Fuel 324 (2022) 124476

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fuel
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fuel

Full Length Article

Valorization of food waste into hydrogen: Energy potential, economic

feasibility and environmental impact analysis
Dan Cudjoe a, Weiming Chen b, Bangzhu Zhu c, *
a
School of Business, Nanjing University of Information Science & Technology, Nanjing 210044, China
b
Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research (CEEP), Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100181, China
c
Business School, Guangxi University, Nanning 530004, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Hydrogen gas is widely acknowledged as a significant energy carrier worldwide. Hydrogen gas derived from
Hydrogen sustainable sources could be used as an alternative to fossil fuel for electricity generation with zero emission of
Food waste hazardous pollutants. Food waste valorization to hydrogen is a viable energy source with potential economic
Biogas
benefits. The current study examines the economic viability and environmental effect of producing hydrogen
Energy
from food waste in China using biogas steam reforming for power generation. The key findings show that the
Economy
Environment steam reforming of biogas from food waste could produce 221.12 billion kg of hydrogen gas. The quantity of
hydrogen gas yield could generate 661.97 TWh of electricity. It was found that the consumption of the available
electricity from the hydrogen gas could displace 15,482.26 M liters of diesel fuel combustion. The amount of
diesel fuel consumption avoided can reduce global warming by 42,041.90 kt CO2e. It was also discovered that
hydrogen has an appealing ecological efficiency of 94.64% when used as a source of energy generation. Ac­
cording to the outcomes of the economic analysis, the food waste to hydrogen project is economically feasible in
all of China’s provinces. The average hydrogen production cost, return on investment, the payback period is
$0.814/kWh, 29.8%, and 7.2 years. This study could provide scientific data for investment and decision-making
on ecological sustainability in food waste to hydrogen initiatives in China and other emerging nations with a
similar culture.

commonly available [8]. Globally, it has been accepted that hydrogen

gas will be a primary carrier of energy [9]. The energy content of
1. Introduction
hydrogen is about three times that of gasoline [10]. Hydrogen is a
technically feasible and agreeable vector for applications that vary from
The world’s major issues in recent times are climate change and
off-grid small-scale power supply to significant chemical energy exports
decreased energy supply [1]. Due to tremendous population growth and
[11]. When hydrogen gas is used as fuel for energy production, there is
industrialization, the increased energy demands the world is experi­
zero emission of hazardous pollutants during the operational life cycle
encing are expected to continue [2]. As a result, fossil fuels have
[12]. One of the prominent advantages of the hydrogen economy is the
remained dominant in the global energy system [3], accounting for 81%
reduction or elimination of regulated tailpipe emissions such as hydro­
of primary energy demand [4]. The utilization of fossil fuels in global
carbons, greenhouse gas, and nitrogen oxide [13]. Natural gas and coal
energy systems has several negative impacts. When combusted, they
account for 76% and 23% of worldwide hydrogen-generating sources
generate carbon dioxide (CO2), the prominent driver of global climate
[14], all concentrated in developed nations [15]. Renewable sources,
change. Fossil fuels are also a major source of local air pollution, which
such as food or organic waste, can be used to generate hydrogen [16] to
is believed to cause millions of premature deaths each year [5]. The
boost the facility’s efficiency [17] and remove energy poverty in the
negative environmental consequences of fossil fuel consumption [6] and
developing world [14].
fluctuations in fossil fuel prices [7] have prompted research into sus­
Food waste is a good source of hydrogen that can be produced simply
tainable techniques and renewable energy generation sources such as
and efficiently using anaerobic digestion technology [18]. Certain pa­
hydrogen.
rameters, including co-substrate, pretreatment, operational pH, initial
Hydrogen is a fuel that can be obtained from raw materials that are

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: drcudjoedan@yahoo.com (D. Cudjoe), wpzbz@126.com (B. Zhu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2022.124476
Received 11 February 2022; Received in revised form 11 April 2022; Accepted 30 April 2022
Available online 7 May 2022
0016-2361/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D. Cudjoe et al. Fuel 324 (2022) 124476

Nomenclature hr hours of operation (hour)

Proj(ROI) Return on investment (%)
CH4(t) theoretical methane yield (m3/ton) χ(profit) profit from the project ($)
CO2(t) theoretical carbon dioxide yield (m3/ton) Rev revenue accrued from the project ($)
M(x) molar mass of the elements Proj(tax) tax paid on the revenue ($)
E(x) composition of the elements H2(price) price of biogas source hydrogen in China ($/m3)
N(M) mole ratio of nitrogen T(rate) tax on income, profits, and capital gains in China (%)
G(SW) quantity of municipal solid waste collected for disposal TLCC total life cycle cost of the project ($)
FW(comp) average percentage composition of food waste (%) π nominal discount rate (%)
CO2 carbon dioxide LHV(fuel) lower heating value of the fuel (MJ/kg)
N2O nitrogen oxide CH4(LHV) lower heating value of methane (MJ/kg)
CH4 Methane GWP(total) global warming reduction potential (kt CO2e)
Tbio volume of theoretical biogas generation (m3/ton) F(diesel) quantity of diesel fuel consumption replaced (liters)
δ portion of organic substance used in the formation of cell
CO2e (C) CO2 equivalent of carbon dioxide
tissues
CO2e (CH) CO2 equivalent of methane
Bio(actual) actual biogas generation (m3/ton)
CO2e (N) CO2 equivalent of nitrogen oxide
%M proportion of biogas that has been enhanced (%) Π(CO2 ) specific emission factors of diesel fuel for carbon dioxide
D(CH4 ) density of methane (kg/m3)
(kg/liters)
∊(boiler) boiler efficiency (%) Π(CH4 ) specific emission factors of diesel fuel for methane (kg/
∈(reformer) reformer efficiency (%) liters)
LHV(H2 ) lower heating value of hydrogen (kWh/kg) Π(N2 O) specific emission factors of diesel fuel for nitrogen oxide
D(H2 ) density of hydrogen gas (kg/m3) (kg/liters)
β electricity conversion efficiency of fuel cells (%) CO2(GWP) global warming potential of carbon dioxide (kg CO2e)
Den(diesel) density of diesel fuel (kg/liter) CH4(GWP) global warming potential of methane (kg CO2e)
Diesel(LHV) lower heating value of diesel fuel (MJ/kg) N2 O(GWP) global warming potential of nitrogen oxide (kg CO2e)
GEN(ef) efficiency of the diesel powered generator (%)
∅ conversion factor from MJ to kWh Abbreviation
P(H2 )cost hydrogen production cost ($/kWh) IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
OP(cost) operations cost ($/kWh) NDRC National Development and Reform Commission
MN(cost) maintenance cost ($/kWh) NBS National Bureau of Statistics of China
IEA International Energy Agency
In(cost) initial investment cost ($)
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology
AF annuity factor
IRENA International Renewable Energy Agency
Bio(power) power supplied by biogas (kWh)
U. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
Bio(cost) biogas generation cost ($/kWh)
GHG Greenhouse gas
Bio(mass) mass of biogas (kg) GWP Global Warming Potential
Bio(LHV) lower heating value of biogas (kWh/kg) PBP Payback period
r interest rate (%) ROI Return on Investment
n period of operation (year)

