MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE OF THE RUSSIAN

FEDERATION
FEDERAL STATE AUTONOMOUS EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION
«ST. PETERSBURG NATIONAL RESEARCH UNIVERSITY
OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES, MECHANICS AND
OPTICS»

Faculty of Energy and Environmental Technologies

Course: New Energy and Resource-saving Processes in a Circular
Economy

ITMO UNIVERSITY

Essay
Topic: Waste-to-energy technologies in developed countries

Author:
Kolpikova Victoria,
G4151c
Educator:
Sergienko Olga, PhD,
Saint Petersburg
2022
Table of contents
Introduction
1. The general trend in MSW management in developed states
2. WtE technologies overview
2.1. The advantages of WtE
3. Methods and technologies of WtE
3.1. Thermal Conversation Methods
3.2. Biochemical Methods
4. Conclusion
Bibliography
 Introduction

One of the threads for human beings in the modern world is waste. The
problem of MSW is certainly acute globally. In 2016, the total amount of waste
was 2.01 billion tonnes globally (Kaza et.al., 2018). As Kaza et.al. (2021)
further state in the updated World Bank report, due to urbanisation and growing
populations global annual waste generation is expected to jump to 3.88 billion
tonnes by 2050, which indicates a 73 percent increase from 2020. The updated
data surpasses the expectations formed in 2018 by the World Bank, which, of
course, is an unfortunate result in the fight against the problem of excessive
waste formation.

The next, but no less important problem facing is the increasing demand
for energy that outstrips supply. Accelerating industrialization, population
growth, urban development and other processes lead to more and more energy
consumption. In order to fulfill the increased demand for energy, fossil fuel
reserves are extracted, and the burning of these fuels is now the major cause of
environmental pollution. Still, even with the availability of fossil fuels, these
sources of energy are depleted. Governments became dependent on oil, gas and
coal. Hannah Ritchie & Max Roser (2021) offer the statistics on total energy
consumption and energy consumption per capita. The data shown in Figure 1
and Figure 2 can be correlated with the level of economic development of the
state. The more developed the state is, the more it requires energy. Many
developing countries are driven into energy poverty, while developed countries
become heavily reliant on imported fossil fuels. Therefore finding safe,
sustainable, and renewable energy sources is therefore urgently needed.
Figure 1 - Primary energy consumption (TWh), 2021. Adapted from Hannah
Ritchie & Max Roser, 2021.

Figure 2 - Energy use per capita, 2021. Adapted from Hannah Ritchie & Max
Roser, 2021
Waste to Energy (WtE) might be considered as a potential alternative
energy source that is both ecologically and economically viable. Referring to
Rasheed et al. (2021) municipal solid waste (MSW) plays a significant role in
the advancement of sustainable environments and renewable energy sources.
Developed countries are actively using WTE technologies for the development
of renewable energy and waste management.
 1. The general trend in MSW management in developed states

Different countries vary in the rate of waste generation, its composition, and the
possibilities of effective management.

The volume of waste generation has a direct dependence on a country's income.

It is discovered that the rise in daily waste production per capita has linear
correlation with GDP per capita. This trend is indicated by Kaza et al. (2021) in
the World Bank report and is illustrated in the graph. The Graph 1.1. shows the
correlation between the GDP per capita, PPP and waste per capita. According to
Khatib (2011), in high income countries the volume of MSW is higher and it
can extend from 1.4 to 2.0 kg/capita/day. Developed states only account for 16
percent of the world’s population, still all these countries combined are
generating more than one-third (34 percent) of the world’s waste (World Bank,
2018).

Graph 1.1. - Predicted and actual waste generation by GDP per capita. Adapted
from Kaza et al. (2021)
Moreover, in countries with different incomes, the composition of waste is also
different. For example, in low- and middle-income countries, food waste
accounts for more than 50 percent. At the same time, in high-income countries,
organic waste is only 32%, and most of it is inorganic waste, such as plastic,
metal, glass, paper, rubber and others (Kazа et al., 2018). It is important to note
that this does not mean that developed countries have less food waste compared
to developing countries. Rather, it means that the percentage and actual ratio of
inorganic waste is many times higher than in low- and middle-income countries.
Therefore, high-income countries will have different approaches to waste
management.

