Energy Conversion and Management 265 (2022) 115743

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

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

Waste-to-energy effect in municipal solid waste treatment for small cities

in Brazil
Jessé Luís Padilha *, André Luiz Amarante Mesquita
Laboratory of Fluid Dynamic and Particulate (FluidPar), Amazon Development Center in Engineering (NDAE), Federal University of Pará, Tucuruí, Pará, Brazil

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

Keywords: The most common urban solid waste disposal in Brazil is the landfill. Additionally, there are still inadequate
Waste-to-energy disposal units (dumps), but there are technological alternatives for this disposal and some projects are already
Municipal solid waste installed in Brazil. The economic analysis is therefore fundamental to find the best technological option,
Rate payers’ contribution
transforming an environmental problem into a viable solution. This work presents a brief review of recent
literature on Waste-to-Energy technologies, projects in operation in Brazil and proposes an innovative approach
to analyzing the financial viability of the combination of consolidated destinations for the management of
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) (technological routes), that use waste to energy, considering the complementation
of revenues for small cities with populations from 30,000 to 250,000 residents, through the implementation of a
rate-payers contribution optimization algorithm. A structured algorithm was used with a focus on estimating
revenue from the minimum value of rate payers’ contributions (RPC) to make these routes viable for most cities
considered in the project. Economic indicators used include: Net Present Value (NPV), Internal Rate of Return
(IRR), Discounted Payback Period (DPP), and Leveled Cost of Electricity (LCOE). A sensitivity analysis of the two
best routes was performed (depending on lower RPC values) based on NPV. The results tend to confirm solutions
that can be approved not only by the government, but also by the business sector. The best outcomes are the
routes with landfill and landfill gas, and with recycling and anaerobic digestion, considering the sale of digestate
and landfill. These presented the best financial values, with discounted payback periods of 15 and 20 years,
maximum RPC of US$0.04 and US$0.33, per inhabitant/month, respectively, with an IRR of 11.61%, for both.
The sensitivity analysis indicated a greater influence on the investment costs of landfill gas for the first route and
for the second route, the urban collection and cleaning services.

1. Introduction
The management of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) is a public service
indispensable for humanity [1]. The technologies employed for waste
disposal and utilization are well reviewed in the literature, highlighting
three main technological routes, with profitability, and environmental
and social acceptability: the thermal route (gasification, pyrolysis,
incineration) [2], bio-conversion route (anaerobic digestion, compost­
ing) [3] and landfilling [4].
At present, energy generation from MSW, so-called Waste-to-Energy
(WTE) technology, has a fundamental role for the sustainability of WSW
management projects, either by controlling pollutants [5], by compar­
ison [6] or by analyzing scenarios of their technologies [7]. For the
implementation of WTE projects it is important to determine the high
heating values of MSW fuel [8,9] and evaluate the handling needed to
adapt this fuel to WTE technologies [10]. Among the commercially
available WTE technologies, incineration [11,12] and anaerobic diges­
tion [13,14] are well established and can even be used together [15].
Other WTE technologies are still in development stages with some
projects in experimental operation, such as gasification [16], non-
thermal plasma gasification [17], pyrolysis [18,19], and some hybrid
technologies, such as anaerobic digestion and pyrolysis [20], gasifica­
tion and anaerobic digestion [21].
It is possible to confirm trends for WTE technology through recent
reviews of the available literature, especially for countries that have a
significant number of WTE systems in operation. In India, Malav et al.
[22] describes the opportunities and challenges for energy generation
from MSW. Ding et al. [23] provide a review on waste-to-energy con­
version in China, Mukherjee et al. [24] analyze the MSW projects to
energy trends in the United States, and Scarlat et al. [25] present an

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jessepadilha@ufpa.br (J. Luís Padilha).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2022.115743
Received 9 March 2022; Received in revised form 6 May 2022; Accepted 8 May 2022
Available online 22 May 2022
0196-8904/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Luís Padilha and A. Luiz Amarante Mesquita Energy Conversion and Management 265 (2022) 115743

Table 1
Summary of the research gaps and novelties.
Research gaps Novelties

- Lack of updated operating and - Monetary adjustment of costs

deployment cost surveys regarding
small scale WTE facilities as well as fees
applicable to the Brazilian market,
-Absence of studies related to small scale
WTE facilities (incineration and
anaerobic digestion) addressing the
Brazilian energy compensation model
for installed capacity up to 5 MW.
- Lack of studies employing optimization
algorithms to solve urban solid waste
management feasibility problems
associated with solid waste
management, applying appropriate
discount rates within the project term
- Feasibility study considering different
urban solid waste disposal routes based
on different combinations of WTE
technologies.
- Development and application of an
optimization algorithm to determine
rate-payers contribution.

