Renewable Energy 149 (2020) 1386e1394

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Incineration of municipal solid waste in Brazil: An analysis of the

economically viable energy potential
Leo Jaymee de Vilas Boas da Silva a, Ivan Felipe Silva dos Santos b, *,
Johnson Herlich Roslee Mensah b, Andriani Tavares Teno
rio Gonçalves c,
b
Regina Mambeli Barros
a
(UNIFEI - MG), Brazil
Natural Resources Institute, Federal University of Itajuba
b
(UNIFEI - MG), GEER e Renewable Energy Group, Brazil
Natural Resources Institute, Federal University of Itajuba
c
Institute of Management and Production, Federal University of Itajuba
(UNIFEI - MG), Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In Brazil, most Urban Solid Waste (USW) is disposed of in loosely controlled and low-quality dumps and
Received 30 April 2019 landfills. One of the alternatives for improved management is incineration. This largely reduces the
Received in revised form amount of waste in sanitary landfills, in turn enabling energy generation, which is encouraged by the
14 August 2019
Brazilian National Policy on Solid Waste (PNRS). In order to further the debate for the application of
Accepted 24 October 2019
Available online 25 October 2019
incineration plants in Brazil, the present study presents an energy and economic analysis. Calculations
were carried out for different population groups in order to determine the minimum population and the
respective waste generation to make an incineration plant viable. The country’s energy potential was also
Keywords:
Urban solid waste
estimated as a function of the energy tariff. The results show that the energy produced through incin-
Incinerators eration can provide power to an average of 15% of the waste generating population. The viable energy
Energy potential and economic viability potential in the country was confirmed only for scenarios with higher energy sales tariffs than those
currently applied on the Brazilian market. These results indicate the need for government intervention in
order to make this technology economically viable, which would in turn reduce inadequate waste
disposal throughout the country.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
With an increasing global population, industrial development
and an ever-growing demand for consumer goods, these factors
have coalesced, resulting in a significant increase of the daily pro-
duction of Urban Solid Waste (USW) [1,2]. Collection and disposal of
USW are among the greatest challenges currently faced in many
countries. Solutions must be technically feasible, economically
sustainable, socially and legally acceptable, as well as environ-
mentally friendly [3].
In 2016, two billion tons of USW were generated around the
world, resulting in a daily average generation of 0.74 kg/person.
With rapid population growth and urbanization, global waste
generation is expected to increase by as much as 70% compared to
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: leovilasboas13@gmail.com (L.J.V.B. Silva), ivanfelipedeice@
hotmail.com (I.F.S. Santos), mjherlich@gmail.com (J.H.R. Mensah), andriani_dri@
yahoo.com.br (A.T.T. Gonçalves), remambeli@hotmail.com (R.M. Barros).
2016 [4]. In Brazil, this global trend is also seen, where the daily
generated amount grew 39% between 2007 and 2016, totaling
214,405 tons per day [5,6].
All of these factors make waste disposal one of the biggest
challenges in Brazil. Of the amount collected, only 58.4% was
correctly disposed of in landfills in 2016 (the only form of adequate
disposal widely used in the country). This is a 0.3% decrease when
compared to 2015, when a total of 29.7 million tons of waste were
sent to inadequate units such as dumps and lower-quality landfills
[6]. Due to waste management in the country, Green House Gas
emissions exceeded 90 million tons of CO2 in 2016.57.5% of these
emissions were due to final waste disposal [7]. These data
demonstrate how final disposal methods still do not meet the
National Solid Waste Policy (PNRS) efforts [8] to do away with
landfills and seek appropriate alternatives for USW disposal.
Leme et al. (2014) [9] compared incineration with landfills (both
with and without energy recovery) through a life-cycle analysis.
According to the authors, incineration is more advantageous than
landfills in all environmental matters except for human toxicity

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.10.134
0960-1481/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 L.J.V.B. Silva et al. / Renewable Energy 149 (2020) 1386e1394 1387