pH control, and fermentation temperature, all impact hydrogen pro­
duction [19]. Food waste could be suitable for hydrogen production
because it is rich in carbohydrates and easily hydrolysable waste [20].
Food waste’s physio-chemical characteristics are essential for anaerobic
digestion system design for hydrogen generation [21]. Besides, the
properties of food waste, such as water content, volatile matter
composition, nutritional content, particle size, and degradability, allow
for significant hydrogen generation [22]. The valorization of organic
waste for hydrogen generation can influence the global energy market to
produce electricity from low-cost and abundant renewable sources [23].
Regarding economic returns and environmental management, valori­
zation of food waste to hydrogen for energy generation is feasible due to
its low operating cost [24]. Food waste’s availability and cheap cost
make hydrogen production for electricity generation commercially
viable [25].
Several existing research has investigated the possibility of con­
verting food waste into hydrogen. Ref. [26] utilized pretreated food
waste to assess hydrogen generation cultures. The researchers discov­
ered that C. butyricum produced the highest hydrogen production (38.9
mL-H2/g-VSadded) after pasteurizing food waste with a pH adjustment
of 7. In Hangzhou, China, Ref. [27] conducted a techno-economic study
of a combination bioreactor based on solid-state fermentation for
fermentation process hydrogen generation from food waste. The authors
found that the return on investment, payback period, and internal rate of
return was 26.7%, 5 years, and 24.07%. Ref. [28] reviewed the effect of
parameters on hydrogen production from food waste. The study
revealed that pre-treatment, feed content, fermentation temperature
culture, substrate, and solution pH impact hydrogen yield. In Nigeria,
Ref. [7] evaluated the energy-generating potential of hydrogen gener­
ated from food waste. The study pointed out that the power generation
potential of hydrogen gas was 19.46 million kWh, with ecological effi­
ciency of 94.33%. An experimental approach was utilized by Ref. [18] to
produce hydrogen from food waste. The experiment revealed that a
reactor with a substrate to inoculum ratio of 1:3 was best for successful
hydrogen and methane production during the anaerobic digestion pro­
cess. Ref. [29] conducted catalytic steam gasification of food waste by
using Ni-loaded rice husk from biochar to generate hydrogen. The au­
thors suggested that biochar could be an economical solution for
improved hydrogen gas production. Ref. [30] examined the various
pretreatment and hydrolysis of garden wastes to produce hydrogen
using Escherichia coli. The authors found that hydrogen yield increased
by 2.7-fold compared to untreated garden wastes. Ref. [31] reviewed the
concept, advantages, prospects, and challenges of bio-hydrogen gener­
ation through the steam reforming process over industrial effluents,

2
D. Cudjoe et al.
solvents, biomass-derived solvents, and lipids. The researchers believed
that the steam reforming of these alternative feedstocks is feasible
because they produce high hydrogen upon transforming their high-
water volume content.
To the best of our knowledge, there is a paucity of literature on the
economic analysis of hydrogen production using biogas from food waste
via steam reforming. The present study determines the economic feasi­
bility of hydrogen production from biogas derived from food waste via
steam reforming. The paper provides insights into the probable energy
generation potential of hydrogen derived from food waste. Besides,
concrete scientific information on the potential ecological benefits
arising from energy consumption from food waste source hydrogen is
provided.
2. Materials and methods
This section describes the technique and formulation of mathemat­
ical equations used to assess the potential biogas from food waste and
hydrogen generation through biogas steam reforming. The section
further presents the methodological approach used to estimate the en­
ergy generation potential of the hydrogen gas, the economic analysis of
valorization of food waste to hydrogen, and its benefits in terms of the
amount of diesel fuel saved and greenhouse gas reduction. The study
used data on the amount of food waste available in the municipal solid
waste discarded in China from 2004 to 2019 from the National Bureau of
Statistics of China (see Table A1 in the appendix).
The typical food waste available in municipal solid wastes in China is
a combination of plant and animal food. The plant food waste includes
vegetables, fruits, and cereals, while the animal food waste includes
pork, beef, mutton, poultry, eggs, fish, and dairy products [32]. These
types of food waste contain an amount of water, carbohydrates, pro­
teins, lipids, and other organic matter, with high total solid and volatile
solid contents [33]. Rice and pasta are the two main staples of the
Chinese diet, contributing high carbohydrate contents (22.4% to 70.2%)
in food waste [34].
2.1. Evaluation of biogas recovery from food waste
Because of the high organic content and degradability of food waste,
the anaerobic digestion process is often used to treat it [35]. When food
waste is used as a feedstock, biogas comprising 40–75% methane,
25–55% carbon dioxide [36] and a tiny quantity of carbon monoxide
and hydrogen sulfide is produced [37]. The bio-methane or biogas yield
is determined by the quantity of biogas generated per unit mass of
volatile solids included in the food waste (feedstock) after a specified
period at a specific temperature [38]. Before it can be utilized as fuel,
raw biogas must be cleaned [39] using physical adsorption with caustic
soda, adsorption on activated carbon, silica gel permeation, or cryogenic
methods [40]. In this study, the food waste available in the municipal
solid waste disposed of in provinces of China was utilized as feedstock
for biogas generation. The theoretical biogas production from the
feedstock was evaluated using Buswell’s equation:
( ) ( ) ( )
Δ γ 3α φ Δ γ 3α φ Δ γ 3α
Cφ HΔ Oγ Nα + φ − − + H2 O⇒ − + + CO2 + + − − CH4 + αNH3
4 2 4 2 8 4 8 2 8 4 8
Cφ HΔ Oγ Nα + Q1 H2 O⇒Q2 CO2 + Q3 CH4 + Q4 NH3 (2)
The values of φ, Δ, γ, and α were determined as:
3
Fuel 324 (2022) 124476
E(x) 1
Mole ratio = × (3)
M(x) N(M)
where E(x) is the composition of the elements (carbon, hydrogen, oxy­
gen, and nitrogen) obtained from the ultimate analysis of food waste in
China (see column 3 of Table A2), M(x) is the molar mass of the elements
(see column 4 of Table A2), and N(M) is the mole ratio of nitrogen.
The volume of theoretical biogas generation could be estimated as:
Tbio = CH4(t) + CO2(t) (4)
where CH4(t) and CO2(t) are the theoretical methane and carbon dioxide
yield (m3/ton) at a standard temperature and pressure (0℃ at 1 atm)
and can be evaluated as [41]:
⌈φ Δ γ 3α⌉
+ − − × 22400
CH4(t) = 2 8 4 8 (5)
12φ + Δ + 16γ + 14α
⌈φ ⌉
− Δ8 + 4γ + 38α × 22400
CO2(t) = 2
(6)
12φ + Δ + 16γ + 14α
Practically, the volume of actual biogas yield is less than the theo­
retical biogas yield. This is due to the failure of about 10% of the
feedstock (food waste) to decay in the digester [42]. It is also reported
that around 5–10% of the organic matter synthesizes the organisms’ cell
tissue affecting microbial degradation [7]. The actual biogas generation
from the feedstock is obtained as:
[ ]
Bio(actual) = G(SW) × FW(comp) × [Tbio × δ] (7)
where G(SW) is the total quantity of municipal solid waste collected for
disposal in the provinces (see Table A1), FW(comp) is the average per­
centage composition of food waste in China’s waste stream, which is
taken as 55.86 wt% [43], and δ is the fraction of organic matter utilized
for cell tissue synthesis, and it is assumed to be 85%, following Ref. [44].
The raw biogas yield must go through cleaning and upgrading pro­
cesses before it could be utilized for reforming process [45]. The
chemical composition of biogas is 93–96% of CH4, 4–7% of CO2, and less
than 20 ppm of H2S [46]. Considering CO2 as the only impurity, the
amount of CH4 from purified biogas is determined as:
CH4(purified) = Bio(actual) × %M (8)
where %M is the percentage to which the biogas is upgraded and is
assumed to be 75.7%, following Ref. [6].
2.2. Estimation of hydrogen production by biogas steam reforming
Compared to the existing hydrogen production processes, steam
reforming is the most widely used, and it accounts for about 50% of
hydrogen production around the world [47]. In the reformer, the
following chemical reactions occur [48]:
Steam reforming : CH4 + H2 O ↔ CO + 3H2 ΔH298 = + 206.2 kJ/mol (9)
(1)
Water to gas reaction : CO + H2 O ↔ CO2 + H2 ΔH298 = − 41 kJ/mol (10)
Reactions (9) and (10):
CH4 + 2H2 O ↔ CO2 + 4H2 ΔH298 = + 165.2 kJ/mol
D. Cudjoe et al. Fuel 324 (2022) 124476