overview on the energy generation and waste treatment in the European

Union and in other European countries.
Correctly treating urban solid waste is an indispensable task and at
the same time, an obligation on the part of municipal management. In
order that small municipalities can achieve viability in WTE projects, it
is necessary to charge monetary values for the purpose of com­
plementing the revenues from the treatment of waste. This charge
amount must be estimated based on the cost charged per mass of ma­
terial treated. In this work, this charge will be called rate-payers
contribution (RPC) [26].
Among the feasibility studies that determine rate-payers contribu­
tion charges for WTE destinations, two stand out: Fernandez-Gonzales
et al. [26] in Spain and Colvero et al. [27] in Brazil. However,
Fernandez-Gonzales do not include in their calculations the collection
and transport costs that directly impact the final value of the RPC.
Colvero, on the other hand, carried out a survey of most of the costs that
make up the management of municipal solid waste in a municipality,
including collection and transport, but worked with economic indicators
that do not use the discount rate, which is the sum of capital remuner­
ation costs, opportunity cost, risks and inflation. If these are not applied,
the analysis does not present feasibility within the project’s deadline.
Brazil has a particular model of energy generation [28,29], which
makes possible a compensation to compensate consumers with self-
generation of renewable energy connected to the grid. The generated
energy injected in the grid is deducted from the total consumption of
energy supplied by the concessionaire. With recent legislation, it is
possible to classify WTE biomass and biogas projects with an installed
capacity of up to 5 MW as local self-consumption, in the modality of
mini-generation [30].
The economic indicators that supported the algorithm were: The
present work aims to estimate rate-payers contribution values for MSW
destination projects in Brazil, considering small municipalities (with
populations of less than 250 thousand, inhabitants) accounting for all
the costs involved and applying a discount rate compatible with the
market, which is within a viable term. It is noteworthy, however, that
the methodology can be applied to any country.
From this perspective, six municipal solid waste destination routes
were analyzed based on different combinations of technology, including
recycling and energy generation. An economic feasibility analysis
methodology was then applied, with the implementation of a rate-
payers contribution optimization algorithm, aiming to achieve an
adequate internal rate of return for the Brazilian market and within the
project’s useful life. This optimization algorithm is based on the trust-
region method [31]. The rate-payers contribution value was optimized
considering a discounted payback period between 15 and 20 years.
The economic indicators that supported the algorithm were: net
present value, internal rate of return, and leveled cost of electricity
[32,33]. Furthermore, the energy generated, total cost and the value of
rate-payers contribution per inhabitant/month were calculated. Finally,
a sensitivity analysis was performed as a function of the net present
value, to verify which cost components impact the most on the two best
Fig. 1. Final disposal of household solid waste in Brazil [34].
routes selected, according to the economic indicators. Response:
Answer: Thank you very much for the comprehensive evaluation of this
item, a summary paragraph was prepared with the news and gaps pre­
sent in the work, with all tables being enumerated again, according to
the following text. Table 1 presents a summary of the research gaps and
novelties present in this work.
The landfill gas route demonstrated the best configuration according
to the indicators, considering municipalities between 30,000 and
250,000 inhabitants, with period of 15 years and for a discounted
payback period. For this alternative, was achieved an rate-payers
contribution of US$0.83 per inhabitant/month and an internal rate of
return of 11.6%. Following the economic classification, comes the route
with anaerobic digestion with the sale of digestate. In this case, a dis­
counted payback period of 20 years was considered, with maximum
rate-payers contribution values of US$3.23 per inhabitant/month, also
with an internal rate of return of 11.6%. The sensitivity analysis for the
first route indicated that the most influential component was the in­
vestment cost in the energy generation system, and for the second best
route, the urban collection and cleaning service.
This article is divided into 6 parts: the first part presents the short
literature review on waste-to-energy, the motivation and objectives of
the work. Then a brief survey on urban solid waste in Brazil, presenting
the waste-to-energy projects in operation. The third presents the meth­
odology and its steps. Following is presented the technological routes
considered for this work. The results are the presented and discussed;
and finally in the last part, the study conclusions.
2. The municipal solid waste management and waste to energy
in Brazil
Today 98% of the Brazilian population lives in municipalities with
up to 250 thousand inhabitants [31]. The Fig. 1 presents the final
destination of municipal solid waste in Brazil, showing that most Bra­
zilian municipalities discard their waste in landfills, followed by
dumping grounds and controlled landfill. Moreover, 36.8% of munici­
palities have selective collection [34].
In Brazil, final disposal in sanitary landfills is commonly applied for
the treatment of municipal solid waste [35]. This disposal is often done
in unsuitable areas, negatively affecting the environment [36]. Most of
these landfills are managed by private companies contracted by the
municipalities, who pay for the mass of material deposited [37]. Only
44.8% of municipalities charge for this service, and this covers 57.2% of
the costs related to disposal [34].
Feasibility studies with estimation of charges for waste-to-energy

2
J. Luís Padilha and A. Luiz Amarante Mesquita Energy Conversion and Management 265 (2022) 115743

Table 2
WTE plants in operation in Brazil.
WTE Federal Number Year of entry into Granted
destination state operation of the first power (MW)
plant

Landfill gas SP 12 2002 89.3

Landfill gas PE 1 2019 25.7
Landfill gas RJ 4 2003 24.2
Landfill gas BA 1 2010 19.7
Landfill gas MG 5 2009 19.5
Landfill gas RS 1 2015 12.7
Landfill gas PR 1 2016 10
Landfill gas PB 1 2019 5
Landfill gas SC 2 2021 7.0
Landfill gas DF 1 2020 2.8

destinations have been carried out in Brazil, with energy generation

facilities, estimating minimum values of rate-payers contribution [35],
or estimating changes in energy charge values, considering, anaerobic
digestion and incineration [38], or incineration for different population
groups [39] or with landfill gas [40].
As for WTE generation from projects that use biogas to generate
electricity and gas in Brazil, between 2004 and 2015, there were 9
thermoelectric projects, and 3 landfills that use a heat source for the
evaporation of leachate, and in 2016, 30 new projects were registered
[41].
Table 2 [42] presents the WTE projects in operation in Brazil ac­
cording to the National Electric Energy Agency (ANEEL). 29 energy
generation projects are presented, with all landfill gas projects are with
emphasis on the state of São Paulo, with 12 projects totaling 89.3 MW in
capacities ranging from 30 KW to 30 MW, being the first project in
operation in the year 2002.
Brazil does not have any large-scale incineration WTE plant in
operation for solid waste, having several co-processing plants that use
refused-derived fuel, small gasification and pyrolysis plants to treat
hazardous industrial waste [43].
Fig. 2. Simplified flowchart of the methodology used.
3. Methodology

3.1. Methodology overview Table 3

Quantity and composition of municipal solid waste in Brazil.
The methodology proposed in this work is based on finding the Value Unit
minimum amount charged for rate-payers’ contribution to complement
Quantity of waste produced per inhabitant 0.99 kg inhab./day
the revenues for the feasibility of a WTE project in different combina­ Metals 2.9 %
tions of municipal solid waste destinations. Based on literature review Paper, Cardboard and TetraPak 13.1 %
and in information from the Brazilian market, only the most consoli­ Plastic 13.5 %
dated destinations that can be applied in Brazil were considered: sani­ Glass 2.4 %
Organic Matter 51.4 %
tary landfills, recycling, landfill gas, anaerobic digestion and
Inerts 16.7 %
incineration.
To support the choice of economic indicators, other works in the
literature were considered: Internal rate of return, to evaluate the values, depending on the amount of material in mass (ton) estimated for
minimum profitability and the discounted payback period to ensure that each destination. Fig. 2 presents the methodology overview.
the maximum useful life of the routes is respected [44]; leveled cost of
electricity [32,33] to make a comparison between the suggested WTE 3.2. Waste generation
routes, noting their attractiveness and, finally, a Net Present Value [21]
to perform a sensitivity analysis. The national sanitation Information system in Brazil [34] presents
For the purposes of this work, a discounted Payback period of up to the amount of urban solid waste produced per inhabitant per day and
15 years for the landfill gas route was considered as a return indicator: the Brazilian Association of Public Cleaning and Special Waste Com­
this value was chosen based on the power generation plant, as it can use panies presents the composition of urban solid waste in general [46],
about 88, 3% of all gas produced over the lifetime of the landfill and according to Table 3.
considerably increase the installed power of generators [40], and 20
years for the other routes [35,45]. Energy generation was calculated to 3.3. Power generation
make sure that the installed power would not exceed the limit of 5 MW.
A sensitivity analysis in function of the costs and revenues present in the Basically, all energy generation estimation methods for municipal
two best routes was verified by the value of rate-payers contribution. solid waste go through: fuel availability (mass of MSW/time unit), en­
An optimization algorithm structured in Python was implemented ergy released by the combination of these fuels, which is their lower
and developed to calculate the minimum rate-payers contribution heating value and combination of conversion constants and efficiencies

3
J. Luís Padilha and A. Luiz Amarante Mesquita Energy Conversion and Management 265 (2022) 115743

throughout the process. An effective alternative to calculate the amount Table 4

of energy produced for a thermoelectric incineration plant operated by CAPEX and OPEX in Brazil (X Amount of waste processed per year)).
the Rankine Cycle is given by Equation (1) [47]. Final destination CAPEX OPEX Units