potential. Cherubini et al. (2009) [10] classify landfills (also through
a life-cycle analysis) as the worst environmental option for USW
disposal. One of the options for reducing the wide use of landfills is
through incineration. This option is encouraged by the PNRS [8]
when applied with energy recovery, provided that the technical
and environmental feasibility of the project is ensured [11].
The main purpose of the incineration process is to get the oxy-
gen to react with combustible components that are present in the
residues (oxygen, carbon, sulfur) at temperatures above 800
C,
thus converting their chemical energy into heat. Solid waste has a
high calorific value, especially for those found in plastics, paper and
rubber [12].
In addition to incineration, there are other USW energy con-
version routes such as pyrolysis, gasification, anaerobic digestion,
ethanol fermentation, dark fermentation, among others [13].
Several studies have compared these types of technology under
different perspectives, such as economic, energy, environmental
[14e16]. In environmental terms, Dong et al. (2018) [15] obtained,
through a Life Cycle Analysis (LCA), better results for a gasification
plant than those of incineration in all the analyzed aspects.
In energy and economic terms, Tan et al. (2015) [14] obtained
better results (higher energy production and lower cost per ton of
waste) for incineration than for gasification when analyzing waste
management in a Malaysian city. Clearly these results may vary
depending on the type of waste, as well as the scale and efficiency
of the system and studied region. It is noteworthy that Henriquez
(2016) [17], when studying the situation in Brazil, concludes that a
system integrating tailings gasification, anaerobic digestion of
organic matter and recycling is the ideal system in environmental
terms, although integrated systems may present less economic
viability [18]. Table 1 summarizes the advantages and disadvan-
tages of power generation technologies from USW.
Incineration plants require an exhaust gas control and treatment
system. This is one of its main drawbacks, leading to high costs [12].
Reducing hazardous emissions from incineration is a theme
constantly investigated in the literature. As an example, we can cite
Silva Filho et al. (2019) [23], who proposed a reactor model that
combines pyrolysis and incineration powered by a mixture of USW
and Wood Chips, a mixture with high calorific value. With this
apparatus, the authors were able to minimize emissions of com-
pounds such as HCl, dioxins and furans, achieving emissions below
the legal standards of Brazil and several other international envi-
ronmental agencies. Such innovations are important for the future
of incineration and power generation from USW. A complete re-
view of the evolution and improvement of gaseous effluent treat-
ment methods in incineration plants over the last decades can be
found in Ref. [24].
As a result of these high costs, this technology is not imple-
mented globally and thus concentrated mainly in three regions of
the world: Europe, Asia and North America, as shown in the map
seen in Fig. 1. Nevertheless, the potential of incineration in regions
of the world where this technology is not widespread is very high.
To cite the example of the African continent, Scarlat et al. (2015)
[25] obtained a potential of 34 TWh/y for wastes collected in the
region in 2012.
Based on these facts, research that assesses energy generation
and economic potential for USW incineration in regions or coun-
tries where it is not widespread, such as Brazil, is relevant because
it encourages discussion about this technology, quantifies its ben-
efits, attracts investments and makes it possible to include in
planning waste management and energy generation.
Studies of this type have been carried out by several authors
who have investigated such matters in Brazil. Santos et al. (2019)
[18] evaluated the level of electricity generation costs for inciner-
ating in several scenarios for the city of Sao Jose dos Campos (SP,
Brazil), which has a population of approximately 600,000 in-
habitants. The authors obtained a range of 113.32e183.24 USD/
MWh, which was considerably higher than other energy recovery
options studied by the authors, such as landfill disposal
(69.9e107.7) and solid waste methanization (103.5e156), thus
demonstrating the difficulty in applying economically viability of
the incineration practice in Brazil. Values close to these were also
obtained by Nordi et al. (2017) [27], who studied various waste
management scenarios considering incineration, recycling and
anaerobic digestion, in a Brazilian city, finding generation costs
ranging from 80 to 150 USD/MWh.

Table 1
Advantages and disadvantages of key solid waste energy generation technologies. Compiled by the authors based on [12,13,18e22].

Technology Advantage Disadvantages

Incineration  Small installation areas  Potentially high concentration of metals in the ashes
 Energy recovery during USW combustion through electric generation  Elevated operation and maintenance costs
or cogeneration  Particle emissions, SOx, NOx and chlorinated compounds (such as dioxins and
 High yield and continuous feed furans) which require a rigorous gas treatment system
 Low generation of noise and odor  Inviable results for wastes with high moisture content (low calorific value) or
 Plant installation within the city limits, thus reducing transport costs chlorinated com-pounds (for the risk of toxic gas emissions)
 Greater reduction of the waste volume to be disposed of in landfills  High costs
Pyrolysis  Produce high-quality fuel (Char, bio-oil and syngas)  Oily liquid products have high water content due to moisture in feedstock
 Reduce flue gas treatment  Coke formation from liquid products
 Suitable for carbonous waste  High viscosity of pyrolysis
 Up to 80% energy recovery rate  High operating, maintenance and capital cost
 Smaller NOx and SO2 emissions
 Washing of syngas before combustion
 Higher quality solid residues; high calorific value products (~38 MJ/kg)
 Ease in transporting liquid fuel
Gasification 
 Production of fuel gas/oil, which can be used for several purposes Tar production
 Waste volume reduction up to 90%  More suitable for large scale power plants using Rankine cycle
 Easily expanding technology  Higher capital and operating costs
 Can be used for all kinds of wastes  Immature, inflexible technology with risk of failure
 Corrosion of metal tubes during reaction
Anaerobic  Preferred for biomass with high water content  Unsuitable for wastes containing less organic matter
digestion  Higher composition of methane (CH4) and lower composition of  Lignin can persist for very extended periods of time to degrade
carbon dioxide (CO2) than landfills
 Suitable for organic matter
 Production of fertilizers
1388 L.J.V.B. Silva et al. / Renewable Energy 149 (2020) 1386e1394
Fig. 1. Global distribution of waste incineration in percentage of residual waste after recycling [26].
Lino and Ismail (2017) [28] studied the energetic potential of
USW incineration in Campinas (SP, Brazil e a city with a population
of approximately 1,200,000 inhabitants). They concluded that the
electricity generated through this practice could supply as many as
135,680 houses with electricity and generate an income of
approximately 5.8 million USD per month. According to Dalmo
et al. [29], the implantation of USW incineration plants in the state
of Sao Paulo could generate up to 5.7 TWh, a potential capable of
meeting 79% of the state’s energy demand. Waste incineration in
just 16 major Brazilian cities could replace 1.8% of total domestic
electricity consumption throughout the country [30].
An important parameter for incineration is waste material
composition. This varies depending on the city, level of urbaniza-
tion, population income, etc. [13,31]. The average organic matter
content in Brazilian waste (51.4% [32]) is a typical level of middle-
income countries [33]. Waste of major interest for incineration is
USW fractions that have high calorific value, such as plastics, paper,
cardboard and rubbers [12]. Organic matter has higher moisture
content and can hinder the process. However, the use of organic
matter in incineration helps to reduce the volume of these residues
and has been a scenario considered by several authors studying
these techniques in Brazil [12,28].
In the context described above, the advantages and limitations
of incineration, the importance of adequate waste disposal in Brazil,
along with the need to evaluate economic and energy generation
potential for USW incineration plants, all fit into the objectives in
this study. The objective here is to evaluate the viability of the total
energy potential and the viable energy potential of USW incinera-
tion in Brazil and, based on the results obtained, discuss the op-
portunities and limitations of incineration implementation in the
country. This paper brings forth a new proposal in that the esti-
mation of energy potential and economic viability of incineration
can be seen as a function of population, with the objective of
calculating the viable energy potential in the country. The meth-
odology can be replicated in other regions or for other wastes,
promoting important discussions about energy planning and waste
management.
2. Methodology
The methodology applied is based on the energy and economic
calculation of the implantation of incineration plants for different
population sizes, obtain a complete analysis of the parameters in
function of the population, and estimate a minimum population
that makes such a venture feasible. Once this population is defined,
it is possible to determine the total potential of economically viable
energy derived from the proposed incineration plants throughout
Brazil. This methodology was followed by studies such as Barros
et al. (2014) [34] (for disposal of USW in landfills), Luz et al. (2015)
[35] (for gasification of USW) and Bernal et al. (2017) [36] (in their
studies on the relation of a ton of ground cane and the economic
viability of a biogas plant from the sugar cane vinasse). The
following section details each step of this methodology.
2.1. Population definitions and calculation of waste generation
Calculations were performed for nine sets of population data
(2000; 5000; 10,000; 20,000; 50,000; 100,000; 500,000;
1,000,000; and 3,000,000) established based on the upper limits of
the population sizes defined by the Brazilian Institute of Geography
and Statistics [37]. The daily waste generation for each population
range was calculated using Equation (1). Due to the lack of more
detailed data, and to the fact that present work calculations do not
refer to a specific locality but rather to population ranges, the
Brazilian average gravimetric composition (presented in Table 2)
was used to calculate the production of each type of residue in each
analyzed population class (using Equation (2)).Where: R ¼ waste
production (t/day); Pop ¼ population and IG ¼ per capita waste
generation index (kg/person day), Fi ¼ fraction of each type of
residue removed from the gravimetric composition (Table A of
supplementary materials e [38]) and Ri ¼ daily production of
each type of residue. The IG index was obtained through data from
the National Sanitation Information System (SNIS) and can be seen
in Table A of supplementary materials [38]. Only solid waste with
greater calorific value of the following substances were considered
 L.J.V.B. Silva et al. / Renewable Energy 149 (2020) 1386e1394 1389