Table 1 2.4. Economic feasibility analysis

The assumptions made for the economic analysis.
Parameter Symbol Unit Value Reference This part of the study conducts an economic analysis of hydrogen
production by food waste derived biogas steam reforming. The eco­
Investment cost in a reformer In(cost) $ 15,000
system
[6] nomic analysis considered the hydrogen production cost, return on in­
Equivalent period of operation hr Hour/ 6,570 vestment (ROI), and payback period (PBP). The considerations assumed
year for the economic analysis are presented in Table 1.
Price of hydrogen H2(price) $/m3 2.7
[27]
Annual interest rate r % 3.7 2.4.1. Hydrogen production cost
[59]
The hydrogen production cost comprises the initial investment cost,
Period of operation Year 16
including the cost of the boiler, reformer, and accessories. Other costs
n
Nominal discount rate π % 10
[60] considered in the production cost are the operations and maintenance
Biogas generation cost Bio(cost) $/kWh 0.0518
[6] costs. The price of producing hydrogen in the provinces was computed
Tax T(rate) % 20.1 using Eqs. (15) to (19):
[61] [ ]
In(cost) × AF
P(H2 )cost = OP(cost) + MN(cost) + (15)
hr × H2(power)
From reaction (11), 1 kg of steam reformed CH4 generates 0.5 kg of
[ ]
hydrogen gas. This study assumes that all energy utilized by the Bio(power) × Bio(cost)
OP(cost) = (16)
reformer is generated from a boiler fed by biogas. Hence, the quantity of H2(power)
hydrogen gas yield is dependent on the integrated efficiencies of the
boiler and reformer. The amount of hydrogen gas that can be produced Bio(power) = Bio(mass) × Bio(LHV) (17)
from the purified biogas by steam reforming is determined as: [ ]
In(cost) × AF
H2(quantity) = CH4(purified) × D(CH4 ) × ∊(boiler) × ∈(reformer) × 0.5 (12) MN(cost) = 0.03 × (18)
hr × H2(power)
where D(CH4 ) is the density of methane, which is taken as 0.717 kg/ n
1 − (1 + r)−
m3[39], ∊(boiler) and ∈(reformer) are the boiler efficiency and reformer ef­ AF = (19)
r
ficiency and are given as 80% [6].
where OP(cost) is the operations cost, MN(cost) is the maintenance cost,
2.3. Determining energy potential of H2 gas which is expressed as 3% of the investment cost following Ref. [57],
In(cost) is the initial investment cost, AF is the annuity factor, Bio(power) is
Hydrogen is an excellent energy carrier that may be used for a variety the power supplied by biogas, Bio(cost) is the biogas generation cost,
of purposes, including power generation [49], vehicle fuel [50], an Bio(mass) is the mass of biogas, Bio(LHV) is the lower heating value of
alternative energy source for aerospace propulsion, future hypersonic biogas, which is given as 37,850 KJ/kg or 10.514 kWh/kg [6], r is the
air-breathing launchers, and trans-atmospheric aircraft [51]. Sustain­ interest rate, n is the period of operation, and hr is the hours of operation
able hydrogen is one of the most ecologically beneficial energy gener­ in a year.
ation solutions [52]. The potential for generating power from food waste
is great, with high ecological efficiency [7]. The quantity of power 2.4.2. Return on investment (ROI)
generated in the provinces from hydrogen gas produced from food waste Return on investment is a performance measure used to assess the
could be calculated using Eq (13). efficiency or profitability of an investment or compare several different
H2(power) = β × LHV(H2 ) × D(H2 ) × H2(quantity) (13) investments on projects [58]. Return on investment, expressed in per­
centage, is a significant metric for measuring project feasibility. It is a
where LHV(H2 ) is the lower heating value of hydrogen and is taken as famous indicator because of its versatility and simplicity. The return on
33.3 kWh/kg [53], D(H2 ) is the density of hydrogen gas, which is given as investment of the food waste to hydrogen project in the provinces was
0.09 kg/m3 [7], and β is the electricity conversion efficiency of fuel cells calculated as:
and is assumed to be 60%, according to Ref. [46]. [
χ(profit)
]
When hydrogen gas is generated from renewable sources, it may Proj(ROI) = × 100 (20)
In(cost)
replace fossil fuels in power generation and transportation while emit­
ting no hazardous pollutants [15]. Most electricity users in developing χ(profit) = Rev − Proj(tax) − OP(cost) − MN(cost) (21)
nations resort to generating their electricity using coal or diesel-powered
generator. Therefore, this study estimated the amount of diesel fuel that Rev = H2(quantity) × H2(price) (22)
could be replaced by the amount of power available in the hydrogen gas
from food waste using Eq. (14). Proj(tax) = Rev × T(rate) (23)
β × LHV(H2 ) × D(H2 ) × H2(quantity)
F(diesel) = (
Diesel(LHV)
) (14) where χ(profit) is the profit from the project, Rev is the revenue accrued
Den(diesel) × × GEN(ef)
∅ from the project, Proj(tax) is the tax paid on the revenue from the project,
H2(price) is the price of biogas source hydrogen in China, and T(rate) is the
where Den(diesel) is the density of diesel fuel and is taken as 0.84 kg/liter
tax on income, profits, and capital gains in China.
[54], Diesel(LHV) is the lower heating value of diesel fuel, which is given
as 42.5 MJ/kg [55], GEN(ef) is the efficiency of the diesel powered
2.4.3. Payback period (PBP)
generator and is taken as 33% [56], and ∅ is the conversion factor from
The payback period of project investment is the length of time it
MJ to kWh.
takes to recover the cost of investment or the period the investor needs
to reach a breakpoint. A shorter payback period signifies more attractive
investments, while a more extended payback period means the project is
less feasible. The payback period of the food waste to hydrogen project