Pi = ṁb LHVMSW Î⋅boiler Î⋅cicle PC (1) Urban cleaning [34] – 25.99 US$/inhab/
year
3
landfills (36 ≤ X ≤ 730.10 t/ 8.0765*X + 9.5504*X + US$ and US
Where: Pi: plant power (kJ/s); ṁb = mass flow of biomass (kg/year);
year) [63] 628179 484804 $/t
LHV MSW = lower heating value (kJ/kg) (8,368 kJ/kg, minimum value Landfill gas (4 ≤ X ≤ 9824*X-0,473 1670*X-0,473 US$/t/day
allowed for MSW incineration) [48]; ηboiler = boiler efficiency (average 200.103t/year) [51]
87.25%) [11,49]; ηcicle = cycle efficiency (15%) [26]; PC = self-con­ Recyclabe [64] 11.593*X-0.196 130 US$/t
Anaerobic digestion (20 ≤ X 2.125*X1.1781 49.122*X-0.132 US$ and US
sumption percentage (10%) [50].
≤ 72.103t/year) [64] $/t
A self-consumption electrical loss of 10% was considered for all Incineration (230 ≤ X ≤ 273.67*X + 5E − 2E-05*X + US$ and US
calculations. This loss is due to the conversion of thermal energy, which 470.103t/year) [64] + 07 31.656 $/t
includes devices that consume energy, such as pumps, fans, etc. [50].
For the anaerobic digestion process, as it is a non-accumulative
process like the landfill gas process, the chosen equation was as fol­
Table 5
lows, in equation 2 [26]. Revenues for products sold in Brazil.
AD = 0.28 mo PCH4 LHVCH4 ht PC ηe (2) Product Average value Unit

Plastic[65] 208.2 US$/T

Where: 0.28 In order to convert kW h data to megajoules; ṁo = organic Glass[65] 15.15 US$/T
mass present in the municipal waste (t/h); PCH4 = Ratio of generation of Metal[65] 418.54 US$/T
methane from the organic fraction of the MSW in Brazil (Nm3/t) (1 7 0) Paper[65] 101.25 US$/T
[51]; LHV CH4 = 35,53*106 J/m3CH4 [40]; Δt: annual hours of plant Compost[65] 17.82 US$/T
Electricity [66] 0.14 US$/kWh
operation in h/year (8,000 h); ηe = electrical efficiency (0.33%) [40].
As for landfill gas, there are a variety of mature methodologies to
calculate the generation of emissions from urban solid waste. The widely 0.5; DOCj = 0.12; kj = 0,4 [54], MCF = 0.71; PcCH4 = 35,53,106 J/
used method is the first-order kinetics model, the IPCC First Order Decay m3CH4; MD = 0.0007168 t/m3; x = 1 e y = year 5, [40], for Ec = 35%
(FOD) model [40,52-54], followed by the LandGEM model [55-58]. [62].
There is also the Marticorena model [59], the Scholl Cayon model [60].
These models have been widely used in studies around the world,
including works for landfills in Brazil [61]. 3.4. Costs and revenue
To estimate the amount of methane gas in landfills, the AMS III.G
was used [54], according to equation (3) that projects the amount of Table 4 presents the investment (CAPEX) and operating (OPEX)
methane formed during the year, and with this estimate, estimate the costs. The investment costs of municipal solid waste destinations,
available electrical power (equations (3) to (5)) [40]. considered were: (1) Recycling: costs with sorting units, which separate
MSW (organic, recyclable and inert) for later use by industry, consid­

16 ∑ ∑ ( ))
QCH4,y = [( φ (1 − f ) GWPCH4 (1 − OX) F DOCf MCF i j Wj,x DOCJ e− k j (y− x)
1− e− k j
]/MD (3)
12

ering the acquisition of land, construction of sheds, administrative units,

( )
1 1
PLFG = Qch4,y ηe Ec PcCH4
31.536.000 1000
ELFG = P Δt PC
Where: QCH4,y = methane emissions during year y (tCH4/year); φ =
correction factor to correct model uncertainties; f = fraction of methane
captured and burned, as fuel or otherwise used; GWPCH4 = global
warming potential of methane; OX = oxidation factor; 16/12 = con­
version of C to CH4; F = fraction of CH4 in gas; DOCf = fraction of
degradable organic carbon that can decompose; DOCj = fraction of
degradable organic carbon (by weight) in waste type j; MCF = methane
correction factor; Wj,x = quantity of organic waste disposed of in the
landfill (tones/year); kj = decomposition rate; j = different type of waste
between waste categories; x = first year; y = year for which methane
emissions are calculated; MD = methane density; PLFG = available power
for each year (kW); PcCH4 = calorific power of methane; Ec = efficiency
of collection of biogas collectors; ELFG = energy produced in kWh/year;
31,536,000: number of seconds in 1 year (s/year); 1/1000 J/s to kW
conversion factor.
The values of φ = 0.9; f = 0; GWPCH4 = 21; OX = 0; F = 0.5; DOCf =
storage bays; (2) anaerobic digestion: pre-treatment unit costs, waste
digestion, biogas recovery and digested waste treatment; (3) incinera­
(4) tion, considering costs for mass burning type unit, similar to conven­
tional Rankine cycle thermal plants, considering civil construction,
furnace and energy recovery system, gas purification, final waste
(5)
treatment, electrical control and monitoring system; (4) landfill gas:
considering gas treatment/compression, engine/generator, site prepa­
ration, grid interconnection equipment; (5) sanitary landfill: pre-
implementation, implantation, operation, closure and post closure
costs. Finally, the operational costs of each destination and the costs
with urban collection and cleaning services were taken into count.
Based on these references, linear regressions were carried out as a
function of the annual production of solid waste and the monetary
interpretation was carried out regarding inflation.
It was assumed that the design and construction phase should last up
to three years (allocated in year 0), the remaining years were estimated
in accordance with the duration of the destination technology after year
0.
The revenue in Table 5 came from the valuation of recyclables such
as glass, paper, metal and plastic, the sale of compost, with data from the
Business Commitment to Recycling Association to Brazil and the
compensation of energy credits with the energy distributor.

