Kio Cabin, Sino, Thelen Gres (8) Total equipment cont € 728500 1,070,988 _1,447;50 ‘Table AB “Tova ost ofthe sanitary lanl bogas plant, ln 2017 pres (©, ‘ni NSW proton Ma Acssiey 50,000 100,000 200,00 astiaton Source ‘Se prepaaoncatimonng works 25000 35,000 25000 Enimate lal Gree mashet, ening eter spy, eeege 25000 25,000 25000 sme, el Grok market Eauipment aaso0 ross 1497500 Manas 61) aime alain 109.275 toss a5, 188 equpnes (ae a. (25) Tout 92.75 1286696 1719425 Engacering muir nd sepore aos 3686 user 25 of Tol (are eal 25) susp eae 4409 ou 5081 Stott (urea eal 25) Upetid st09 osm 5081 Stoffel Garebwretal 25) Total? rowan 1511796 2.020559 2nd CP cape on ceca (2017 con) senco0 sooo secc00| sate x9 {rt CHP cnpine an stone le (2017 coe) ‘ec00 : f.000| ‘able a9 Total cont 1769.011 2,021,798 3.340.359 ‘Table 19 ‘Basis of estiadon of operating cost of satay lanai blogs plane over the 20yeatptiod. ‘percon sd mata of CHP canes wad oe augment Cperton of bags clamp aster teeaicin ‘Compensators o mntaiy Con or bloga pln cecil demande ae ‘io wu suet ost oboe plant ova gros revenes om eee ale Nf ttl onset otf Hogs lat Kaisa. 25) ae tal (25), (Giek regain (82) robsaxat (5) TAGIE SA, Gece (8) (GERONIMO 2 BIOGAS (5s 9C, Geese is References {8} 5c taopen Conminion COMO) 76 Proper fr Diese of th pen Pet fh Counc o ie maton fh no Ey fom Rane Souter ucan 2017p ereucoparres co enuiN TATE sl CHE SBOGORO nN I ace 3 SSN Dalenand FF. loge velopment ppc i Bs Sotsnala Pvt, lce Cc F. Dyan igs fiery ‘Sd cgi mil od wee fal Kale expen Wes eel Sonnet ims i Angas | Ang Codeine rane ton ‘minal wae wither nae pes He Ave eer Tomato sth ere Stn of wail nwa A bling Roca Wasa ST Vi Singur EW, Fender 0, Bn Fernie Bhp nscale geo organic wt view a opine puma a ‘Binge pes este Rass Fecha S000 fps Mong tones inne 019 tet er, ace lies. Anarene si wa on (review of roach acherenet nd pepe reser Tero! 20074 a a «i 1 o vl 1 bl 01 on oa os) Foyer MA, Ghanva Dash 8, Heng Ags, Tabwabl ent generation a GHG emis eduetn pte thogh rca ‘munkgal Sl wat agen esoauapes a eomparte Fei ‘alto? Boga peur cron ste ad perspectives App Mob nee 2010851849 60 Bown, Yindoe EK Gordon impact of sage ves mull pale ptns on theccoaoni iy of nner rode swine a ty operant Nora Sous Energy Paley 200735038710 rib, Mary K The pia rodaction f Mogae oe 3 aneport fal nile: Renewable Enry 20082811 2, ‘rod Fete 8, Lada Cs, Colusto LED, Tats £0, Poo Lt, Fa IP, ‘Cal ust ft eer recover ad guns asbtted wt he gone ‘tasotsate bt oeanieaton sate eng ogni waste Lom he Dethodl SOO Javonl ART, Fedows A, Sbumal M,Debnat A. vetiaion ot lge tn pte Kan chanel epee ipl ed waste aptoach fr de lpg counties ese dy aan a) Reale ‘Sonne Energy Rev 2020119108506, bess 8, Tabatha, Tope, Rae, AghbloM, Linden 5 ‘tal Ensonmcotal le eee aueanent of deren berlin ioe Stinng mia sald se acer, misbial ote a ed Sect sil Renee Sutin Energy Ree 202011710995UAL Neg Hc, 2M, Dngerme Gao Dang et eset fcc Ratewale Suraiabe Energy fer 2000030410130. Us} Puig 5 Dubey A eel ee on oper prametrs and totes to Ingove the biog liom nab ion of tank eno ip Sold waste: Renewebe Energy 20191497997, 1161 hayes C&:Basutn S Decttalined amr igeton per for inreend chit of oe fom meal kane Reena Sate ry 107) Rosi Maas RS Ua A, The ety of manip oli ase or enegy feito and easing anspenent tates a Pasta Renews Sana Energy Rev 20177238 53 100) Boog CPC, Ho WS, Hush Lim J, Ho CS, Tan WSP, ea Ree on the ‘Ercopca in say, Hen Se egy Ror 2017/7988, 109) Mavnotm 6, Gli Skolein 8 otoutsV GeorgoponnaE. Muni sd ‘vente