One approach to waste management is waste to energy production. Referring to

Wang et.al. (2016), WtE research is an important part of not only the field of the
environment and circular economy, but is also becoming a significant global
scientific area. In the research Wang et.al. (2016) compared the number of
publications in top 10 countries. The result showed that the most influential
scientific institutions in the field of WtE are located in the United States,
followed by China, Italy, the United Kingdom, Spain, Canada, Germany,
Sweden, Australia, and Denmark. The Table 1.1. indicates the number of
publications and the number of citations in each country as well as h-index.

Table 1.1. - The characteristics of the 10 most influential countries in WtE

research. Adapted from Wang et al. (2016)
It is obvious that there are great opportunities in developed countries to deal
with waste. Disposal requires collection, transportation and disposal in the
nearest open area. Such practices require funding without harming the socio-
economic sector of the country. Moreover, effective waste management requires
the development of technologies and research in this industry. High-income
countries are developing more research in the field of waste management, as
well as in the field of waste-to-energy technologies.

For the developed nations the WtE technology is more realistic for
implementation as a source of renewable energy due to strict laws, industrial
advancements, political incentives, and enhanced pollution control techniques
(Rasheed, 2021). Therefore, the current development of WtE technologies and
their potential expansion and growth are more likely in high-income countries.
 2. WtE technologies overview

WtE is the process of turning waste into fuel source or using waste as a
fuel source to generate energy in the form of heat, electricity, or both. The
majority of WtE processes either create a combustible fuel commodity, such as
methane, methanol, ethanol, or synthetic fuels, or they directly generate
electricity and/or heat through combustion.

Municipal solid waste (MSW) not only has a large number of

inconveniences for large cities, but can also serve as a source of energy.
According to Wang et al. (2016) the composition of MSW - wood or food as
biomass materials - is considered as a renewable energy source. WtE
technologies have a positive effect on the development of the socio-economic
sphere of society. WtE may guarantee the sustainability of the energy supply,
becomes an important component of contemporary waste management, and can
lessen reliance on fossil fuels (Xiao et al., 2020). Thus WtE is essential in
addressing a variety of environmental problems, including climate change and
land use.

2.1. The advantages of WtE

Waste to energy technologies have several uncontested advantages.

According to Mühle et al. (2010), WtE can be identified as key GHG mitigation
technology, especially in comparison with greenhouse gases emissions from the
landfilling. Moreover Scarlat et al. (2015) add that the incineration of one ton of
MSW for electricity production can lower the CO2 emission up to 1.3 tons
instead of landfilling. In addition, in contrast to fossil fuel power plants, plants
dealing with waste incineration for energy recovery will produce fewer carbon-
based pollutants associated with vestige based power plants (Patumsawad and
Cliffe, 2002). A functional WtE processing facility has a 30-year lifespan on
average and has the capacity to treat 1 million tons of waste yearly.
Furthermore, the plant requires less than 100,000 m2 of installation area.
Similar to this, 30 million tons of MSW must be dumped on 300,000 square
meters of land (Arena, 2012).
 3. Methods and technologies of WtE

There are many different technologies for converting waste into energy.
These technologies differ both in terms of the type of waste and the method of
manipulation. There are four main types of waste-to-energy conversion: thermal
conversation methods, biochemical methods, chemical and mechanical methods
and new emerging trends of WtE technologies. Figure 3.1. illustrates most
common WtE technologies by type.

Figure 3.1. - Various waste to energy technologies. Adapted from Rasheed et al.
(2021)

3.1. Thermal Conversation Methods

These methods thermally treat the organic matrix already present in the
MSW to produce either gas, heat energy, or fuel oil (Abdel-Shafy and Mansour,
2018). When working with combustible materials (RDF) with a higher heat
value, thermal treatment technology is frequently used.