4
J. Luís Padilha and A. Luiz Amarante Mesquita
Fig. 3. Technological routes.
3.5. Financial indicators
The internal rate of return (IRR) is calculated when the net present
value (NPV) is equal to zero (equation 6), however, these values cannot
be found analytically, requiring trial and error approaches. Fortunately,
most programming software has an automated IRR function that can be
used.
∑n Ct
0 = NPV = t=1 (1+IRR)t = I (6).Where: NPV = net present value (US
$); IRR = the internal rate of return (%); Ct = net cash inflow during the
period t (US$); I = investment (US$), n = lifetime of the project in years.
The discounted payback period (DPP) is the tool used to calculate
how long it takes to recover the invested capital considering a discount
rate of 11.61% in Brazil [67], in the future values of cash flow (equation
(7)) [68]
DPP = DCFACF
(7).Where: DPP = discounted payback period (years);
ACF = accumulated cash flow (US$); DCF = discounted cash flow (US
$/year).
Leveled cost of electricity (LCOE) is a methodology that allows
comparing the cost of electricity of different conversion technologies
with different capacities based on unit electricity costs (kWh) over the
installation operating life [21], it is calculated using equation (8) [69]:
∑n (I0 +OPEXt +Lt )
t and 20 years for other routes, and g(x) represents confidence region
LCOE = t=1
∑n (1+r) (8)Where: Et = quantity of electricity
(Et )
t=1 (1+r)t
5
Energy Conversion and Management 265 (2022) 115743
generated in year t (MWh); I0 = the total investment cost at year 0 (US$);
OPEXt = fixed and variable operation and maintenance expenditure in
year t (US$); Lt = cost generated waste in year t (US$); r = discount rate
(%).
3.6. Optimization algorithm
The optimization algorithm used was the trust-constr [70], which is
part of the set of optimization scripts on the trust region method used for
the solution of non-linear convex optimization methods. Its treatment
covers unrestricted and restricted problems, its logic consists of mini­
mizing an objective function f(x) using a quadratic model, optimizing
any variable present in it, through restrictions represented by at least
two other functions h(x)and g(x) [71-73].
Min.f(x) ,
Subjected to h(x) = 0 e g(x) ≤ 0.
Where: f is a scalar function, x is the vector of decision variables, and
h and g are vector functions.
To solve f(x)that is represented by each of the studied routes, find the
minimum values of (x) identified in the problem as rate-payers contri­
bution, subject to a result function h(x) in the problem identified as
discounted payback period, identified as 15 years for Landfill-Gas routes
values ranging from -US$150,000.00 to US$150,000.00. The
J. Luís Padilha and A. Luiz Amarante Mesquita
Fig. 4. Landfill with landfill biogas capture.
programming flowchart, structured in 4 parts: loaded files, with the used
financial libraries; structured algorithm with the variables and calcula­
tions used (dimensioning parameters); optimization script and results.
4. Technological routes
4.1. Routes configuration
The municipal solid waste disposal technologies used in this work
were: landfills, for waste that cannot yet be used; recycling for so-called
“dry” waste, in Brazil; anaerobic digestion/landfill gas/digest for
organic matter, the digest being an anaerobic digestion process residue,
very similar to input produced by the composting process that can be
commercialized as fertilizer; incineration that can use either organic
waste, some recyclables and solid fuels from inert materials. The 6 MSW
destinations routes described in Fig. 3 will be presented, in all the paths.
The costs of garbage collection and urban cleaning were considered.
Route 1 - Landfill.
Fig. 5. Recycling with anaerobic digestion and landfill.
6
Energy Conversion and Management 265 (2022) 115743
This route was studied in order to serve as a reference for waste-to-
energy technologies in the recovery of municipal solid waste,
assuming that all waste collected in Brazil will be sent to the landfill
(100% MSW).
Route 2 - Landfill and landfill biogas capture.
In this route shown in Fig. 4, all waste is collected without separation
(100% MSW), and only organic matter (51.4%) is used as gas for energy
generation (36% of MSW mass), a reduction of 70% by mass of organics
was admitted [74], where the remaining inorganic matter (48.6%) is
composed of recyclable and inert materials and will not be used.
Route 3 – Recycling, anaerobic digestion and landfill.
Separation between organics and inorganics is shown in Fig. 5, with
the organics (51.4%) being sent to the anaerobic digestion process, and
used for gas production (36% of the MSW mass), recyclables (31.9%)
separated, and materials not used sent to landfills (15.4% anaerobic
digestion tailings and 16.7% inert materials), totaling 32.1% of munic­
ipal solid waste.
Route 4 – Recycling, anaerobic digestion with sale of digestate
and landfill.
The same considerations as in Route 2 were made, but assuming that
the residues from anaerobic digesters (15.4% of MSW) will be sold as
fertilizer with the same value of the compost in the Brazilian market,
sending only the inert mass to landfill (16.7%), as shown in Fig. 6.
Route 5 – Recycling, incineration and landfill.
Separation of organic and inorganic (Fig. 7), considering the organic
as fuel (51.4%), 6.7% of the inert mass that could somehow be used as
solid fuel, according to Luz et al. [35], the inert have wood and yard
waste, textile, rubber, foam and leather reaching 9.8% of the mass,
paper waste was also admitted as fuel (13.1%), all with a focus on
increasing the calorific value, totaling 71.2% of the municipal solid
waste mass for incineration with a yield of 30% [75] in the process,
transforming 49.9% of the mass of fuel into heat, the separated recy­
clable (18.8%), and the unused material (10% aggregates and 21.3%
ash) sent to the landfill, totaling 31.4% of the MSW mass.
Route 6 - Recycling, anaerobic digestion, incineration and
landfill.
For the last route, the separation of organic and inorganic waste was
considered, the organics being used in the anaerobic digestion process
(51.4% of the MSW mass) for gas generation (36%), the tailings sent for
J. Luís Padilha and A. Luiz Amarante Mesquita Energy Conversion and Management 265 (2022) 115743

Fig. 6. Recycling, anaerobic digestion with sale of digestate and landfill.

Fig. 7. Recycling with incineration and landfill.

incineration, also with 6.7% of the mass of aggregates and waste paper
(13.1%), totaling 35.2% for incineration, transforming 24.6% of the
mass of municipal solid waste into heat, the separated recyclable
(18.8%), the material unused (10% inert and 10.6% ash) sent to landfill
(20.6%) shown in Fig. 8.
5. Results and discussion
5.1. Installed power and energy generation
The installed power and the annual energy generation for all routes
as function of the population are, respectively, presented n Figs. 9 and
10. The installed power and annual generation were calculated as a
function of the amount of material processed per hour, limited to 5 MW,
to be included in the Brazilian credit model.
In this analysis, route 5 that uses incineration as energy generation
stood out with the highest generation potential, starting at 890 kW/h,
mainly because it incinerates more than 70% of municipal waste, route
6, with incineration and anaerobic digestion then with an estimated
minimum generation of 760 kW/h, despite treating the same amount of
waste from two different sources, its generation potential is slightly
lower due to the anaerobic generation process, the values reached 5 MW
in populations of 200,000 inhabitants, thus able to fit into the Brazilian
energy credit model.

7
J. Luís Padilha and A. Luiz Amarante Mesquita Energy Conversion and Management 265 (2022) 115743

Fig. 8. Recycling with anaerobic digestion, incineration and Landfill.

Fig. 9. Installed Power per route.