management sh oe Ped: Coser of exer eon gh ‘Billatjecte opiate snd ice an watery sous [eoewaleSasatale Bevgy Rev 2015;1:1205-22 20) Hil tt Benet WA, Heyamte Blane A. Wane oenegy nbaog The tel of snl biog prdactn om anil wants done {21 Rosati Manesh ME, Remeach A, Kai Any ayo he Foul manure i a, Renewebe egy 202015987106 tea} aos, snk AS Yowsias A, iis GA, Themophilc nsec gestion Sf atari ood ware an diy ete amen hatch and large ele ik dete ory ng ae Ree ey 2080 {25} sume 8, Lies, Angpach v, Bragg Seb, Whe Aca boas production rego conpartion of tea parameters: Renee Energy 2116471 8. (ae) Aaburer cos A Msander Babe asm optininion of etc Iivior energy produc ith gar techcley i Germany wih pet ie fn ser beets efes on eahowse gas emis an ety bane Resewable egy 200680111 {25} Rael 8, Boke 1, KomopouosG,Deveapnet of a ivestne son wok fer bgur redosn om scleral rate Henenae Saraiaae Ener ee ono 73-6 [26] aR, unos AK, Pte CRS, atin BE, Perea ACOS, Nagata FH, al Spal cuit pote! flail ns prducton st eeie Drower generation in Bail Wate Manape 20187483926 a7) Seto 8, Gonaver ATT, Borge PB, Bros Ri Lins RS Combined we of ‘Mops sty ln nd waster treatment plano alate foci pata ina Res Casts Rec 046476 2s) Nadie We, Payyla Bell le Souce 0H, Quad Andaz ethane hydzopen fe bln fr St engines in rain pubic emopor: Pent sppiy and envionment ws at yop Energy DORT(07. Cope dactgto.tot} perme 38 {a0} Aya Abou 2a M, Skt A Anesoment of lene geen ptt talbly f u cllecin ws ogee cons n Tse a Eargy Seotgy te 2015386-14 [90] Mettops M. Visor 2025 Aneing the eit of cect an bina tic om ml il we They Rea Soa ety {SH} Amn HR Reina DR, Reso Potente Manage, 20131 2020-4 {521 ro Ser A comparson of greenhouse gs emions end potent tle ecoray om emvensonl ae retailer rod nieaiaacer 7. {59} Ayocne TR, Ogee ASO Also BA esoomic bf eee goer sng bogs om gan ton of mele este he ty of heden, Nae J Clean Pod 20182082718 35, (54) ROMP” Netna Wane Management Fan faienton of he Neon! Waste asapeet Pan andthe Navona! Suateie Ware reve Plan res) ‘Conson sins Deion 515708, ofa Goverment azzete,FEK 7068/15; Decenbet 2015 (ss) GREE“ ee May of Eavionment and Energy, Gude wo de snlemecation of ours separation sod blast management tens, Techie repo by EP Sand rae Asoeltes Le 7013 (a Great (96) Kons Evangelos A Glance Gympie © Reig the clemeta Compost au the cle vl of he erga ton of uiial soli [57] Euroa, 2020 hp//jprerona carpe c/o dette (au) LAAT Wa agement Any of ain Macedon ‘ieee Tratncr nic of commingled MSW and prsrted ogee ware ate Intec eli of este door! of Alranroupols, eee Teil tepet oe 22, Tele Websters endian > aces 28 Ap 2s [90] Cece, Thar Poa F, Bezel D, lmaoo! Characters fhe fa ad beau of he ase get re a Mat ares sie, Semaine con al a wR ery Comrion nt Monge 207 (2021) 14613 [HO] Vandever, De Base LVerzacte W. Type of nacabie digesters fr sti ‘Scalise TWA Publi, 200 1-0 (41) Working Document. Bllgiel eaten ef owes, 2d te Eaopean ‘Commision Dectrate Generel Euvnmen NVA? We ste" Stee doc /EU Bowasteecve wotingdocanent dda p> 2001, {scene 27 Ape 3018), (42) Barwa At oer HE Mechason of methane fermenting Chom seed) Ss0 5. [49] USEPA andGEM — Land gas nison malvern 42, , 201 accned 25 Jneay 2018) (58) NREL Gap Fred DisritedEnerey Remote Tecnology Ghnrceetons US Deparment of ney Labortny, NREL 62034788 Webster sip Segoe dayton e/a ply 003 (eee 25 January 208) (57) PPC" Pate Powe Carporaton, Oreeee y=) wr: FC {lu 0Latnng 1 014 [ecened 25 Jonnty 2018 [58] GERONIMO 2 BIOGAS “ny / mem enanp ny TOPE Meee 2O a2 {13 /iogs Pants Prope