Table 2 Present Value (NPV) and Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE). In

Average gravimetric composition of urban solid waste in Brazil. Source: addition, investment costs corresponding to the acquisition and
Adopted from Ref. [32].
installation of the equipment was also considered.
Pop ,IG Equation (8) allows the calculation of NPV. When NPV values are
R¼ ð%Þ (1)
1000 positive, the investment proposal is economically viable. Addi-
tionally, the greater the NPV, the more attractive the proposal [40].
Ri ¼ R,Fi (2)
The LCOE (Equation (9)) represents the minimum rate of sale of
energy that makes the investment economically viable. In other
words, if the energy sales tariff is higher than the LCOE, then the
Wastes Percentage (%)
proposal is economically viable [41,42].
Metals 2.9
Steel 2.3 Xm
ðE,TÞ  Co&m
Aluminum 0.6 NPV ¼ eI (7)
Paper, cardboard and tetrapak 13.1 t¼1
ð1 þ iÞn
Total plastic 13.5
Plastic film 8.9 Pm
Rigid Plastic 4.6 Cn
t¼1 ð1þiÞn
Glass 2.4 LCOE ¼ Pm En
(8)
Organic matter 51.4 t¼1 ð1þiÞn
Others 16.7
Total 100
Where: Cn ¼ cost of the enterprise per year in USD; i ¼ interest rate;
I ¼ initial investment in USD; Co & m ¼ cost of operation and
maintenance in USD/year; t ¼ energy sales tariff in USD/MWh;
in the calculations: organic matter, plastic, paper, cardboard and m ¼ project life and n ¼ year of analysis.
tetrapak. The value adopted for interest rate i corresponds to the current
value of the minimum rate obtained at the Central Bank of Brazil,
2.2. Energy calculations equal to 6.5% per year with a risk factor of 2.5% [43]. The costs of
installation I of the enterprise were obtained through Equation (9)
Based on heat-generating values for each type of residue pre- as a function of the electric power in kW according to Ref. [44].
sented in Table 3, the total heat value (Equations (3) and (4)) was
calculated [12,18]. The available power and the energy produced by I ¼ 15; 797 , P 0:82 (9)
the incinerator were calculated using Equation (5) [9] and 6 [39].
The costs for operation and maintenance (Co & m) were adopted
as 4% of the initial investment (according to Ref. [44]). For the
LCVi ¼ LCV,Fi ,k1 (3)
calculation of annual revenues, the energy sales tariff was set at
51.01 USD/MWh: the A-4 generation auction ceiling for the Bra-
X
m
LCVTotal ¼ LCVi (4) zilian National Electric Energy Agency (ANEEL) for gas-fired ther-
i¼1 mal power plants in 2018 [45].