Routes 3 and 4 with the same amount of energy generated by
anaerobic digestion starting at 320 kW/h, route 2 the landfill gas had the
lowest generation per population (135 kW/h), being the least interesting
solution in terms of energy planning. It is worth mentioning that there is
technology on the market to build thermal plants with these capacities.
As for energy generation, the maximum values reached 9 GW for
route 2, 21.2 GW for routes 3 and 4 and 40 GW for route 6 and 39 GW for
route 5, confirming that the presence of paper and other fuels with high
LHV added to the organic waste portion in the municipal solid waste mix
increase the yield of the incineration process. [76-79].
5.2. Economic indicators
The estimated values of LCOE present in Fig. 11 showed little vari­
ation in relation to the population range studied. In this graph route 2
had the lowest value of kWh/t, and this is probably due to the cost of the
recycling unit and operation of sanitary landfills and power generation
system in relation to other technologies.
Zia et al. [80] state that the processing size of the destinations
involved directly influences their CAPEX and OPEX, which can be seen
in Fig. 6 between routes 3 and 4, where this difference is observed, due

8
J. Luís Padilha and A. Luiz Amarante Mesquita
Fig. 10. Energy generation per route.
Fig. 11. Leveled Cost of Electricity (LCOE).
to the landfill lower in route 4, since it was assumed that all digestate
would be sold as fertilizer., Moreover, by the calculations used, anaer­
obic digestion generates less energy per ton than incineration, hence
route 3 is less attractive.
Regarding routes 5 and 6, where, despite both having the highest
percentage of municipal solid waste mass destined for power generation,
their CAPEX and OPEX values end up being equivalent in relation to
their generation potential, leaving their LCOE extremely close.
The entire discounted payback period of the routes remained con­
stant at 20 years, with the internal rate of return at approximately
11.61%, with the exception of route 2, which presented variation in both
discounted payback period with values less than 15 years and internal
rate of return (Figs. 12 and 13), with exemption from charging rate-
payers contribution for populations above 60,000 inhabitants.
It is observed that the discounted payback period drops considerably
up to 140,000 inhabitants, then the value remains almost constant,
9
Energy Conversion and Management 265 (2022) 115743
while the internal rate of return remains progressive, reaching more
than 100% of gains for cities of 250,000 inhabitants, at over 15 years of
operation.
5.3. Rate-payers contribution calculation
Figure 14 shows the estimated annual expenditure on rate-payers
contribution (RPC) by the population, the calculations were performed
considering a discounted payback period of 15 years for route 2 and 20
years to make the other routes viable.
The routes annual expenditure varied between 1400 and US$8600
103 per year, being less interesting routes 5 of incineration, recycling
and landfill and 6 of anaerobic digestion, incineration, recycling and
landfill with values between US$7500 103 and US$8600 103 per year.
Routes 4 and 3 of anaerobic digestion, recycling and landfill with and
without sale of digestate had rate-payers contribution expenses varying
J. Luís Padilha and A. Luiz Amarante Mesquita
Fig. 12. Discounted payback period route 2.
Fig. 13. Internal rate of return route 2.
between US$1100 103 and US$3600 103 per year, whereas route 1 of
reference (only landfill) presented values higher than routes 4, 3 and 2,
with values between US$222 103 and US$1461 103 per year. It is worth
mentioning that route 1 has the rate-payers contribution collection as
the only source of income for the route. The highlight of this analysis
comes from landfill route 2 with landfill gas, which presented rate-
payers contribution expenses for populations up to 60,000 inhabitants.
This graph demonstrates that the implementation of waste-to-energy
technologies in MSW destinations can positively impact [81,82],
reducing expenses with MSW management, now valid even on small
scales.
The rate-payers contribution value per route per month is presented
in Fig. 15, where route 2 had the lowest contribution from taxpayers,
confirming with the LCOE values, with a maximum value of US$0.83 per
month. However, routes 5 and 6 presented higher values between US
$2.73 and US$21.33 per month. Routes 3 and 4 presented values lower
than route 1, with values between US$1.08 and US$3.23 per month,
contradicting the result of LOCE, probably because this indicative
10
Energy Conversion and Management 265 (2022) 115743
estimate their values, taking into account the generation of energy by
total costs, without considering the income from the sale of recyclables
and compost.
The maximum monthly cost per inhabitant was US$21.33 for route
6, the worst WTE analyzed, a high value compared to the other routes,
while route 3 with a lower value closer to route 1 had a maximum value
of US$3.23, which represents 1.5% of the Brazilian minimum wage.
Comparing what has been presented so far, route 2 presented the best
result, despite needing to occupy large territorial spaces. Considering
the prospects for Brazil, it is the most suitable for small-scale municipal
solid waste final destinations, as long as ṕ rovisions are made for
including a power generation project from the generation of gasses in
the fifth year [40,83].
As for the amount of waste available for the landfill and collection of
rate-payers contribution, route 4 had the lowest estimated landfill,
proving to be very attractive from an economic point of view, with rate-
payers contribution costs lower than the use of sanitary landfill only,
being very encouraged [27,81], noting only that for the sale of digestate
J. Luís Padilha and A. Luiz Amarante Mesquita
Fig. 14. Expenditure with RPC.
Fig. 15. Monthly cost per inhabitant.
it must be preceded by a compost market [84], not being a barrier for
smaller municipalities and close to rural areas, in case it is not possible to
sell the digestate, route 3 can also be an option as it also obtained values
with a lower rate-payers contribution charge than the landfill (route 1).
From an economic point of view, routes 5 and 6, which use incin­
eration for power generation, presented extremely high values,
requiring some type of complementation or use of government in­
centives if this is the option to make the energy routes [85], and being
considered less attractive for small municipalities, however, if you are
thinking of arrangements with the aim of grouping smaller municipal­
ities, there is the possibility of obtaining scale and making this type of
route viable.
Finally, as presented, the potential for generating energy from waste
as an option for solid waste management is evident [86,87], and it is an
agreement that thermal generation is a feasible energy recovery final
destination, in the form of heat or using electricity, or fuel [82].
11
Energy Conversion and Management 265 (2022) 115743
5.4. Sensibility analysis
Considering the best routes economically evaluated as 2 and 4, due
to their lower rate-payers contribution values, a sensitivity analysis was
carried out identifying the impact of CAPEX, OPEX and revenues as a
function of Net Present Value (NPV), Figs. 16 and 17 show this impact.
For route 2, it was observed that the CAPEX of landfill and landfill
gas has the greatest impact, followed by the services related to urban
cleaning, followed by the OPEX of the landfill and levy rate-payers
contribution, the costs with OPEX landfill gas and the revenues from
the energy sale have little influence on Net Present Value.
For route 4, the investment costs with the landfill have the greatest
influence, followed by the landfill operation costs, installation of the
anaerobic digestion system, value of levy rate-payers contribution,