The operating temperature and external factors are factors for

diversification of these technologies of thermal methods. According to Rasheed
(2021) temperature and environmental conditions directly influence the quality
of product and useful intermediate products of the reaction.

3.1.1. Incineration

Incineration is one of the thermal treatment methods that is utilised

extensively. In this method, controlled combustion is used to raise the
temperature of the MSW. Figure 3.2. illustrates the indepth process of
incineration of waste on the special plant. The incineration method allows to
reduce the volume of MSW and generate electricity or heat. This makes this
method preferable in different states. Especially in countries with low
temperatures, incineration facilities are commonly used nearby citizens'
residences to provide domestic heating. In the process of incineration,
extremities and by-products such as fly ash and bottom ash are formed.
However, it can also be used in other industries such as cement or asphalt
production. Morf et al. (2013) noted that further advances in technology to
increase the use of by-products from incineration will lead to even greater
acceptance of this technology. Moreover, incineration does not require the
pretreatment of waste.

Figure 3.2. - The schematic illustration of the incineration process. Adapted

from Hockenos, 2021
 The effectiveness of the incineration is indicated in latent heat of
vaporisation (LHV). According to the World Bank, According to the Kumar $
Samadder (2017), once the calorific content of MSW reaches 1700 kcal/kg, the
efficacy of the burning process together with energy recovery is regarded to be
advantageous.

The use of incineration technology can be afforded mainly by developed

countries. As Rasheed (2021) points out, the possible reasons are: firstly, high
operational and maintenance capital costs are needed, secondly, it is much
cheaper and more convenient to use land for waste disposal, and thirdly, there is
a lack of technical specialists. Also, the catastrophic composition and
characteristics of the waste require either their preliminary processing or more
advanced filtration technologies. Therefore, real examples of incineration
methods can be seen mostly in developed countries.

Incineration technology in developed countries:

 As Scarlat et al. (2015) state, Japan, Europe and the US and other
developed states use incineration as a primary method for MSW disposal. Japan
can be highlighted as the leading Asian state for MSW incineration technology
due to its rigorous regulations and limited territory. In Japan, about 80% of
MSW is incinerated, which also leads to energy recovery (Wang, 2016). Similar
to this, between 35% and 80% of waste is burned on a bigger scale in many
European states (Reddy, 2011). More than 30% of the MSW in Germany was
treated through waste-to-energy incineration (Wang, 2016). In the northeastern
United States, more than 40% of all solid waste is used to generate energy
through incineration. Finally, in South Korea more than 23% of the renewable
energy produced came from the incineration of MSW. The EU, on the other
hand, gradually turning away from incineration as a waste to energy technology
because of its carbon-intensive process (Makavou, 2021).

3.1.2. Gasification

Gasification is a process of the transformation of organic compounds

into syngas under meticulous conditions of temperature and oxygen. The
primary outcome of the gasification process is the syngas, which is further
applied for the production of energy via combustion process (Rasheed, 2021).
The process also produces chemical feedstock and liquid fuels, for instance
produces combustible gas, hydrogen, synthetic fuels. The Figure 3.3. illustrates
the process of gasification.

Figure 3.3. - The schematic illustration of the gasification process. Adapted

from Stauffer (2009)
 The gasification method has several disadvantages. Due to improper
facility design, a lack of accurate MSW data and characterisation, and low
feedstock quality, the method may be unsuitable for commercial uses for large-
scale manufacturing (Appels et al., 2011). Still, Gasification can be seen as the
best method for processing MSW in terms of energy recovery and
environmental effect. When compared to incineration, gasification technology
may reduce waste volume by 95% and need less extensive flue gas cleaning
(Yap and Nixon, 2015). Gasification is more effective in terms of energy
recovery efficiency and environmental contamination when compared to other
waste-to-energy methods. Therefore, there is a need to develop the gasification
method on a world scale to achieve the most effective results in terms of MSW
energy recovery.