P ¼ LCVTotal ,h ,R,k2 (5) 2.4. Potential calculations and sensitivity analyses

In order to achieve economic viability (NPV> 0 and LCOE < T), it

E ¼ P,CF ,8; 760 (6)
was necessary to determine the minimum population (Popmin) that
would contribute to the total amount of waste sent to the incin-
Where: LCV ¼ lower calorific value of each type of residue in kcal/
erator. The population classes and population distribution by size of
kg (Table 3); k1 ¼ conversion constant from kcal/kg to kJ/
Brazilian municipalities presented by Ref. [37] were then used to
kg ¼ 4.184; LCVi calorific value contained in each RSU fraction in kJ/
adjust a regression curve to determine the percentage of resident
kg; LCVTotal ¼ total calorific value of the residue in kJ/kg; h ¼ elec-
population, up to a certain population value of Y. This curve is
tric recovery of all energy generation systems from incinera-
shown in Fig. 2. Subtracting this curve from the value of 100%, it is
tion ¼ 22% (obtained in Ref. [12]); k2 ¼ unit adjustment constant so
possible to determine the municipalities with a population higher
that the resulting power is in kW ¼ 0.01157; P ¼ electric power in
than a certain value (parameter here called %Pop) (According to
kW; 8760 ¼ number of hours per year; CF ¼ capacity factor adopted
Equation (10)).Where: Y ¼ Percentage of the Brazilian population
as being equal to 80% [12] and E ¼ electric energy produced in kWh/
that inhabits cities with populations lesser than a given population;
year.
% Pop ¼ Percentage of the Brazilian population that inhabits cities
with a population greater than a given Pop population.
2.3. Economic calculations The minimum to obtain viability (Popmin) can be used in Equa-
tion (10) to determine the percentage of the population residing in
For the economic considerations of this study, two viability cities with populations greater than (Popmin). With this result, and
evaluation parameters were used for each population size: Net considering the total Brazilian population (209.3 million), the total
population residing in cities where urban solid waste incineration
plants are economically viable, was calculated by applying the
Table 3
Lower calorific value. Source: Adapted from Ref. [12].
energy equations to this value (Equations (3)e(6)), thus resulting in
the total viable energy potential in the country.
USW LCV on Wet basis kcal/kg Moisture (%)
Finally, a sensitivity analysis was conducted with the objective
Organic matter 712 25 of observing the impact of the increase of the energy tariff on Popmin
Plastic 8193 3 and the viable potential of every country, a result that furthers
Paper and cardboard 2729 5
relevant discussions about the Brazilian energy scenario.
1390 L.J.V.B. Silva et al. / Renewable Energy 149 (2020) 1386e1394

Fig. 2. Distribution of the percentage of Brazilian population, by population bands.

   
%Pop ¼ 100  Y ¼ 100  13:606 , ln Pop  112:28 (10)

3. Results which currently suffers from rising levels of thermal generation

3.1. Energy calculations
Through Equation (5), annual energy production values for each
population range were obtained and can be seen in Table 4. With a
population of 1,000,000 inhabitants, the installed capacity of waste
incineration is 14.1 MW, equal to a small hydropower plant (which
in Brazil is projected between 5 and 30 MW [46]). According to
Fernandes (2016) [47], who studied energy recovery for landfills in
several Brazilian cities, the average power generated from biogas is
5 W/city inhabitant. Thus, a city with 1,000,000 inhabitants would
have an installed capacity of 5 MW. It is thus observed that the
power of the incinerator is about 2.8 times higher than that
generated by sanitary landfill biogas for the same waste stream. The
energy generated by this same population reaches almost
100 GWh/year. Given that the average residential consumption in
Brazil is 160 (kWh/month) [48] and considering an average of three
residents per household [49], one can conclude that the energy
produced could power 51,607 residences or 154,820 inhabitants;
that is, 15.4% of the population. These results demonstrate the
substantial energy potential of incineration.
These data show that incineration can be an option for
contributing to a greater portion of the national energy matrix,
from fossil fuels and recurring reductions in the volumes of hy-
droelectric reservoirs due to the scarcity of rainfall. In addition, the
growth of large-scale incineration on the national energy grid
would provide support for the insertion of intermittent renewable
sources, which require sources that provide stability to the system.
3.2. Economic analysis
The economic results are provided in Table 5. When analyzing
Table 5, it can be noticed that for the current energy sale price
values, all population sizes present negative NPV results, thus
making the investment inviable; this is due to the high investment
costs related to construction. This is mainly caused by the emission
control and treatment stations [12].
Table 5 shows that although the NPV became increasingly
negative as the population increases (due to the increase in initial
investment), LCOE values decreased according to the population
size and demonstrated that the required rate for viability reduces as
the scale of the enterprise increases. Using the LCOE and population
data, one can construct Fig. 3, where it is observed that the behavior
of LCOE as a function of population best fits a logarithmic curve,
presenting a high correlation coefficient (R2 ¼ 0.968). The trend
curve can be used for the initial LCOE estimation for incineration

Table 4
Energy and power production.

Population (inhabitants) Waste generation (t/d) Power (kW) Energy (MWh/y)

2000 1.4 26.8 187.5

5000 3.4 66.9 468.8
10,000 6.9 133.8 937.6
20,000 13.7 267.6 1875.2
50,000 35.1 684.1 4794.4
100,000 70.2 1368.3 9588.9
500,000 331.5 6461.3 45,280.9
1,000,000 725.4 14,138.9 99,085.4
3,000,000 2386.8 46,521.6 326,023.1
 L.J.V.B. Silva et al. / Renewable Energy 149 (2020) 1386e1394 1391

Table 5
Net present value (NPV) and LCOE results.