urban cleaning services, with the least influence operational costs of
recycling, anaerobic digestion system and sale of plastic materials,
revenues from the sale of glass, metal and paper and compost have little
influence on Net Present Value.
J. Luís Padilha and A. Luiz Amarante Mesquita
Fig. 16. NPV sensitivity analysis for route 2.
Fig. 17. NPV sensitivity analysis for route 4.
6. Conclusions
This work presented a brief review of the waste-to-energy technology
applied in municipal solid waste management and an analysis for the
case of Brazil, describing the waste-to-energy project and the plants
already installed. Presenting at the end an economic analysis of six
technological routes for solid waste disposal by municipalities with
30,000 to 250,000 inhabitants in Brazil, they are: route 1 (landfill);
route 2 (capturing biogas from landfills and sanitary landfills); route 3
(recycling, anaerobic digestion and landfill); route 4 (recycling, anaer­
obic digestion with sale of digest and landfill); route 5 (recycling,
incineration and landfill); route 6 (recycling, anaerobic digestion,
incineration and landfill). Where it was possible to evaluate its viability
in terms of the contribution of the contributors and in terms of the period
of maximum discounted return within the horizon of the project, using a
methodology of economic viability analysis, with the implementation of
an optimization algorithm to minimize the rate-payers contribution.
12
Energy Conversion and Management 265 (2022) 115743
Landfill and landfill gas route 2 presented best financial values,
giving an internal rate of return of 11.61% for a discounted payback
period of 15 years, with a rate-payers contribution of US$0.83 per
inhabitant/month for municipalities with 30,000 inhabitants, and
absence of collection system for municipalities with 60,000 inhabitants
or more, reaching gains of more than 100% and a 1-year discounted
payback period for municipalities with 250,000 inhabitants. Routes 4
and 3 with anaerobic digestion, recycling and landfill with and without
the sale of digestate came next with maximum economic values of rate-
payers contribution of US$3.23 per inhabitant/month for a DPP of 20
years and internal rate of return of 11.61%. Routes 5 and 6 that use
incineration for power generation were not attractive for municipalities
with up to 250,000 inhabitants, as they presented rate-payers contri­
bution values above those estimated for route 1 that was used as a
reference.
It is undeniable that the conversion of urban solid waste into energy
is the way to social, environmental and economic benefits, but this
J. Luís Padilha and A. Luiz Amarante Mesquita
option is increasingly expensive in Brazil, causing losses in several areas.
Studying economically viable solutions that can be applied in Brazilian
municipalities is a technological, political and economic challenge.
The grouping of nearby municipalities for better returns from an
economic, social, and environmental point of view, since it is much more
economical to build a larger plant and smaller transshipment stations,
with trips and complete trucks, instead of small plants with higher
transport and treatment costs, considerably minimizing the use of san­
itary landfills and, therefore, the impacts on the environment.
The work presents a new methodology to optimizes the rate-payer
contribution value to implement waste to energy solutions.
The work represents an important tool for municipal decision sup­
port systems, especially to small municipalities in Brazil.
As a future work, the methodology proposed will be used to study the
waste-to-energy solution considering a grouping of municipalities in the
Brazilian Amazon. At the same time, as pointed out in the paper as a
good solution to waste-to-energy, a study is planned to optimize the use
of landfill gas, using complementary fuel gas in the case of low calorific
value of the landfill gas.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Jessé Luís Padilha: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation,
Methodology, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original
draft. André Luiz Amarante Mesquita: Conceptualization, Supervi­
sion, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
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.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the Federal University of Pará for financial
support.
References
[1] Khan S, Anjum R, Raza ST, Bazai NA, Ihtisham M. Technologies for municipal solid
waste management: current status, challenges, and future perspectives.
Chemosphere 2022;288:132403. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
CHEMOSPHERE.2021.132403.
[2] Carneiro MLNM, Gomes MSP. Energy, exergy, environmental and economic
analysis of hybrid waste-to-energy plants. Energy Convers Manag 2019;179:
397–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.10.007.
[3] Prajapati P, Varjani S, Singhania RR, Patel AK, Awasthi MK, Sindhu R, et al. Critical
review on technological advancements for effective waste management of
municipal solid waste — Updates and way forward: advancements in Municipal
Solid Waste Management. Environ Technol Innov 2021;23:101749. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.eti.2021.101749.
[4] Nanda S, Berruti F. Municipal solid waste management and landfilling
technologies: a review. Environ Chem Lett 2021;19:1433–56. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10311-020-01100-y.
[5] Brunner PH, Rechberger H. Waste to energy - key element for sustainable waste
management. Waste Manag 2015;37:3–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2014.02.003.
[6] Kaur A, Bharti R, Sharma R. Municipal solid waste as a source of energy. Mater
Today Proc 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.04.286.
[7] Kumar A, Samadder SR. A review on technological options of waste to energy for
effective management of municipal solid waste. Waste Manag 2017;69:407–22.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.08.046.
[8] Shi H, Mahinpey N, Aqsha A, Silbermann R. Characterization, thermochemical
conversion studies, and heating value modeling of municipal solid waste. Waste
Manag 2016;48:34–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.09.036.
[9] Bagheri M, Esfilar R, Golchi MS, Kennedy CA. A comparative data mining approach
for the prediction of energy recovery potential from various municipal solid waste.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2019;116:109423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2019.109423.
[10] Rezaei H, Yazdanpanah F, Lim CJ, Sokhansanj S. Pelletization properties of refuse-
derived fuel - Effects of particle size and moisture content. Fuel Process Technol
2020;205:106437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2020.106437.
13
Energy Conversion and Management 265 (2022) 115743
[11] Trindade AB, Palacio JCE, González AM, Rúa Orozco DJ, Lora EES, Renó MLG,
et al. Advanced exergy analysis and environmental assesment of the steam cycle of
an incineration system of municipal solid waste with energy recovery. Energy
Convers Manag 2018;157:195–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2017.11.083.
[12] Makarichi L, Jutidamrongphan W, Techato K, anan.. The evolution of waste-to-
energy incineration: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;91:812–21. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.088.
[13] Panigrahi S, Dubey BK. A critical review on operating parameters and strategies to
improve the biogas yield from anaerobic digestion of organic fraction of municipal
solid waste. Renew Energy 2019;143:779–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2019.05.040.
[14] Zamri MFMA, Hasmady S, Akhiar A, Ideris F, Shamsuddin AH, Mofijur M, et al.
A comprehensive review on anaerobic digestion of organic fraction of municipal
solid waste. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2021;137:110637. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2020.110637.