4
D. Cudjoe et al. Fuel 324 (2022) 124476

Table 2 where Θ, M, H, A, K,and f are the emission coefficients corresponding to

The emission factor of each of the pollutants [7]. the global warming potential of the pollutants and are given as 25, 1,
Pollutants Emission factor (kg CO2eq) 1.9, 80, 50, and 67 [63,64]. The emission factor for each of the pollut­
5
ants is presented in Table 2.
CH4 8.5096 × 10−
3
CO 2.3618 × 10−
SO2 2.3676 × 10− 2 2.5.1.2. Estimation of pollutant indicator. From an environmental
NOx 7.1029 × 10− 4 perspective, the environmentally friendly fuel is the one that emits zero
PM 7.5356 × 10− 3
or lower amount of hazardous pollutants (E(CO2 ) ) when combusted. The
pollutant indicator (in kg/MJ) was evaluated as [62]:
was estimated as: E(CO2 )
ψ(PI) = (27)
LHV(fuel)
TLCC
Proj(PBP) = (24)
χ(profit)
LHV(fuel) = CH4(LHV) × %M (28)
∑
n
TLCC = In(cost) +
OP(cost) + MN(cost)
(25) where LHV(fuel) is the lower heating value of the fuel in MJ/kg, and
y=1
(1 + π)y CH4(LHV) is the lower heating value of methane and is taken as 49.934
MJ/kg [7].
where TLCC is the total life cycle cost of the project, and π is the nominal
discount rate. 2.5.1.3. Evaluation of ecological efficiency. The approach to measuring

2.5. Environmental analysis

This part of the study assesses the environmental benefits of valo­

rizing food waste into hydrogen for power generation in China. The
environmental assessment in this study considered the ecological anal­
ysis and the global warming reduction potential of food waste to
hydrogen for electricity generation projects.

2.5.1. Ecological analysis

Considering the pollutant emissions per kilogram of biogas (fuel)
utilized, the ecological analysis for this study estimates the pollution
potential of the food waste to hydrogen project. The ecological analysis
in this study focuses on equivalent carbon dioxide, pollutant indicators,
and ecological efficiency.

2.5.1.1. Determining equivalent carbon dioxide. The equivalent carbon

dioxide is composed of a theoretical pollutant concentration factor [62],
and can be computed using Eq. (26):
E(CO2 ) = [Θ*CH4 ] + [M*CO2 ] + [H*CO] + [A*SO2 ] + [K*NOx ] + [f*PM]
(26) Fig. 2. The amount of electricity available in the hydrogen gas produced from
2004 to 2019.

Fig. 1. The volume of purified biogas (billion m3) and hydrogen gas (billion kg) yielded from food waste in provinces of China from 2004 to 2019.

5
D. Cudjoe et al. Fuel 324 (2022) 124476

Fig. 3. The quantity of diesel fuel consumption displaced due to the usage of power from hydrogen from 2004 to 2019.

of these greenhouse gases [67]. The world hugely relies on fossil fuels,
Table 3
accounting for over 87% of the global energy consumption [68].
The results of the average values of the economic feasibility analysis of the
Hydrogen gas can replace fossil fuels in electricity production [15].
project.
Based on the amount of diesel fuel that could be replaced by power from
Components Value Unit hydrogen gas, the global warming reduction potential of the project was
Cost obtained as:
Hydrogen production cost 0.814 $/kWh
Operations cost 0.793 $/kWh GWP(total) = CO2e (C) + CO2e (CH) + CO2e (N) (30)
Maintenance cost 0.021 $/kWh
CO2e (C) = F(diesel) × Π(CO2 ) × CO2(GWP) (31)
Benefits
Return on investment 29.8 % CO2e (CH) = F(diesel) × Π(CH4 ) × CH4(GWP) (32)
Payback period 7.2 Years
CO2e (N) = F(diesel) × Π(N2 O) × N2 O(GWP) (33)
ecological efficiency is critical to the green development plan. Envi­
where F(diesel) is the quantity of diesel fuel consumption replaced by
ronmental performance metrics assess ecological efficiency [65]. The
electricity from the project, GWP(total) is the total global warming
amount of pollutants in the system is determined by ecological effi­
reduction potential, CO2e (C), CO2e (CH), and CO2e (N) are the CO2
ciency, which considers the amount of gas emitted per kilogram of fuel
equivalent of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, Π(CO2 ) , Π(CH4 ) ,
consumed. An efficiency number between 0 and 1 indicates how effec­
and Π(N2 O) are the specific emission factors of diesel fuel for the
tive a system is. When the ecological efficiency is equal to 0, it represents
an environmental impact of 100% or a higher polluter. When the effi­ respective GHGs considered and are given as 2.7 kg/liter for carbon
ciency is equal to 1, it demonstrates 0% of environmental impact [66]. dioxide, 3.612 × 10− 4 kg/liter for methane, and 2.167 × 10− 5 kg/liter
The ecological efficiency was calculated as: for nitrous oxide [69], CO2(GWP) , CH4(GWP) , and N2 O(GWP) are global
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ warming potential of the GHGs and are taken as 1 kg CO2e for carbon
√[( ) ]
dioxide [63],298 kg CO2e for nitrous oxide [70], and 32 kg CO2e for
√ ∊(boiler) × ∈(reformer) × 0.204 [ ]
EF(eco) = √ ( ) × In 135 − ψ(PI) (29) methane [71].
ψ(PI) × ∊(boiler) × ∈(reformer)

3. Results and discussion

where ∊(boiler) and ∈(reformer) are the combined system efficiency of the
boiler and reformer and are given as 80% [6].
3.1. Results
2.5.2. Global warming reduction potential
3.1.1. Biogas and hydrogen production from food waste
Global warming caused by the release of strong greenhouse gases
The possibility for pure biogas generation via the anaerobic digestion
such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide into the atmosphere
process in Chinese provinces was assessed. The amount of hydrogen gas
has piqued the interest of academics and politicians worldwide. Fossil
available in the biogas was then determined using the steam reforming
fuel consumption has been recognized as a critical source of the emission
process. The purified biogas generation and hydrogen gas yield findings

6
D. Cudjoe et al. Fuel 324 (2022) 124476

Fig. 4. Hydrogen production cost at the provincial level.