Population (inhabitants) Investment (USD) Operation and maintenance costs (USD/y) Revenues (USD/y) NPV (USD) LCOE (USD/MWh) Unit cost (USD/kW)

2000 269,015.8 10,760.6 14,424.4 278.651,3 235.4 10,037.9

5000 570,280.6 22,811.2 36,060.9 561.398,2 199.6 8524.4
10,000 1,006,776.8 40,271.1 72,121.8 945.876,1 176.2 7524.5
20,000 1,777,369.8 71,094.8 144,243.5 1.579.416,3 155.5 6641.9
50,000 3,837,882.4 153,515.3 368,804.4 3.103.947,0 131.3 5610.1
100,000 6,775,420.4 271,016.8 737,608.8 5.017.254,0 115.9 4951.7
500,000 24,195,595.8 967,823.8 3,483,152.8 13.378.386,6 87.7 3744.6

plants in Brazil, which helps in the elaboration of economic studies
and the potential of these plants in the country while collaborating
with the development of this technology.
The minimum LCOE value was 61.5 USD/MWh (for 3 million
inhabitants), still 10.5 more than the 51.0 USD/MWh tariff for the
sale of thermoelectric power plants in Brazil. Therefore, a higher
specific tariff for USW incineration energy sales in Brazilian bidding
processes would need to be created, which would consider LCOE
variations according to the population and installed power so that
incineration plants could become economically viable. In this way,
the curve in Fig. 3 can be used as an auxiliary tool to define such
tariffs.
In analyzing the unit cost data, it can be seen that these rates are
generally higher than those of other renewable energy sources such
as wind power (around 1360 USD/kW) and small hydroelectric
plants (1670 USD/kW) [50]. Unit incineration costs are only
beginning to approach those of biogas (around 2700 USD/kW) for
populations of around 3 million. This also reinforces the high costs
of incineration.
As presented by Santos et al. (2019) [18] and previously dis-
cussed, USW incineration generates more energy than other energy
recovery options. By generating more energy from waste, less fossil
fuel energy will be required and a smaller amount of CO2 will be
emitted into the atmosphere. In addition, incineration drastically
reduces USW volume, thereby reducing disposal in landfills and
generating geographical preservation as well as reducing the
environmental impacts of these structures. The creation of inter-
municipal consortia, where the waste from nearby cities is sent to
a single waste treatment unit, can contribute not only to the in-
crease of energy production in these plants, but also to waste
management throughout an entire region. Therefore, it is necessary
to create mechanisms that convert the environmental benefits of
this technology into economic ones, thereby increasing the reve-
nues of these projects and facilitating their financial viability.
Another way to increase the financial attractiveness of inciner-
ation (especially in smaller cities) is the application of the distrib-
uted energy generation market. This market has been developing
recently throughout the country due to policies adopted by ANEEL,
both by Resolution No. 482/2012 [51] and by Resolution No. 687/
2015 [52]. The Resolution stipulates that projects with a capacity of
up to 3 MW may benefit from this policy. In turn, this allows an
entrepreneur to invest in one form of generation and use the en-
ergy produced to reduce the demand of other units or companies
that are registered under the same document.
Entrepreneur income will grow, due to the economy with the
purchase of energy from the distributor, whose tariff is higher than
the sale in government biddings. According to the Brazilian Asso-
ciation of Energy Distributors (ABRADEE) [53], the value of the
energy tariff in this market is close to 165 USD/MWh. Comparing
this value to the LCOE values presented in Table 5, populations of up
to 220,000 inhabitants could apply USW incineration in the
distributed generation market. Viability in this market would be
obtained for population values between 20,000 and 220,000
inhabitants.

Fig. 3. Variation of LCOE with population.