[15] Chen H, Li J, Liu J, Li T, Xu G, Liu W. Thermodynamic and economic evaluation of
a novel waste-to-energy design incorporating anaerobic digestion and incineration.
Energy Convers Manag 2022;252:115083. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ENCONMAN.2021.115083.
[16] Hameed Z, Aslam M, Khan Z, Maqsood K, Atabani AE, Ghauri M, et al. Gasification
of municipal solid waste blends with biomass for energy production and resources
recovery: current status, hybrid technologies and innovative prospects. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2021;136:110375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2020.110375.
[17] Kwon S, Im S, kyun.. Feasibility of non-thermal plasma gasification for a waste-to-
energy power plant. Energy Convers Manag 2022;251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2021.114978.
[18] Li Q, Faramarzi A, Zhang S, Wang Y, Hu X, Gholizadeh M. Progress in catalytic
pyrolysis of municipal solid waste. Energy Convers Manag 2020;226:113525.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113525.
[19] Hasan MM, Rasul MG, Khan MMK, Ashwath N, Jahirul MI. Energy recovery from
municipal solid waste using pyrolysis technology: a review on current status and
developments. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2021;145:111073. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2021.111073.
[20] Wang S, Wen Y, Shi Z, Nuran Zaini I, Göran Jönsson P, Yang W. Novel carbon-
negative methane production via integrating anaerobic digestion and pyrolysis of
organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Energy Convers Manag 2021;252.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2021.115042.
[21] Mabalane PN, Oboirien BO, Sadiku ER, Masukume M. A techno-economic analysis
of anaerobic digestion and gasification hybrid system: energy recovery from
municipal solid waste in South Africa. Waste Biomass Valorization 2021;12:
1167–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-020-01043-z.
[22] Chand Malav L, Yadav KK, Gupta N, Kumar S, Sharma GK, Krishnan S, et al.
A review on municipal solid waste as a renewable source for waste-to-energy
project in India: current practices, challenges, and future opportunities. J Clean
Prod 2020;277:123227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123227.
[23] Ding Y, Zhao J, Liu JW, Zhou J, Cheng L, Zhao J, et al. A review of China’s
municipal solid waste (MSW) and comparison with international regions:
management and technologies in treatment and resource utilization. J Clean Prod
2021;293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126144.
[24] Mukherjee C, Denney J, Mbonimpa EG, Slagley J, Bhowmik R. A review on
municipal solid waste-to-energy trends in the USA. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2020;119:109512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109512.
[25] Scarlat N, Fahl F, Dallemand JF. Status and opportunities for energy recovery from
municipal solid waste in Europe. Waste Biomass Valorization 2019;10:2425–44.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-018-0297-7.
[26] Fernández-González JM, Grindlay AL, Serrano-Bernardo F, Rodríguez-Rojas MI,
Zamorano M. Economic and environmental review of Waste-to-Energy systems for
municipal solid waste management in medium and small municipalities. Waste
Manag 2017;67:360–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.05.003.
[27] Colvero DA, Ramalho J, Gomes APD, de Matos MAA. Tarelho LA da C. Economic
analysis of a shared municipal solid waste management facility in a metropolitan
region. Waste Manag 2020;102:823–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2019.11.033.
[28] ANEEL. RESOLUÇÃO NORMATIVA No 482, DE 17 DE ABRIL DE 2012 2012:13.
[29] ANEEL. Resolução Normativa no 687 de 2015 da ANEEL. Aneel 2015:24.
[30] DOU DODU. LEI No 14.300, DE 6 DE JANEIRO DE 2022 2022:1–11.
[31] Santos SA. Trust-region-based methods for nonlinear programming: recent
advances and perspectives. Pesqui Operacional 2014;34:447–62. https://doi.org/
10.1590/0101-7438.2014.034.03.0447.
[32] Dai W, Taghavi M. Waste and electricity generation; economic and greenhouse gas
assessments with comparison different districts of Tehran and Beijing. Sustain
Energy Technol Assessments 2021;47:101345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
seta.2021.101345.
[33] Zhar R, Allouhi A, Jamil A, Lahrech K. A comparative study and sensitivity analysis
of different ORC configurations for waste heat recovery. Case Stud Therm Eng
2021;28:101608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2021.101608.
[34] Brasil. Diagnóstico do Manejo de Resíduos Sólidos Urbanos - Sistema Nacional de
Informações sobre Saneamento (SNIS). Ministério Do Desenvolv Reg Secr Nac
Saneam 2020.
[35] Luz FC, Rocha MH, Lora EES, Venturini OJ, Andrade RV, Leme MMV, et al. Techno-
economic analysis of municipal solid waste gasification for electricity generation in
Brazil. Energy Convers Manag 2015;103:321–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2015.06.074.
J. Luís Padilha and A. Luiz Amarante Mesquita
[36] Alfaia RGdeSM, Costa AM, Campos JC. Municipal solid waste in Brazil: a review.
Waste Manag Res 2017;35:1195–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0734242X17735375.
[37] SELUR. Três anos após a regulamentação da Política Nacional de Resíduos Sólidos
(PNRS): Seus gargalos e superações 2014.
[38] dos Santos RE, dos Santos IFS, Barros RM, Bernal AP, Tiago Filho GL, Silva F, et al.
Generating electrical energy through urban solid waste in Brazil: an economic and
energy comparative analysis. J Environ Manage 2019;231:198–206. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.10.015.
[39] Silva LJ de VB da, Santos IFS dos, Mensah JHR, Gonçalves ATT, Barros RM.
Incineration of municipal solid waste in Brazil: An analysis of the economically
viable energy potential. Renew Energy 2020;149:1386–94. 10.1016/j.
renene.2019.10.134.
[40] Pin BVR, Barros RM, Silva Lora EE, dos Santos IFS. Waste management studies in a
Brazilian microregion: GHG emissions balance and LFG energy project economic
feasibility analysis. Energy Strateg Rev 2018;19:31–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
esr.2017.11.002.
[41] Nascimento MCB, Freire EP, Dantas FdeAS, Giansante MB. Estado da arte dos
aterros de resíduos sólidos urbanos que aproveitam o biogás para geração de
energia elétrica e biometano no Brasil. Eng Sanit e Ambient 2019;24:143–55.
https://doi.org/10.1590/s1413-41522019171125.
[42] ANEEL AN de EE. Sistema de Informações de Geração da ANEEL SIGA 2022.
[43] ABREN. Contribuição para Consulta Pública No 025/2019 2019:28.
[44] Khaloie H, Toubeau JF, Vallee F, Lai CS, Lai LL. An innovative coalitional trading
model for a biomass power plant paired with green energy resources. IEEE Trans
Sustain Energy 2022;13:892–904. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSTE.2021.3138777.
[45] Di Trapani D, Volpe M, Di Bella G, Messineo A, Volpe R, Viviani G. Assessing
methane emission and economic viability of energy exploitation in a typical
sicilian municipal solid waste landfill. Waste Biomass Valorization 2019;10:
3173–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-018-0321-y.
[46] Abrelpe AB de E de LP e RE. Estimativas Dos Custos Para Viabilizar a
Universalização Da Destinação Adequada De Resíduos Sólidos No Brasil 2015:91.
[47] Habibollahzade A, Houshfar E, Ashjaee M, Behzadi A, Gholamian E,
Mehdizadeh H. Enhanced power generation through integrated renewable energy
plants: Solar chimney and waste-to-energy. Energy Convers Manag 2018;166:
48–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.04.010.
[48] EPE. Nota técnica DEA 16/2014: Economicidade e Competitividade do
Aproveitamento Energético dos Resíduos Sólidos Urbanos 2014:41.
[49] Khaloie H, Vallee F, Lai CS, Toubeau JF, Hatziargyriou N. Day-ahead and intraday