Fig. 5. Global warming reduction potential of food waste to hydrogen projects in China from 2004 to 2019.

are depicted in Fig. 1. It was found from the results that a total of 963.78
billion m3 of purified biogas could be generated from the food waste
collected for disposal in the provinces of China from 2004 to 2019. The
total volume of purified biogas produced during the period has a
hydrogen gas yield of 221.12 billion kg. A critical observation of Fig. 1
indicates that the purified biogas yield at the provincial level during the
project period ranged from 2.20 billion m3 to 115.96 billion m3. Besides,
it could be seen from Fig. 1 that the hydrogen yield from the purified
biogas at the provincial level is from 0.50 billion kg to 26.60 billion kg.
The highest purified biogas and hydrogen gas yield was observed in
Guangdong, Jiangsu, and Shandong, while the lowest was recorded in
Tibet, Qinghai, and Ningxia.
3.1.2. The energy potential of the hydrogen gas
The amount of electricity available in the hydrogen gas produced
from the purified biogas was evaluated. Also, the quantity of fossil fuel
(diesel) consumption that could be displaced due to utilization of elec­
tricity from hydrogen was ascertained. The results are presented in Fig. 2
and Fig. 3. The study discovered that the hydrogen yield from the biogas
derived from food waste in provinces of China has total available elec­
tricity of 661.97 TWh. The usage of the total amount of electricity can
avoid a total consumption of 15,482.26 M liters of diesel fuel. The results

7
D. Cudjoe et al.
show that the highest power potential of the hydrogen gas (see Fig. 2)
and diesel fuel consumption avoidance (see Fig. 3) of 79.65 TWh and
1,862.75 M liters was in Guangdong, while the lowest (1.51 TWh and
35.36 M liters) was in Tibet.
3.1.3. Economic feasibility analysis
This section looked at the economic viability of producing hydrogen
from food waste using the steam reforming technique. The economic
indicators used for the economic viability assessment were hydrogen
production cost, operation cost, maintenance cost, return on investment,
and payback period. The average values of the economic feasibility
analysis are listed in Table 3, while the results of the hydrogen pro­
duction cost at the provincial level are detailed in Fig. 4. The average
hydrogen generation cost via the steam reforming technique in China
was $0.814/kWh, with average operations and maintenance costs of
$0.793/kWh and $0.021/kWh. The economic analysis further revealed
that investment in food waste to hydrogen projects in China could yield
29.8% return. The average payback period on the project’s investment is
within 7.2 years. At the provincial level, the results demonstrated that
the hydrogen production cost was from $0.794/kWh to $0.842/kWh.
The highest hydrogen production cost was in Tibet, while the lowest was
in Guangdong.
3.1.4. Environmental analysis
The study examined the environmental impact of food waste valo­
rization to hydrogen for electricity generation. This study’s environ­
mental analysis is based on ecological analysis and the possibility of
global warming reduction. The ecological analysis idea was founded on
comparable carbon dioxide, pollutant indicators, and ecological effi­
ciency. The findings show that the equivalent carbon dioxide is 2.245 kg
CO2e of fuel, while the project’s pollutant indicator and ecological ef­
ficiency are 0.078 MJ/kg and 94.64%. The environmental analysis
shows that depending on electricity from hydrogen gas in China could
reduce global warming by 42,041.90 kt CO2e from 2004 to 2019.
Further observation of the findings in Fig. 5 indicates that the global
warming reduction potential of the project at the provincial level range
from 96.01 kt CO2e to 5,058.28 kt CO2e. The projects in Guangdong,
Jiangsu, Shandong, and Zhejiang recorded the highest global warming
reduction potential of 5,058.28 kt CO2e, 2,850.73 kt CO2e, 2,785.54 kt
CO2e, and 2,540.11 kt CO2e. The lowest global warming reduction po­
tential of 96.01 kt CO2e, 182.50 kt CO2e, 264.31 kt CO2e, and 298.68 kt
CO2e was in Tibet, Qinghai, Ningxia, and Hainan.
3.2. Discussion
The findings from the study indicate that food waste in China has a
vast bio-methane and hydrogen generation potential. This is due to
China’s agricultural background, and the food waste fraction in the
waste stream is high in carbohydrates and easily degradable. This is
consistent with the statement by Ref. [34] that the main staples (rice and
pasta) of the Chinese diet contribute high carbohydrate contents (22.4%
to 70.2%) in food waste. This confirms Ref. [18] findings that food waste
is an excellent source of hydrogen production and a suitable feedstock
for anaerobic digestion. The finding is also in line with Ref. [20], who
observed that food waste is ideal for hydrogen production because it is
rich in carbohydrates and an easily hydrolysable waste. The high
hydrogen generation potential could also be attributed to the high
percentage composition of food waste in the waste stream, which
resulted in the utilization of a high amount of feedstock (food waste) for
hydrogen production. This is consistent with the findings of Ref. [7],
who discovered that the large volume of food waste in various Nigerian
cities correlated to significant biogas and hydrogen generation. The
8
Fuel 324 (2022) 124476
country’s total hydrogen production is impressive, which may pique the
curiosity of investors interested in potential food waste to hydrogen
initiatives. Compared to other provinces, the food waste to hydrogen
project in Guangdong, Jiangsu, Shandong, and Zhejiang is highly
feasible. This is because of the high amount of food waste in these
provinces due to an increased population, rapid economic growth, and
urbanization. This is consistent with Ref. [39] findings, who ascribed the
high methane output from anaerobic digestion and landfill gas to energy
projects in these areas to the high organic waste generation. The type of
food waste in these provinces also contributed to the high bio-methane
yield, leading to high hydrogen production. There is high consumption
of major agricultural products such as vegetables and fruits in these
provinces, which are highly degradable and has a high methanogenic
potential. This is in line with Ref. [34] findings that areas in China with
higher living standards and higher population density consumes higher
primary agricultural products.
It was found from the energy analysis that the hydrogen yield from
food waste has a considerable electricity generation potential. The
consumption of electricity from hydrogen can avoid combusting a high
amount of diesel fuel for power generation. This is a promising result,
suggesting that hydrogen synthesis from food waste might be a practical
integrated organic waste management strategy with good energy-
generating potential that could prevent the need for fossil fuels. This
is in accordance with Ref. [7], who pointed out that the energy potential
of hydrogen from food waste in Nigeria could generate 19.46 million
kWh/year of electricity, which could avoid the combustion of 7.446
million liters of diesel. This study’s findings concur with those of
Ref. [15] and Ref. [46], who determined that hydrogen is a potent en­
ergy carrier capable of replacing fossil fuels in power generation. At
present, food waste to hydrogen projects is at the developing stage in
China, mainly operated on pilot bases. As more expertise in its operation
is accumulated, new commercial plants might be established over time,
increasing the project’s dependability. Hydrogen from food waste might
be seen as a renewable energy resource that could be included in China’s
future energy mix. The food waste to hydrogen project could be one of
the significant contributors to achieving the target set by the National
Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) of the Peoples Republic
of China to increase non-fossil energy consumption to 25% by 2030.
The economic analysis revealed that the project is commercially
viable in all provinces of the country. This is because the average return
on investment of the project was higher, while the payback period was
shorter. This is consistent with Ref. [19] findings that valorization of
food waste to hydrogen is promising and could have economic benefits.
The finding also agrees with Ref. [24], who believed that the lower
operating cost makes large scale food waste to hydrogen projects worth
operating in terms of economic returns. The values of return on in­
vestment and payback period for the projects in this study are close to
the values of 26.75% and 5 years found by Ref. [27] for fermentative
hydrogen production from food waste projects in Hangzhou, China.
Besides, the value for the payback period in this study is almost the same
as the value (8 years) by Ref. [6] for the bovine manure to hydrogen
project. The average hydrogen production cost for the project in the
entire country is encouraging. However, the projects in provinces such
as Tibet, Qinghai, and Ningxia had higher hydrogen production costs.
This means that the cost of operating and maintaining food waste for the
hydrogen project in these provinces will be slightly higher than in the
other provinces. This study’s average hydrogen production cost is close
to the values ($0.27/kWh to $0.54/kWh) obtained by Ref. [6].
It was observed from the ecological analysis that the project has an
ecological efficiency that is close to 100% or equal to 1. This indicates
that it is the least polluter or environmentally friendly. The value of
ecological efficiency obtained was close to the 94.33% obtained by
D. Cudjoe et al. Fuel 324 (2022) 124476