1392 L.J.V.B. Silva et al. / Renewable Energy 149 (2020) 1386e1394
It is worth mentioning that the calculations of the present study
were carried out without considering importation taxes levied on
the equipment. Therefore, the creation of a national industry that
allows the localized production of this technology, reducing the
initial investment costs, is fundamental to the development of the
incineration plants within Brazilian borders. The creation of this
industry can also collaborate with the generation of jobs and
development of the national economy.
3.3. Sensitivity analysis
The impacts of the increased energy sales tariff on the energy
and economic potential of the incineration were analyzed using
NPV as a parameter. The NPV ratio curves by population were
calculated for different values of energy sales tariffs from 51 USD/
MWh (current value) to 129 USD/MWh at a rate of 26 USD/MWh.
Fig. 4 illustrates how such a variation occurs.
It is observed that higher values for energy sales tariff result in a
more positively inclined curve. This indicates greater attractiveness
for investment. The tariffs stipulated here exceed the values
adopted by ANEEL in energy auctions, thus making these scenarios
consider the government’s actions which encourage incineration
rates. From Fig. 4, the minimum population (Popmin) values for
incineration viability were obtained for each of the tariffs analyzed.
The relationship between Popmin and T is presented in Table 6. For
T ¼ 51 USD/MWh, no population size attained viable results. With
the Popmin values, one can calculate the population that could be
benefited only by economically viable incineration plants (through
Equation (10)) and the feasible energy potential in the country
(Table 6).
With tariff increases, the increase in the population who would
receive power is significant, showing an average increase of USD 1/
MWh. This, in turn, would result in an increase of the viable energy
potential throughout the country by an average of 165 GWh/year,
demonstrating the overall impact of the energy tariff on a national
level.
In the best scenarios (T ¼ 129 USD/MWh), incineration is
feasible for more than half of the Brazilian population (more than
120 million inhabitants). As the per capita waste generation index
in Brazil is close to 1.03 kg/person/day [6], the total generation of
waste in this scenario, which would not be sent to landfills. That
would add up to nearly 123.6 thousand tons/year. This is a
Fig. 4. Effect of the variation of the energy sales tariff on the NPV.
considerable reduction in the areas required for waste burial while
also avoiding possible soil and groundwater contamination caused
by the disposal of waste in incorrect locations. In addition, the
country would have a new energy source that could replace the
production of energy from fossil fuels.
Using the same values of average energy per residence and in-
habitants per residence applied in section 3.1 (160 kWh/month and
3 inhabitants/residence e [48,49]), it is seen that economically, the
viable energy potential in this scenario could supply a population of
20 million inhabitants; that is, almost 10% of the country’s total
population.
4. Conclusions
This study sought to analyze energy generation through im-
plantation of USW incineration plants in Brazil, and analyze the
economic feasibility through a function of the waste generation
population. Incineration is encouraged by the National Solid Waste
Policy of Brazil and stands out as a great alternative for final
disposal of USW. This can be applied to reduce the quantity and
land-area occupied by landfills, which are the predominant
disposal technique in the country and consuming a significant area
and generating pollution threats.
The results showed how incineration is advantageous from an
energy generation perspective, and that it is able to supply more
than 15% of the population that contributes waste to the plants. The
power generated by an incinerator is about three times greater than
that which could be generated by landfill biogas for the same waste
mass.
In economic terms, incineration does not yet yield good results.
For the energy sale tariff values currently used on the Brazilian
energy market, financial viability was not verified. This is due to the
elevated installation costs, along with operational and maintenance
costs for the equipment required by the incineration plants, which
is caused by the need for a strict gas control and treatment system
in these plants. Through the sensitivity analysis, the energy sales
tariff had a significant impact on the economic viability of these
plants and on the overall viable energy potential. This energy po-
tential grows on average by 165 GWh per year for each increase of 1
USD/MWh in the energy sales tariff.
Given the impact which such economic factors exercise on en-
ergy potential for incineration in Brazil, it is fundamental that
 L.J.V.B. Silva et al. / Renewable Energy 149 (2020) 1386e1394
Table 6
Minimum viable population per energy sale tariff.
Energy sale tariff (USD/ Minimum viable Population Population receiving Power
MWh) (inhabitants) (inhabitants)
77 1,410,141 40,927,385
103 294,713 85,335,583
129 85,312 120,502,793
municipal, state and federal government work to establish a basis
for large-scale implantation of this technology, either through in-
centives for production of technology at the national level, an
increased energy sales tariffs values, or through mechanisms that
convert the environmental benefits of this technology into eco-
nomic benefits.
The methodology developed in this paper includes calculations
for energy and economic potential which are elaborated according
to population size and enable the calculation of total viable energy
potential throughout the country of Brazil, can be applied in other
regions and scenarios, as well as for other types of waste. In doing
so, the extension of this methodology will thereby help studies and
further discussion on energy use from waste in general.
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank the Coordination for the Improvement of
Higher Education Personnel (Coordenaça ~o de Aperfeiçoamento de
Pessoal de Nível Superior, CAPES; in Portuguese) for the support
given by granting Doctor of Science scholarships to Ivan Felipe Silva
dos Santos and Andriani Tavares Teno
rio Gonçalves and Master of
Science scholarships to Johnson Herlich Roslee Mensah. The au-
thors would like to thank the Brazilian National Council for Scien-
tific and Technological Development (Conselho Nacional de
Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnolo
gico, CNPq; in Portuguese), for
granting a productivity in research scholarship to Prof. Regina
Mambeli Barros (PQ2, Process number: 301986/2015-0).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.10.134.
References
[1] R.M. Barros, The treaty about solid waste: management, usage, and sustain-
^ncia; Itajub