Cerone p> (50) Pit, Sm Li Scum onde of ert ner Do Mae Hil 201 (co) tnetgovernmetal Panel on Climate Change ~ 1G. ICC Olle ar Neon ‘Greenhouse Ges nentores Webster pele sso 2Setat vs ao 2008 (scene Jane 25,202), (et) lnergorermental Fae! on Cite Change INCU Cina Change 2014 - imate ange 20 Sythe epee Const f Wore Croup and Ito te Fis assesment Rept ofthe tergnvenmestl Pee on Cimete ‘Change (Core ming Team, RK. Pacha and LA per (ed), PCC, Gen, ‘Shaan, 15 9p. Wed ster hw spect feed Janay 2018 (say Choa VES Join i Biwae WK. Dabey 8. Emecementl pct enon of rent munigl sold waste Ueounent i nia wing Life Cie Nese (63) Chee TH, Sinn, Too D, Male 5 LCA modeling of waste management ‘senate ns Cintenen Tema et. Sod Waste Techaclogy [64) Wang Nakao T:Conparve scoment f wate pon sytem aed ‘echologes wih ead peeve gs emissions ace ty of mona Sol waste ueaueat ons i Chin. Cee Pe. 202026020827 [65] European Eminent gens, Genre gs emnon neyo lect [eneeton eb ae ipa Fccen copa drat np nea ‘Sh testy 8a polska goad cart 111 fe ‘urteronaesatrowrbnbtzacoaaPicevhazaAt7BMa2pre ca fanenassausn2o10Ns02090%S0%70%70> 202 [accom 30 Jane a2. {661 Zen, Viesatan €Eshtin of maeobic digest fo gree ge Sein vs ago angst bt Bas Bae 05 {671 10 iden fo Nato Geesoe Gos Lventories Boge etme of solid waste Web se: cher esate 2006 3. Shane Veto sn ret pls, 200 [ace 30 ene 202 aida(66) in ¥ Sun W, Lin Grentowse pci om ferent marci sd wate gen! cern Chon tcl em arom sad caipy flow saga Waste nage 2179 EPs, Bokeound Ifomacon Docyent or Updxing APE2 Secon 2.4 or EunetngEisions fom Muna Sul Wess Landils, EPA'800/R 08 16 ete pat, Webpage ch ncn ep.zn Be Z PDP PIOO2UVK IDE? Bic eloisne es 008 (ace ly 2021 Talenon K,PaagctakepaleD. Appointee ncn ‘weunen fit. Waste Manage Res 200626310 22. alee Stas! Aue (HAS), wi tte > 2015 (acesed 28 December 2071 Epp De Syn (uta ~ Grek inte Act Acts of 27 Febamy 2003, Aproel of sal Pozi for veduen of coos zs emissions (2000 2010) Gn ree). tic! Goverment Gaete,FEK 58475 Mach 2008 2003, emis Dy ghar Fl cn scouting oo xen nd te manlpl ld tee mauagemnt fies in vee Clot NESTS 201619) 3 Geacica Poser Satna ee San, Athens, Gene, Web se: ieee Ieee» [oer 10 Febery 2018) [ABB Athens, Greece, Wee: “tip /ner sco [aened 10 ebay ans Gens ety 9, ay ate: ogee Sl Castes (BS), aly. eb te faccesed 1 ete 3018, ‘leetn ond snr naling fens wate, MS hes, Department tf Stonnesal Engnoring, Dameeas Unies o Teac, Nai Gener 2018 [Gre Grek Ibe legslason, web ate ; 202, TAGIESA Opto of ely Matt. treatment pins Gat fe toport Webster “ipe ts sant Sc prconamepranl Ha Sempre 8 Nahi Koch K, olson D, Denes J Fal scale odie of wastewater Sued waste aves end posse Renewal Sasa Enegy Rev 201772354 2. ‘lca eben inka, Overview of anes lento of mull ali teste, Octobe 2016, Web te i/o loblnthane ado” RD Taine eswataon O20 16 2006 [ese 20 ach 2018), ana 8, Vee M, Kamar K Development of Secon mode fr the techn oso acne of nlepal sold wate tin putas Ware Mame aotgassas-ot. production of eoergy: Scieme Diet, Energy 2006;31:294 310 Peer J de Aner Lamers, Rogue Bling cote footprint of ‘nc wise niet hel pe on apn 8 Uy hen Chen ANY, Low 2 VartonsoCG emai pater et wate fol process In mega Shang fom 2005 o 2015. Gear Pod 20215 Un, 82 Kong X, Lin J Greenhouse go emsion frm manic ai wate tits high engniltacton ur iteat management ear) Claes rd ‘oleran€Hygine ad sotaconeqaements in BGP nese anna mance Setting ayo Sing Mon Ware Pet 200, ‘i WE Bloenegy fo lanl gs (A) Tata, Renewable Sutaebe Duet Gas, Cugen A McDonald. Hyetogen an ete egy fom