Ref. [7] and the 94.95% by Ref. [6]. It was observed from the envi­ Table A1
ronmental analysis that the consumption of power from hydrogen from The amount of municipal solid waste (MSW) discarded in China from 2004 to
the project could displace a high amount of diesel consumption, which 2019.
could lead to the avoidance of emission of a large volume of greenhouse
Province Amount of MSW discarded (Mt) [72]
gases into the atmosphere. This means that electricity generation from
Beijing 102.82
hydrogen derived from food waste can reduce global warming potential
Tianjin 30.97
in China, which is possibly caused by greenhouse gases including CO2, Hebei 98.94
CH4, and N2O. This finding confirms Ref. [12] study, which found that Shanxi 66.62
when hydrogen is utilized as fuel for energy generation, there is no Inner Mongolia 51.91
emission of harmful pollutants during the operational life cycle period. Liaoning 127.74
Jilin 78.44
The result agrees with Ref. [15], which stated that sustainable sources of
Heilongjiang 115.33
hydrogen could be used for electricity generation and transportation Shanghai 102.32
with no emission of dangerous pollutants. The lesson learned here is that Jiangsu 176.67
when valorization of food waste to hydrogen for power generation Zhejiang 157.42
Anhui 70.98
projects is commercialized in most provinces of China, it can contribute
Fujian 75.01
to the target set by NDRC to reduce carbon dioxide emission per unit of Jiangxi 47.76
GDP by 65% and gain control over methane and other non-carbon di­ Shandong 172.63
oxide greenhouse gas emissions. Henan 120.10
Hubei 117.29
Hunan 87.81
4. Conclusions
Guangdong 313.48
Guangxi 45.00
The economic feasibility and the ecological benefits of valorization Hainan 18.51
of food waste to hydrogen for energy generation in China have been Chongqing 50.05
Sichuan 106.71
analyzed. The results show that biogas’ steam reforming could produce
Guizhou 35.59
221.12 billion kg of hydrogen gas in China. The amount of hydrogen gas Yunnan 46.42
produced has 661.97 TWh of available electricity, which has the po­ Tibet 5.95
tential to displace 15,482.26 M liters of diesel fuel consumption. The Shaanxi 63.10
economic analysis indicates that the food waste to hydrogen project is Gansu 40.52
Qinghai 11.31
feasible in the country with an average production cost, return on in­
Ningxia 16.38
vestment, and payback period of $0.814/kWh, 29.8%, and 7.2 years. Xinjiang 51.71
The project achieved an ecological efficiency of 94.64%, demonstrating
that the food waste biogas steam reforming process is a least polluter.
The consumption of electricity from hydrogen derived from food waste
in China has the potential to reduce global warming by 42,041.90 kt Table A2
CO2eq. The lesson learned from the findings is that the commercializa­ Typical ultimate analysis of food waste in China and molar mass of the respec­
tion of food waste to hydrogen in the various provinces of China could tive elements.
contribute to the realization of targets set by China to achieve a carbon Elements Unit Food waste [43] Molar mass [73]
dioxide peak and to have control over methane and other non-CO2 Hydrogen % 7.04 1.01
greenhouse gas emissions before 2030. Oxygen % 41.15 16.00
Nitrogen % 3.86 14.01
Declaration of Competing Interest Carbon % 47.22 12.01
Sulphur % 0.49 32.06

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial

interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 72050410354;
72074120; 71974077) and The Startup Foundation for Introducing
Talent of NUIST (Grant No.2021r111). We would also like to thank the
anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments, which helped us
improve this paper.
Appendix A
Tables A1 and A2.
References
[1] Cong RG, Caro D, Thomsen M. Is it beneficial to use biogas in the Danish transport
sector? – An environmental-economic analysis. J Cleaner Prod 2017;165:1025–35.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.183.
[2] Gao Y, Jiang J, Meng Y, Yan F, Aihemaiti A. A review of recent developments in
hydrogen production via biogas dry reforming. Energy Convers Manage 2018;171:
133–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.05.083.
[3] Mohr SH, Wang J, Ellem G, Ward J, Giurco D. Projection of world fossil fuels by
country. Fuel 2015;141:120–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.10.030.
[4] Welsby D, Price J, Pye S, Ekins P. Unextractable fossil fuels in a 1.5 ◦ C world.
Nature 2021;597(7875):230–4. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03821-8.
[5] Ritchie, H., Roser, M. (2020). Energy: Fossil fuels, Our World in Data. Available at:
https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels?country= (Accessed: 14 December 2021).
[6] Braga LB, Silveira JL, da Silva ME, Tuna EC, Machin EB, Pedroso TD. Hydrogen
production by biogas steam reforming: A technical, economic and ecological
analysis. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;28:166–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2013.07.060.
[7] Ayodele TR, Alao MA, Ogunjuyigbe ASO, Munda JL. Electricity generation
prospective of hydrogen derived from biogas using food waste in south-western
Nigeria. Biomass Bioenergy 2019;127:105291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biombioe.2019.105291.