ability. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: intercie a, Minas Gerais, Brazil, Acta
(2013) 376, 2013. (In Portuguese).
[2] I.F.S. Santos, R.M. Barros, G.L. Tiago Filho, Biogas Production from Solid Waste
Landfill, Elsevier Reference Module in Materials Science and Materials Engi-
neering, 2018a.
[3] H. Abdel-Shafy, M.S.M. Mansour, Solid waste issue: sources, composition,
disposal, recycling, and valorization, Egypt. J. Pet. 27 (2018) 1275e1290.
[4] World Bank, Solid Waste Management, 2018. Available at: http://www.
worldbank.org/en/topic/urbandevelopment/brief/solid-waste-management?
fbclid¼IwAR1DZwzIifuW9UTzv27qIJIV3WfwT2ndPOsfbzn2FK58wb8GgUgfc
mvLUbg. (Accessed March 2018).
[5] ABRELPE, Brazilian Association of Public Cleaning and Special Waste Com-
~o Paulo, 2007 (In
panies. Overview of Solid Waste in Brazil 2007, Sa
portuguese).
[6] ABRELPE, Brazilian Association of Public Cleaning and Special Waste Com-
~o Paulo, 2016 (In
panies. Overview of Solid Waste in Brazil 2016, Sa
Portuguese).
[7] ICLEI, Local governments for sustainability. Emissions of waste sector. SEEG
(System of GHG emissions estimate - Brazil), 2018. Available at: http://seeg.
eco.br/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Relatorios-SEEG-2018-Residuos-FINAL-
v2.pdf?
fbclid¼IwAR3YMW0jPh7zQODREhkMiKbdoWQd6g2LrFnlzdB47deb2WqW8-
eRsmAyYifw. (Accessed March 2019) (In portuguese).
[8] PNRS, National policy for solid waste. Law no.12,305, of August 2 official
federal Gazette, Brasilia, 2010. Available at: http://www.planalto.gov.br/
ccivil_03/_Ato2007-2010/2010/Lei/L12305.htm. (Accessed 10 August 2012)
1393
Population Receiving Power (% Economically viable energy potential in the
of total) country (MWh/y)
19.6 4,430,308.67
40.9 9,239,716.57
57.8 13,048,325.34
(In Portuguese).
[9] M.M.V. Leme, M.H. Rocha, E.E.S. Lora, O.J. Venturini, B.M. Lopes, C.H. Ferreira,
Techno-economic analysis and environmental impact assessment of energy
recovery from Municipal Solid Waste (USW) in Brazil, Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
87 (8e20) (2014).
[10] F. Cherubini, S. Bargigli, S. Ulgiati, Life cycle assessment (LCA) of waste
management strategies: landfilling, sorting plant and incineration, Energy 34
(2009) 2116e2123.
[11] E.T.F. Ferreira, J.A.P. Balestieri, Comparative analysis of waste-to-energy al-
ternatives for a low-capacity power plant in Brazil, Waste Manag. Res. 36 (3)
(2018) 247e258.
[12] FEAM, State foundation of the environment. Energy use of urban waste:
orientation for Minas Gerais municipalities, Minas Gerais, Brazil, 2012.
Available at: http://www.feam.br/images/stories/Publicacoes/aproveitamento
%20energetico%20de%20rsu_guia%20de%20orientaes_versao_publicacao_on_
line.pdf. (Accessed 22 September 2016) (In portuguese).
[13] H.D. Beyene, A.A. Werkneh, T.G. Ambaye, Current updates on waste to energy
(WtE) technologies: a review, Renew. Energy Focus 24 (2018).
[14] S.T. Tan, W.S. Ho, H. Hashim, C.T. Lee, M.R. Taib, C.S. Ho, Energy, economic and
environmental (3E) analysis of waste-to-energy (WTE) strategies for munic-
ipal solid waste (USW) management in Malaysia, Energy Convers. Manag. 102
(2015) 111e120.
[15] J. Dong, Y. Tang, A. Nzihou, Y. Chi, E.W. Hortala, M. Ni, Z. Zhou, Comparison of
waste-to-energy technologies of gasification and incineration using life cycle
assessment: case studies in Finland, France and China, J. Clean. Prod. 203
(2018) 287e300.
[16] P.M. Lima, F. Olivo, P.L. Paulo, V. Schalch, C. Cimpan, Life Cycle Assessment of
prospective USW management based on integrated management planning in
Campo Grande, Brazil, Waste Manag. 90 (2019) 59e71.
[17] A.I.M. Henriquez, Dissertation (Master in Energy Engineering), Life Cycle
Analysis (LCA) of Integrated Urban Solid Waste Treatment and Disposal Sys-
tems for Medium-Sized Cities, vol. 157, Federal University of Itajuba
, MG,
Brazil, 2016 (In Portuguese).
[18] R. Santos, I.F.S. Santos, R.M. Barros, A.P. Bernal, G.L. Tiago Filho, F.B.G. Silva,
Generating electrical energy through urban solid waste in Brazil: an economic
and energy comparative analysis, J. Environ. Manag. 231 (2019) 198e206.
[19] M. Chakraborty, C. Sharma, J. Pandey, P.K. Gupta, Assessment of energy gen-
eration potentials of USW in Delhi under different technological options,
Energy Convers. Manag. 75 (2013) 249e255.
[20] K.A. Kalyani, K.K. Pandey, Waste to energy status in India: a short review,
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 31 (2014) 113e120.
[21] J.L. Moraes, Difficulties for the energetic use of solid wastes through incin-
eration in Brazil. Geosaberes, Fortaleza 6 (3) (2016) 173e180 (In portuguese).
[22] A.T. Sipra, N. Gao, H. Sarwar, Municipal solid waste (USW) pyrolysis for bio-
fuel production: a review of effects of USW components and catalysts, Fuel
Process. Technol. 175 (2018) 131e147.
[23] V.F. Silva Filho, L. Batistella, L.F. Alves, J.C.G. Silva, C.A. Althoff, R.F.P.M. Moreira,
H.J. Jose
, Evaluation of gaseous emissions from thermal conversion of a
mixture of solid municipal waste and wood chips in a pilot-scale heat
generator, Renew. Energy 141 (2019) 402e410.
[24] L. Makarichi, W. Jutidamrongphan, K. Techato, The evolution of waste-to-
energy incineration: a review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 91 (2018)
812e821.
[25] N. Scarlat, V. Motola, J.F. Dallemand, F.M. Ferrario, L. Mofor, Evaluation of
energy potential of municipal solid waste from African urban areas, Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 50 (2015) 1269e1286.
[26] IEA, in: IEA Bioenergy. Summary and Conclusions from the IEA Bioenergy
ExCo71 Workshop, 2014. Available at: http://www.ieabioenergy.com/wp-