Gasification technology in developed countries:

Till 2007, the number of gasification plants operated in Japan were 85

(Sikarwar et al., 2016). In 2016, the ratio of gasification plants in number to
whole incineration plants in Japan reached about 10% (Kawamoto, 2016). In
comparison with Japan, only few industrial gasification applications exist in
Europe (e.g.: Norway, Germany, England, and Iceland). The Table 3.1.
illustrates the number and the capacity of current gasification plants in
developed states. It proves that Japan is a leading country among all other states
in the field of gasification method of waste to energy technologies.

Table 3.1. - Ten greatest gasification/pyrolysis plants of MSW in the world

3.1.3. Pyrolysis

Another cutting-edge method based on the thermal treatment of MSW is

pyrolysis. It functions at temperatures between 400 and 800 °C without the
aссess of air or oxygen. The heat input, residence time, process temperature,
particle size, and content of the waste all play major roles in determining how
much char, oil, and pyrolysis gas are created throughout the process. More
detailed pyrolysis process is illustrated in Figure 3.4. Yan et al. (2020) describes
the final products of the conversion of biomass in more detail: solid residue rich
in carbon (biochar), the liquid phase from the condensation of released volatile
matter (bio-oil), and the remaining non-condensable gases, such as CO, CO2,
CH4, and H2. The pyrolysis process also generates other by-products. Based on
research by the Gholizadeh et al. (2020) wax, tar, and pyrolysis oil are the
byproducts of the pyrolysis reaction at temperatures lower than 500–550 C. The
principal byproducts of the process are the gases generated by pyrolysis at
increased temperatures more than 700 °C. Such waste content as wood waste,
plastic, electronic equipment, electric waste and tyres etc. are most preferable
for gaining maximum quality of final product through the pyrolysis.

Still, the technology may not be appropriate for commercial purposes for
large-scale production because of poor facility design, a lack of precise MSW
data and characterization, and low feedstock quality (Appels et al., 2011). On
the other hand, pyrolysis has many advantages. The ability of pyrolysis to
produce a mixture of solid, liquid, and gaseous products in various ratios simply
by changing operational parameters like temperature or heating rate has
attracted interest in recent years. Additionally, it offers the chance to convert
low-energy density materials into high-energy density biofuels while
simultaneously recovering high-value compounds (Czajczyńska et al., 2017).

Figure 3.4. - The schematic illustration of the pyrolysis process. Adapted from
Yan et al. (2020)
 Pyrolysis technology in developed countries:

Some developed countries use the pyrolysis method for energy

production. For instance, in Germany pyrolysis was applied for effective energy
generation on the plant in Burgau from 1987 to 2015 (Lombardi et al., 2015).
This factory processed 110 tons of MSW per day. In 2006 the UK invested 32
million pounds in 10 waste treatment projects. Unfortunately, the four
gasification and pyrolysis projects were completely unsuccessful (Tangri &
Wilson, 2017). They also highlight that many of the large-scale commercial
pyrolysis plants built in Europe, the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United
States have had problems sustaining regular operations and providing enough
energy to stay in business. In other cases, as Chavando et al. (2021) state,
pyrolysis has a huge potential of waste treatment implementation in Mexico and
Brazil.

3.2. Biochemical Methods

The main principle of biochemical methods is the converting waste into

energy through the microorganisms' enzymes. Because they are more
environmentally friendly than the other technologies, biochemical technologies
are thus considered to be a potential choice for many states. For the biochemical
processing of waste, biomass is mainly used. Biomass can be turned into
different products, such as hydrogen, biogas, ethanol, acetone, butanol, organic
acids (pyruvate, lactate, oxalic acid, levulinic acid, citric acid), 2,3-butanediol,
1,4-butanediol, isobutanol, xylitol, mannitol, and xanthan gum by selecting
different microorganisms in the process of biochemical conversion (Chen &
Wang, 2016).