9
D. Cudjoe et al.
[8] Nowotny J, Hoshino T, Dodson J, Atanacio AJ, Ionescu M, Peterson V, et al.
Towards sustainable energy. Generation of hydrogen fuel using nuclear energy. Int
J Hydrogen Energy 2016;41(30):12812–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2016.05.054.
[9] Veziroğlu NT, Şahi˙n, S. 21st Century’s energy: Hydrogen energy system. Energy
Convers Manage 2008;49(7):1820–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2007.08.015.
[10] Valladares M-Rd. Global Trends and Outlook for Hydrogen. IEA Hydrogen; 2017.
[11] Abdin Zainul, Zafaranloo Ali, Rafiee Ahmad, Mérida Walter, Lipiński Wojciech,
Khalilpour Kaveh R. Hydrogen as an energy vector. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2020;120:109620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109620.
[12] Siddiqui O, Dincer I. A well to pump life cycle environmental impact assessment of
some hydrogen production routes. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2019;44(12):5773–86.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.01.118.
[13] Acar C., Dincer I. (2013). Comparative Environmental Impact Evaluation of
Hydrogen Production Methods from Renewable and Nonrenewable Sources. In:
Dincer I., Colpan C., Kadioglu F. (eds) Causes, Impacts and Solutions to Global
Warming. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7588-0_
28.
[14] IEA. (2019). The Future of Hydrogen: seizing today’s opportunities. Available at:
https://www.iea.org/reports/the-future-of-hydrogen (Accessed: 16 December
2021).
[15] Marcoberardino Gioele, Vitali Dario, Spinelli Francesco, Binotti Marco,
Manzolini Giampaolo. Green hydrogen production from raw biogas: a techno-
economic investigation of conventional processes using pressure swing adsorption
unit. Processes 2018;6(3):19. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr6030019.
[16] Khan I. Waste to biogas through anaerobic digestion: Hydrogen production
potential in the developing world-A case of Bangladesh. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2020;45(32):15951–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.04.038.
[17] Kowalczyk Tomasz, Badur Janusz, Bryk Mateusz. Energy and exergy analysis of
hydrogen production combined with electric energy generation in a nuclear
cogeneration cycle. Energy Convers Manage 2019;198:111805. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2019.111805.
[18] Deheri C, Acharya KA. An experimental approach to produce hydrogen and
methane from food waste using catalyst. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2020;45(35):
17250–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.04.245.
[19] Thi DBN, Lin C-Y, Kumar G. Waste-to-wealth for valorization of food waste to
hydrogen and methane towards creating a sustainable ideal source of bioenergy.
J Cleaner Prod 2016;122:29–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.034.
[20] Angeriz-Campoy R, Álvarez-Gallego JC, Romero-García IL. Thermophilic anaerobic
co-digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW) with food waste
(FW): Enhancement of bio-hydrogen production. Bioresour Technol 2015;194:
291–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.07.011.
[21] Kim D-H, Kim S-H, Shin H-S. Hydrogen fermentation of food waste without
inoculum addition. Enzyme Microb Technol 2009;45(3):181–7. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enzmictec.2009.06.013.
[22] ZHANG R, ELMASHAD H, HARTMAN K, WANG F, LIU G, CHOATE C, et al.
Characterization of food waste as feedstock for anaerobic digestion. Bioresour
Technol 2007;98(4):929–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2006.02.039.
[23] Yasin NHM, Mumtaz T, Hassan MA, Rahman AN. Food waste and food processing
waste for biohydrogen production: A review. J Environ Manage 2013;130:375–85.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.09.009.
[24] Jarunglumlert T, Prommuak C, Putmai N, Pavasant P. Scaling-up bio-hydrogen
production from food waste: Feasibilities and challenges. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2018;43(2):634–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.10.013.
[25] Lee YW, Chung J. Bioproduction of hydrogen from food waste by pilot-scale
combined hydrogen/methane fermentation. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2010;35(21):
11746–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.08.093.
[26] Hu CC, Giannis A, Chen C-L, Wang J-Y. Evaluation of hydrogen producing cultures
using pretreated food waste. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2014;39(33):19337–42.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.06.056.
[27] Han W, Fang J, Liu Z, Tang J. Techno-economic evaluation of a combined
bioprocess for fermentative hydrogen production from food waste. Bioresour
Technol 2016;202:107–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.11.072.
[28] Dinesh KG, Chauhan R, Chakma S. Influence and strategies for enhanced
biohydrogen production from food waste. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;92:
807–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.05.009.
[29] Farooq Abid, Jang Seong-Ho, Lee See Hoon, Jung Sang-Chul, Rhee Gwang Hoon,
Jeon Byong-Hun, et al. Catalytic steam gasification of food waste using Ni-loaded
rice husk derived biochar for hydrogen production. Chemosphere 2021;280:
130671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.130671.
[30] Ramprakash Balasubramani, Incharoensakdi Aran. Dark fermentative hydrogen
production from pretreated garden wastes by Escherichia coli. Fuel 2022;310:
122217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2021.122217.
[31] Chong Chi Cheng, Cheng Yoke Wang, Ng Kim Hoong, Vo Dai-Viet N, Lam Man Kee,
Lim Jun Wei. Bio-hydrogen production from steam reforming of liquid biomass
wastes and biomass-derived oxygenates: A review. Fuel 2022;311:122623. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2021.122623.
[32] Li Bing, Yin Tailai, Udugama Isuru A, Dong Shou Long, Yu Wei, Huang Yue Fei,
et al. Food waste and the embedded phosphorus footprint in China. J Cleaner Prod
2020;252:119909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119909.
[33] Jin Chenxi, Sun Shiqiang, Yang Dianhai, Sheng Weijie, Ma Yadong, He Wenzhi,
et al. Anaerobic digestion: An alternative resource treatment option for food waste
in China. Sci Total Environ 2021;779:146397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2021.146397.
10
Fuel 324 (2022) 124476
[34] Li Y, Jin Y, Borrion A, Li., H. Current status of food waste generation and
management in China. Bioresour Technol 2019;273:654–65. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.biortech.2018.10.083.
[35] Leung CYD, Wang J. An overview on biogas generation from anaerobic digestion of
food waste. Int J Green Energy 2016;13(2):119–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15435075.2014.909355.
[36] Tayyab Aumbreen, Ahmad Zulfiqar, Mahmood Tariq, Khalid Azeem,
Qadeer Samia, Mahmood Shahid, et al. Anaerobic co-digestion of catering food
waste utilizing Parthenium hysterophorus as co-substrate for biogas production.
Biomass Bioenergy 2019;124:74–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biombioe.2019.03.013.
[37] Yentekakis VI, Goula G. Biogas Management: Advanced Utilization for Production
of Renewable Energy and Added-value Chemicals. Front Environ Sci 2017;5:1–18.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2017.00007.
[38] Kuo J, Dow J. Biogas production from anaerobic digestion of food waste and
relevant air quality implications. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 2017;67(9):1000–11.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2017.1316326.
[39] Cudjoe Dan, Han Myat Su, Nandiwardhana Aditya P. 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
2020;203:106381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2020.106381.
[40] Rajaeifar AM, Ghanavati H, Dashti BB, Heijungs R, Ashbashlo M, Tabatabaei.
Electricity generation and GHG emission reduction potentials through different