dispatch of an integrated biomass-concentrated solar system: a multi-objective risk-
controlling approach. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2022;37:701–14. https://doi.org/
10.1109/TPWRS.2021.3096815.
[50] SAM SAM. Tutorial Help, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Versão
2020.2.29 2021.
[51] EPE E de PE. Estudo sobre a Economicidade do Aproveitamento dos Resíduos
Sólidos Urbanos em Aterro para Produção de Biometano. Política Agrícola 2018;
XV:119.
[52] Abushammala MFM, Ahmad Basri NE, Basri H, El-Shafie AH, Kadhum AAH.
Regional landfills methane emission inventory in Malaysia. Waste Manag Res
2011;29:863–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X10382064.
[53] Tsai WT. Bioenergy from landfill gas (LFG) in Taiwan. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2007;11:331–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2005.01.001.
[54] IPCC IP on CC. Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Japan: IGES;
2006.
[55] Pourreza Movahed Z, Kabiri M, Ranjbar S, Joda F. Multi-objective optimization of
life cycle assessment of integrated waste management based on genetic algorithms:
a case study of Tehran. J Clean Prod 2020;247:119153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2019.119153.
[56] Barros RM, Filho GLT, Moura JS, Pieroni MF, Vieira FC, Lage LR, et al. Design and
implementation study of a Permanent Selective Collection Program (PSCP) on a
University campus in Brazil. Resour Conserv Recycl 2013;80:97–106. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.09.005.
[57] Leme MMV, Rocha MH, Lora EES, Venturini OJ, Lopes BM, Ferreira CH. Techno-
economic analysis and environmental impact assessment of energy recovery from
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) in Brazil. Resour Conserv Recycl 2014;87:8–20.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.03.003.
[58] USEPA USEPA. Landfill gas emissions model. United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Version 3.02 user’s guide. 2005:48.
[59] Ehrig H. Quality and quantity of sanitary landfill leachate. Waste Manag Res 1983;
1:53–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/0734-242x(83)90024-1.
[60] Sun Y, Xue L, Zhang Y, Zhao X, Huang Y, Du X. High flux polyamide thin film
composite forward osmosis membranes prepared from porous substrates made of
polysulfone and polyethersulfone blends. Desalination 2014;336:72–9. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.desal.2013.12.036.
14
Energy Conversion and Management 265 (2022) 115743
[61] Penteado R, Cavalli M, Magnano E, Chiampo F. Application of the IPCC model to a
Brazilian landfill: First results. Energy Policy 2012;42:551–6. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enpol.2011.12.023.
[62] Johari A, Ahmed SI, Hashim H, Alkali H, Ramli M. Economic and environmental
benefits of landfill gas from municipal solid waste in Malaysia. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2012;16:2907–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.02.005.
[63] ABETRE AB de E de T de R, FGV-Fundação Getúlio Vargas. Estudo sobre os
Aspectos Econômicos e Financeiros da Implantação e Operação de Aterros
Sanitários 2009.
[64] GRS-UFPE. Análise das Diversas Tecnologias de Tratamento e Disposição Final de
Resíduos Sólidos Urbanos no Brasil, Europa, Estados Unidos e Japão 2014:188.
[65] CEMPRE. CEMPRE INFORMA NÚMERO 157 2020. http://cempre.org.br/cempre
-informa/id/115/preco-dos-materiais-reciclaveis.
[66] Equatorial E. Valor de tarifas e serviços 2022. https://pa.equatorialenergia.com.
br/informacoes-gerais/valor-de-tarifas-e-servicos/.
[67] Damodaran A. Estimation and Implications – The 2019 Edition Updated : April
2019 Aswath Damodaran Stern School of Business 2019.
[68] NETO C. Elaboração e avaliação de projetos de investimento. Elsevier; 2009.
[69] Hadidi LA, Omer MM. A financial feasibility model of gasification and anaerobic
digestion waste-to-energy (WTE) plants in Saudi Arabia. Waste Manag 2017;59:
90–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.09.030.
[70] Conn AR, Gould NIM, Toint PL. Trust region methods. Soc Ind Appl Math 2000.
https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9780898719857.
[71] Gould N, Toint PL. Preprocessing for quadratic programming. Math Program 2004;
100:95–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10107-003-0487-2.
[72] Byrd RH, Gilbert JC, Nocedal J. A trust region method based on interior point
techniques for nonlinear programming. Math Program Ser B 2000;89:149–85.
https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00011391.
[73] Waltz RA, Morales JL, Nocedal J, Orban D. An interior algorithm for nonlinear
optimization that combines line search and trust region steps. Math Program 2006;
107:391–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10107-004-0560-5.
[74] WWF-Brasil. Guia de Compostagem. 2015.
[75] Lombardi L, Carnevale EA. Evaluation of the environmental sustainability of
different waste-to-energy plant configurations. Waste Manag 2018;73:232–46.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.07.006.
[76] Alzate-Arias S, Jaramillo-Duque Á, Villada F, Restrepo-Cuestas B. Assessment of
government incentives for energy fromwaste in Colombia. Sustainability 2018;10:
1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041294.
[77] Ayodele TR, Alao MA, Ogunjuyigbe ASO. Recyclable resources from municipal
solid waste: assessment of its energy, economic and environmental benefits in
Nigeria. Resour Conserv Recycl 2018;134:165–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2018.03.017.
[78] Chen YC. Evaluating greenhouse gas emissions and energy recovery from
municipal and industrial solid waste using waste-to-energy technology. J Clean
Prod 2018;192:262–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.260.
[79] Joseph LP, Prasad R. Assessing the sustainable municipal solid waste (MSW) to
electricity generation potentials in selected Pacific Small Island Developing States
(PSIDS). J Clean Prod 2020;248:119222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2019.119222.
[80] Zia UUR, Rashid T, Ali M, Awan WN. Techno-economic assessment of energy
generation through municipal solid waste: a case study for small/medium size
districts in Pakistan. Waste Dispos Sustain Energy 2020;2:337–50. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s42768-020-00056-7.
[81] Rothenberger S, Zurbrügg C, Enayetullah I, Sinha a HMM. Decentralised
Composting for Cities of Low- and Middle- Income Countries. 2006.
[82] Zhao X, Jiang G, Li A, Wang L. Economic analysis of waste-to-energy industry in
China. Waste Manag 2016;48:604–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2015.10.014.
[83] de Souza AR, Silva ATYL, Trindade AB, Freitas FF, Anselmo JA. Analysis of the
potential use of landfill biogas energy and simulation of greenhouse gas emissions
of different municipal solid waste management scenarios in varginha, MG, Brazil.
Eng Sanit e Ambient 2019;24:887–96. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1413-
41522019187066.
[84] Fernando RLS. Solid waste management of local governments in the Western
Province of Sri Lanka: an implementation analysis. Waste Manag 2019;84:
194–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.11.030.
[85] Alzate S, Restrepo-Cuestas B, Jaramillo-Duque Á. Municipal solid waste as a source
of electric power generation in Colombia: a techno-economic evaluation under
different scenarios. Resources 2019;8:1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/
resources8010051.
[86] Bajić BZ, Dodić SN, Vučurović DG, Dodić JM, Grahovac JA. Waste-to-energy status
in Serbia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;50:1437–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2015.05.079.
[87] Kalyani KA, Pandey KK. Waste to energy status in India: a short review. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2014;31:113–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.11.020.