3.2.1. Anaerobic digestion

A modern process for turning waste into electricity is anaerobic digestion. It

deals with waste's organic material. In the absence of air, the waste decomposes
with the aid of bacteria while retaining its moisture content in order to produce
biogas and compost. Thusly created biogas contains methane, carbon dioxide,
and other trace components; carbon dioxide and other impurities can be
removed to further purify the biogas. Figure 3.5. Shows the operation of
anaerobic digester. In terms of digester categorization, based on the temperature
range of the digester, they may be divided into mesophilic (30–37 °C) and
thermophilic (50–60 °C) digesters (Rasheed, 2021).

Figure 3.5. - The schematic illustration of the anaerobic digestion process.

Adapted from Tanigawa (2017)

Two-stage anaerobic digestion is a significant advancement in the realm

of renewable and sustainable energy technology that might possibly convert
organic waste into biohythane while simultaneously addressing the problems of
energy scarcity and trash disposal (Raseed, 2021). The two-stage anaerobic
system offers the best process stability, increased energy efficiency, and greater
control over important performance and energy recovery parameters. Referring
to The Official Information Portal on Anaerobic Digestion of UK (2019)
digesting 1 tonne of food waste can generate about 300 kWh of energy.

In general, anaerobic digestion has several advantages. Biogas can be

used for various purposes: heating, cooking, and generating electricity. Also
digestant can be utilised in agriculture applications. Still, there are some
disadvantages, such as low biodegradability, accumulation of solids, poor rates
of digestion, expensive removal of biogas, etc.

Anaerobic digestion technology in developed countries:

Anaerobic digesters and wastewater treatment facilities are frequently

seen next to farms nowadays to decrease nitrogen runoff from manure and the
cost of sludge removal. According to Appunn (2016) in Germany, there are
close to 9,000 anaerobic digestion facilities. Also de Bourgogne (2021)
calculated that the total capacity of AD plants in Germany approximately
reached 5 GW in 2021. They are primarily run by farmers and produce a gas
that is around 50% methane and 50% carbon dioxide from renewable energy
crops like maize or turnips plus manure. In 2020 there were 650 operational AD
facilities in the UK (The Official Information Portal on Anaerobic Digestion,
2019). The institution also states that if all the UK's domestic food waste was
processed by AD, it would generate enough electricity for 350 000 households.
In Japan in 2019, 221 biogas plants with a total capacity of approx. 85 MW
were operating (de Bourgogne, 2021). The United States has 2,200 operating
biogas systems, representing less than 20 percent of the total potential and has a
potential to add 13,500 new biogas systems (Tanigawa, 2017).

3.2.2. Ethanol fermentation

The process of fermentation is used to turn fructose and glucose, which

are found in sugarcane and other fruits, into ethanol, an alternative fuel for
motors. Microorganisms that can ferment alcohol are used in the procedure
(Fernandez-Sandoval et al., 2019). The fermentation process is primarily driven
by two types of microorganisms, ethanologenic and saccharolytic, which co-
metabolize to produce ethanol. The use of waste- based ethanol has a number of
advantages. Compared to fossil fuels or crop-based biofuels (first generation
ethanol), lifecycle CO2 emissions are far lower. According to Hirschnitz-
Garbers & Gosens (2015), when ethanol made from waste is used to its full
capacity, it may reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 110 Mt CO2-eq compared
to gasoline.

Figure 3.6. - Ethanol fermentation example: apple pomace ethanol and

vinasse production overview. Adapted from Hernández et al. (2021)

In addition, there are also a number of factors limiting the development of

Ethanol fermentation. First, bioethanol plants require a constant supply of
feedstock in large quantities. Also, this waste must meet certain characteristics
(for example, organic waste streams from breweries or potato processing
factories are watery solutions of starch or sugars, which do not lend themselves
to economically feasible transport). Bioethanol can be economically
uncompetitive in comparison with other types of biofuels (biogas, etc.), as well
as in comparison with fossil fuels (Hirschnitz-Garbers & Gosens, 2015).