content/uploads/2014/03/ExCo71-Waste-to-Energy-Summary-and-Conclu-
sions-28.03.14.pdf?fbclid¼IwAR1bNnq_Rwk3fkboBBK2o01NVtvnDZsVZy9-
hiwZblBvpFc9vu00aDRQlYL0. (Accessed March 2019).
[27] G.H. Nordi, R.P. Bereche, A.G. Gallego, S.A. Nebra, Electricity production from
municipal solid waste in Brazil, Waste Manag. Res. 35 (7) (2017) 709e720.
[28] F.A.M. Lino, K.A.R. Ismail, Incineration and recycling for USW treatment: case
study of Campinas, Brazil, Sustain. Cities Soc. 35 (2017) 752e757.
[29] F.C. Dalmo, N.M. Sima ~o, H.Q. Lima, A.C.M. Jimenez, S. Nebra, G. Martins,
R.P. Bereche, P.H.M. Sant’Anna, Energy recovery overview of municipal solid
waste in Sa ~o Paulo State, Brazil, J. Clean. Prod. 212 (2019) 461e474.
[30] S.N. Souza, M. Horttanainen, J. Antonelli, O. Klaus, C.A. Lindino, C.E. Nogueira,
Technical potential of electricity production from municipal solid waste
disposed in the biggest cities in Brazil: landfill gas, biogas and thermal
treatment, Waste Manag. Res. 10 (2014) 1015e1023.
[31] Y.C. Chen, Effects of urbanization on municipal solid waste composition,
1394 L.J.V.B. Silva et al. / Renewable Energy 149 (2020) 1386e1394
Waste Manag. 79 (2018) 828e836.
[32] MMA, Brazilian Ministry of the environment. National plan for solid waste,
Brasilia, 2012. Available at: http://www.mma.gov.br/polides/solids. (Accessed
14 March 2018).
[33] D. Hoornweg, P. Bhada-Tata, WHAT A WASTE: A Global Review of Solid Waste
Management, World Bank. Urban Development Series, 2012. Available at:
https://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTURBANDEVELOPMENT/Resources/
336387-1334852610766/What_a_Waste2012_Final.pdf. (Accessed August
2019).
[34] R.M. Barros, G.L. Tiago Filho, T.R. Silva, The electric energy potential of landfill
biogas in Brazil, Energy Policy 65 (2014) 150e164.
[35] Luz, F.C., Rocha, M.H., Lora, E.E.S., Venturini, O.J., Andrade, R.V., Leme, M.M.V.,
del Olmo, O.A.Techno-economic analysis of municipal solid waste gasification
for electricity generation in Brazil. Energy Convers. Manag. 103, 321e337.
[36] A.P. Bernal, I.F.S. Santos, A.P.M. Silva, R.M. Barros, E.M. Ribeiro, Vinasse biogas
for energy generation in Brazil: an assessment of economic feasibility, energy
potential and avoided CO2 emissions, J. Clean. Prod. 151 (2017) 260e271.
[37] IBGE. Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics, Number of municipalities
and population in population censuses by population size, 2010. Available at:
https://sidra.ibge.gov.br/Tabela/1290. (Accessed October 2018) (In
portuguese).
[38] SNIS, National Information System on Sanitation, Diagnosis of Urban Solid
Waste Management, Brasília, 2018.
[39] I.F.S. Santos, N.D.B. Vieira, L.G.B. No
brega, R.M. Barros, G.L. Tiago Filho,
Assessment of potential biogas production from multiple organic wastes in
Brazil: impact on energy generation, use, and emissions abatement, Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 131 (2018b) 54e63.
[40] M. Abdallah, A. Shanableh, A. Shadib, Financial feasibility of waste to energy
strategies in the United Arab Emirates, Waste Manag. 82 (2018) 207e219.
[41] K. Branker, M.J.M. Pathak, J.M. Pearce, A review of solar photovoltaic levelized
cost of electricity, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15 (2011) 4470e4482.
[42] M.S. Rangel. Study of Costs and Economic Feasibility of Electricity Generation
from Renewable Energy in Brazil. Final Graduation Work (Environmental
Engineer), Federal University of Itajuba
, Brazil, 2016.
[43] BCC. Brazil Central Bank Selic Rate, Available at: https://www.bcb.gov.br/
htms/selic/selicdiarios.asp, 2018, 11, 2018.
[44] A. Go
mez, J. Zubizarreta, M. Rodrigues, C. Dopazo, N. Fueyo, Potential and cost
of electricity generation from human and animal waste in Spain, Renew.
Energy 35 (2010) 498e505.
[45] ANEEL, National Electric energy agency. Resolution 482, 2012. Available at:
http://www2.aneel.gov.br/cedoc/ren2012482.pdf. (Accessed October 2018)
(In portuguese).
[46] ABRAPCH, Brazilian Association of Small Hydropower, 2016. Available at:
https://www.abrapch.org.br/pchs/o-que-sao-pchs-e-cghs. (Accessed April
2019) (In portuguese).
[47] G.L. Fernandes, Energy Use of Landfill Biogas: an Economic Feasibility Study as
a Function of Population. 2016. Graduation Final Work (Environmental En-
gineering), Federal University of Itajuba
, Brazil, 2016 (In portuguese).
[48] EPE, Energy research enterprise Electrical Energy Statistical yearbook, Avail-
able at: http://www.epe.gov.br/sites-pt/publicacoes-dados-abertos/
publicacoes/PublicacoesArquivos/publicacao-160/topico-168/Anuario2017vf.
pdf, 2017. (Accessed March 2019) (In Portuguese).
[49] R. Saraiva Rosas, A. Sales, R. News: in ten years, the proportion of over-
crowded homes falls by half, Available at: https://www.valor.com.br/brasil/
4794551/em-dez-anos-cai-pela-metade-proporcao-de-residencias-
superlotadas. (Accessed March 2019) (In Portuguese).
[50] M.S. Rangel, P.B. Borges, I.F.S. Santos, Comparative analysis of renewable en-
ergy costs and tariffs in Brazil, Braz. J. Renew. Energy 5 (2016) 1e12 (In
Portuguese).
[51] ANEEL, National Electric energy agency. Resolution 482, 2012. Available at:
http://www2.aneel.gov.br/cedoc/ren2012479.pdf. (Accessed October 2018)
(In portuguese).
[52] ANEEL, National Electric energy agency. Resolution 687, 2015. Available at:
http://www2.aneel.gov.br/cedoc/ren2015687.pdf. (Accessed October 2018)
(In portuguese).
[53] ABRADEE. Brazilian Association of Electric Distributors, Energy tariffs, 2017.
Available in: http://www.abradee.com.br/setor-de-distribuicao/tarifas-de-
energia/tarifas-de-energia. (Accessed October 2018) (In portuguese).