municipal solid waste management technologies: A comparative review. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2017;79:414–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.04.109.
[41] Nielfa A, Cano R, Fdz-Polanco M. Theoretical methane production generated by the
co-digestion of organic fraction municipal solid waste and biological sludge.
Biotechnol Rep, 2015;5:14–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.btre.2014.10.005.
[42] Ogunjuyigbe ASO, Ayodele TR, Alao MA. Electricity generation from municipal
solid waste in some selected cities of Nigeria: An assessment of feasibility, potential
and technologies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;80:149–62. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.177.
[43] Zhou H, Meng A, Long Y, Li Q, Zhang Y. An overview of characteristics of
municipal solid waste fuel in China: physical, chemical composition, and heating
value. Renewable Sustainable Energy Reviews 2014;36:107–22. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2014.04.024.
[44] Salami L, Susu AA, Patinvoh RJ, Olafadehan OA. Characterisation of solid wastes: a
case study of Lagos State. Int J Appl Sci Technol 2011;1(3):47–52.
[45] Rafiee Ahmad, Khalilpour Kaveh R, Prest James, Skryabin Igor. Biogas as an energy
vector. Biomass Bioenergy 2021;144:105935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biombioe.2020.105935.
[46] Alves HJ, Junior CB, Niklevicz RR, Frigo EP, Frigo MS, Coimbra-Araújo CH.
Overview of hydrogen production technologies from biogas and the applications in
fuel cells. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2013;38(13):5215–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2013.02.057.
[47] Madeira FGJ, Boloy MAR, Delgado SRA, Lima FR, Coutinho RE, Filho PCR.
Ecological analysis of hydrogen production via biogas steam reforming from
cassava flour processing wastewater. J Cleaner Prod 2017;162:709–16. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.076.
[48] Saebea D, Authayanum S, Patcharavorachot Y, Arpornwichanop A.
Thermodynamic analysis of hydrogen production from the adsorption-enhanced
steam reforming of biogas. Energy Procedia 2014;61:2254–7. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.egypro.2014.12.120.
[49] Sarrias-Mena R, Fernández-Ramírez ML, García-Vázquez AC, Jurado F. Electrolyzer
models for hydrogen production from wind energy systems. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2015;40(7):2927–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.12.125.
[50] Younas Muhammad, Shafique Sumeer, Hafeez Ainy, Javed Fahad, Rehman Fahad.
An Overview of Hydrogen Production: Current Status, Potential, and Challenges.
Fuel 2022;316:123317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2022.123317.
[51] Cecere D, Giacomazzi E, Ingenito A. A review on hydrogen industrial aerospace
applications. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2014;39(20):10731–47. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.04.126.
[52] Ozturk M, Dincer I. Life cycle assessment of hydrogen-based electricity generation
in place of conventional fuels for residential buildings. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2020;45(50):26536–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.05.150.
[53] Dufo-López R, Bernal-Agustín LJ. Multi-objective design of
PV–wind–diesel–hydrogen–battery systems. Renewable Energy 2008;33(12):
2559–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2008.02.027.
[54] Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). (2007). Units & Conversion Fact
Sheet. M.I.T.
[55] Demirbas A, Baluabaid MA, Kabli M, Ahmad W. Diesel fuel from waste lubricating
oil by pyrolytic distillation. Pet Sci Technol 2014;33(2):129–38. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10916466.2014.955921.
[56] Nizami AS, Shahzad K, Rehan M, Ouda OKM, Khan MZ, Ismail IMI, et al.
Developing waste biorefinery in Makkah: a way forward to convert urban waste
into renewable energy. Appl Energy 2017;186:189–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2016.04.116.
[57] Kothari R, Buddhi D, Sawhney RL. Comparison of environmental and economic
aspects of various hydrogen production methods. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2008;
12(2):553–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2006.07.012.
[58] Fernando, J., Mansa, J. (2021). Return on Investment (ROI). Investopedia.
Available at: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/returnoninvestment.asp
(Accessed: 29th December 2021).
[59] The World Bank. (2020). Real interest rate (%)-China. Available at: https://data.
worldbank.org/indicator/FR.INR.RINR?locations=CN (Accessed: 28 December
2021).
D. Cudjoe et al.
[60] IRENA. Renewable energy technologies: cost analysis series of biomass for power
generation. Bonn, Germany: IRENA; 2012. p. 60.
[61] The World Bank. (2018). Taxes on income, profits, and capital gains (% of revenue)
– China. Available at: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GC.TAX.YPKG.RV.
ZS?locations=CN (Accessed: 27 December 2021).
[62] Silveira JL, Lamas WQ, Tuna CE, Villela IAC, Miro LS. Ecological efficiency and
thermoeconomic analysis of a cogeneration system at a hospital. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2012;16(5):2894–906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.02.007.
[63] Ryu C. Potential of municipal solid waste for renewable energy production and
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in South Korea. J Air Waste Manag Assoc
2010;60(2):176–83. https://doi.org/10.3155/1047-3289.60.2.176.
[64] U. EPA. (2014). Emission factors for greenhouse gas inventories, stationary
combustion emission factors. US Environmental Protection Agency.
[65] Zhang R-L, Liu X-H. Evaluating ecological efficiency of Chinese industrial
enterprise. Renewable Energy 2021;178:679–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2021.06.119.
[66] Lamas Wendell de Queiroz, Palau Jose Carlos Fortes, Camargo Jose Rubens de.
Waste materials co-processing in cement industry: Ecological efficiency of waste
reuse. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;19:200–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2012.11.015.
[67] Abokyi E, Appiah-Kinadu P, Abokyi F, Oteng-Abayie FE. Industrial growth and
emissions of CO2 in Ghana: The role of financial development and fossil fuel
consumption. Energy Rep 2019;5:1339–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
egyr.2019.09.002.
11
Fuel 324 (2022) 124476
[68] Lyman, R. (2016). Why renewable energy cannot replace fossil fuels by 2050.
Friends of Science, pp. 1-44. Available at: https://www.ourenergypolicy.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/06/Renewable-energy-cannot-replace-FF_Lyman1.pdf
(Accessed: 31 January 2021).
[69] IPCC. (2006). Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, http://www.
ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol2.html (Accessed: 31 January 2021).
[70] Cudjoe Dan, Wang Hong, zhu Bangzhu. Thermochemical treatment of daily
COVID-19 single-use facemask waste: Power generation potential and
environmental impact analysis. Energy 2022;249:123707. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2022.123707.
[71] Ayodele TR, Alao MA, Ogunjuyigbe ASO. Effect of collection efficiency and
oxidation factor on greenhouse gas emission and life cycle cost of landfill
distributed energy generation. Sustainable Cities and Society 2020;52:101821.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101821.
[72] NBS, National Data: National Bureau of Statistics of China. (2018). Available at:
http://data.stats.gov.cn/english/easyquery.htm?cn=E0103 (Accessed date: 21st
January 2021).
[73] Cudjoe Dan, Nketiah Emmanuel, Obuobi Bright, Adu-Gyamfi Gibbson, Adjei Mavis,
Zhu Bangzhu. Forecasting the potential and economic feasibility of power
generation using biogas from food waste in Ghana: Evidence from Accra and
Kumasi. Energy 2021;226:120342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2021.120342.