Ethanol fermentation technology in developed countries:

However, ethanol fermentation of wastes for fuel production is

widespread in the world and has the potential for further development. From
Graph 3.1. It can be seen that in 2015 the volume of bioethanol in the world
reached about 130 billion tons and was projected to grow even more. Further, it
can be noted that about half - 42.3% - of all bioethanol produced in 2015 falls
on the United States (Hirschnitz-Garbers & Gosens, 2015).

Graph 3.1. - World biofuels production, historical and projected. Adapted from
Hirschnitz-Garbers & Gosens (2015).

3.2.3. Composting

Under aerobic conditions, biodegradable waste is converted by using

composting into heat, water, carbon dioxide, and compost (a rather stable waste
product). Compost may easily be employed to improve the soil's qualities.
Composting primarily involves three types of microorganisms: bacteria, fungus,
and actinomycetes. Mesophilic microbes first initiate the degradation process,
which is then followed by the production of heat via metabolic processes (Irvine
et al., 2010). The temperature is then increased even further by thermophiles,
reaching 60–65 C. The specific composting configuration includes a static pile
of compost that is stored in an enclosed compost bay and is aerated. To remove
the heat created by microbial metabolism, an aerated fan is employed.

Despite this method's performance, there aren't many examples of

successful thermal energy utilisation. Additionally, combining different types of
trash during composting may introduce heavy metals into the food chain. In
addition, Marjolaine states (2021) that composting of food waste is inefficient
and slow even if the waste volumes for potential composting are orgomous.

Composting technology in developed countries:

In the EU treatment of separately collected bio-waste is dominated by

composting, while anaerobic digestion, with biogas production, is increasing
(Van der Linden & Reichel, 2020). Still, composting in the UE is not treated as
a source of energy generation, only a way of waste treatment.

4. Conclusion

To conclude, waste is a serious problem of the modern world: developed states

produce too much waste; developing states are not able to properly treat what
they have. Moreover, speaking of waste to energy technologies, it has the
potential to deal with both problems of excessive waste and lack of energy. The
most common WTE technologies in developed countries are thermal methods
(incineration, gasification). However, There is still controversy over listing
incineration as a green energy source.
Bibliography

Abdel-Shafy, H.I., Mansour, M.S. (2018). Solid waste issue: sources,

composition, disposal, recycling, and valorization. Egyptian
journal of petroleum 27, 1275–1290.

Appels, L., Lauwers, J., Degr`eve, J., Helsen, L., Lievens, B., Willems,
K., Van Impe, J., Dewil, R. (2011). Anaerobic digestion in global
bio-energy production: potential and research challenges. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 15, 4295–4301.

Appunn, K. (2016, September 30). Biogas in Germany's energy

transition: Bioenergy - the troubled pillar of the Energiewende.
Clean Energy Wire.
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/dossiers/bioenergy-germany

Arena, U., 2012. Process and technological aspects of municipal solid

waste gasification. A review. Waste management 32, 625–639.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.09.025

Chavando, J. A. M., Silva, V., Guerra, D. R. D. S., Eusébio, D., Cardoso,

J. S., & Tarelho, L. A. (2021). Review Chapter: Waste to Energy
through Pyrolysis and Gasification in Brazil and Mexico.
Gasification, 3. https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/77109

Chen, H., & Wang, L. (2016). Technologies for biochemical conversion

of biomass. Academic Press, 1-10.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780128024171/technologies-
for-biochemical-conversion-of-biomass

Czajczyńska, D., Anguilano, L., Ghazal, H., Krzyżyńska, R., Reynolds,

A. J., Spencer, N., & Jouhara, H. (2017). Potential of pyrolysis
processes in the waste management sector. Thermal science and
engineering progress, 3, 171-197.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451904917300
690

de Bourgogne, R. M. (2021). The Market for Biogas Plants in Ja-pan and

Opportunities for EU Com-panies.
 https://www.ecos.eu/de/publikationen/factsheets.html?file=files/co
ntent/downloads/publikationen/REPORT_Biogas_2021.pdf

Fern´andez-Sandoval, M.T., Galíndez-Mayer, J., Bolívar, F., Gosset, G.,

Ramírez, O.T., Martinez, A., 2019. Xylose–glucose co-
fermentation to ethanol by Escherichia coli strain MS04 using
single-and two-stage continuous cultures under micro-aerated
conditions. Microb. Cell Factories 18, 1–11.
https://microbialcellfactories.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/
s12934-019-1191-0

Gholizadeh, M., Li, C., Zhang, S., Wang, Y., Niu, S., Li, Y., Hu, X.
(2020). Progress of the development of reactors for pyrolysis of
municipal waste. Sustainable Energy & Fuels 4, 5885–5915. Goud,
R.K., Sarkar, O., Chiranjeevi

Hernández, D., Rebolledo-Leiva, R., Fernández-Puratich, H., Quinteros-

Lama, H., Cataldo, F., Muñoz, E., & Tenreiro, C. (2021).
Recovering apple agro-industrial waste for bioethanol and vinasse
joint production: Screening the potential of chile. Fermentation,
7(4), 203. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation7040203

Hirschnitz-Garbers, M., & Gosens, J. (2015). Producing bio-ethanol from

residues and wastes. A technology with enormous potential in need
of further research and development. Policy Brief, 5, 1-5.
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/green_semester/pdf/R
ecreate_PB_2015_SEI.PDF

Hockenos, P. (2021, May 26). Waste to Energy – Controversial power

generation by incineration. Clean Energy Wire.
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/waste-energy-
controversial-power-generation-incineration

Irvine, G., Lamont, E., Antizar-Ladislao, B., 2010. Energy from waste:
reuse of compost heat as a source of renewable energy. Int. J.
Chem. Eng. 1–11, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/627930

Kawamoto, K. (2016). Waste-to-energy status in Japan. Expert Group

Meeting on Sustainable Application of Waste-to-Energy in Asian
Region. United Nations.
 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/unosd/documents/37
8110.Japan%20(Kawamoto)presen.pdf

Kaza, S., Shrikanth, S., & Chaudhary, S. (2021). More Growth, Less
Garbage. World Bank Publications.

Kaza, S., Yao, L., Bhada-Tata, P., & Van Woerden, F. (2018). What a
waste 2.0: a global snapshot of solid waste management to 2050.
World Bank Publications.

Khatib, I. A. (2011). Municipal solid waste management in developing

countries: Future challenges and possible opportunities. Integrated
waste management, 2, 35-48.
https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/18479

Kumar, A., Samadder, S.R. (2017). A review on technological options of

waste to energy for effective management of municipal solid waste.
Waste Manag. 69, 407–422.

Lombardi, L., Carnevale, E., Corti, A. (2015). A review of technologies

and performances of thermal treatment systems for energy recovery
from waste. Waste Manag. 37, 26–44. Lu, J.-W., Zhang,

Makavou, K. (2021). The EU is clear: Waste-To-Energy incineration has

no place in the sustainability agenda. Zero Waste Europe, 26.
https://zerowasteeurope.eu/2021/05/wte-incineration-no-place-
sustainability-agenda/

Marjolaine (2021). Turning Food Waste Into Energy To Power Homes.

Biogas World. https://www.biogasworld.com/news/turning-food-
waste-into-energy-to-power-homes/

Morf, L.S., Gloor, R., Haag, O., Haupt, M., Skutan, S., Di Lorenzo, F.,
B¨oni, D. (2013). Precious metals and rare earth elements in
municipal solid waste–sources and fate in a Swiss incineration
plant. Waste Manag. 33, 634–644.

Mühle, S., Balsam, I., & Cheeseman, C. R. (2010). Comparison of carbon

emissions associated with municipal solid waste management in
Germany and the UK. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
 54(11), 793-
801.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.12.009Get

Patumsawad, S., Cliffe, K.R., 2002. Experimental study on fluidised bed

combustion of high moisture municipal solid waste. Energy
Convers. Manag. 43, 2329–2340. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-
8904(01)00179-0

Rasheed, T., Anwar, M. T., Ahmad, N., Sher, F., Khan, S. U. D., Ahmad,
A., ... & Wazeer, I. (2021). Valorisation and emerging perspective
of biomass based waste-to-energy technologies and their socio-
environmental impact: A review. Journal of environmental
management, 287, 112257.

Reddy, P.J. (2011). Municipal Solid Waste Management, vol. 9. CRC

Press/Balkema. Retrieved October, The Netherlands, pp. 2012–
2016.

Scarlat, N., Motola, V., Dallemand, J., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Mofor, L.

(2015). Evaluation of energy potential of municipal solid waste
from African urban areas. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 50, 1269–
1286.

Scarlat, N., Motola, V., Dallemand, J., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Mofor, L.,
2015. Evaluation of energy potential of municipal solid waste from
African urban areas. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 50, 1269–1286.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.05.067

Shershneva, E. G. (2022, February). Analysis of Correlation between

Waste Accumulation and Countries Welfare Level. In IOP
Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 988,
No. 2, p. 022034). IOP Publishing.

Stauffer, N. W. (2009, July 1). Turning waste into clean fuels. MIT
Energy Initiative. https://energy.mit.edu/news/turning-waste-into-
clean-fuels/

Tangri, N., & Wilson, M. (2017). Waste gasification & pyrolysis: High
risk, low yield processes for waste management. A Technology
Risk Analysis. Report.
https://www.no-burn.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Waste-
 Gasification-and-Pyrolysis-high-risk-low-yield-processes-march-
2017.pdf

Tanigawa, S. (2017). Fact Sheet: Biogas--Converting Waste to Energy.

Environmental and Energy Study Institute.
https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-biogasconverting-
waste-to-energy

The Official Information Portal on Anaerobic Digestion (2019).

Anaerobic Digestion: FAQs.
https://www.biogas-info.co.uk/about/faqs/

The World Bank (2018, September). Global Waste to Grow by 70 Percent

by 2050 Unless Urgent Action is Taken: World Bank Report. Press
release. The World Bank Group.

United Nations Environment Programme (2010, March 18). Trends in

Solid Waste Management: Management: Issues, Issues, Challenges
and Opportunities. Division of Technology, Industry and
Economics International Environmental Technology Centre. United
Nations Environment Programme.
https://www.un.org/esa/dsd/susdevtopics/sdt_pdfs/meetings2010/ic
m0310/1a_Surya_Chandak.pdf

Van der Linden, A., & Reichel, A. (2020). Biowaste in Europe–Turning

challenges into opportunities. European Environment Agency.
https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/bio-waste-in-europe/downl
oad

Wang, Y., Lai, N., Zuo, J., Chen, G., & Du, H. (2016). Characteristics
and trends of research on waste-to-energy incineration: A
bibliometric analysis, 1999–2015. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 66, 95-104.

Xiao, H., Li, Z., Jia, X., & Ren, J. (2020). Waste to energy in a circular
economy approach for better sustainability: a comprehensive
review and SWOT analysis. Waste-to-Energy, 23-43.

Yan, M., Zhang, S., Wibowo, H., Grisdanurak, N., Cai, Y., Zhou, X., &
Kanchanatip, E. (2020). Biochar and pyrolytic gas properties from
pyrolysis of simulated municipal solid waste (SMSW) under
 pyrolytic gas atmosphere. Waste Disposal & Sustainable Energy,
2(1), 37-46.

Yap, H., Nixon, J. (2015). A multi-criteria analysis of options for energy

recovery from municipal solid waste in India and the UK. Waste
Manag. 46, 265–277.