Waste and Biomass Valorization

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-022-01758-1

ORIGINAL PAPER

Multi‑period Enviro‑Economic Optimization of Municipal Solid Waste

to Electricity
Desti Octavianthy1,2 · Ahmad Syauqi1,2 · Nadhilah Reyseliani1,2 · Widodo Wahyu Purwanto1,2

Received: 21 July 2021 / Accepted: 27 March 2022

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2022

Abstract
The increased production of municipal solid waste has adverse effects on the environment, such as increased greenhouse
gas emissions, which drive climate change and accelerate global warming. Waste to energy (WtE) conversion is one of the
solutions whereby waste is used to generate energy and mitigate the adverse effects of waste accumulation on the environ-
ment. This study proposes a method to select an optimum WtE technology based on multi-objective optimization through
enviro-economic analysis of municipal solid waste conversion into electricity using various technologies, such as anaerobic
digestion, incineration, gasification, and pyrolysis, and coupled with power generation technologies such as gas engine, gas
turbine, steam turbine, solid-oxide fuel cell, and molten carbonate fuel cell technology, in multiple periods (2020–2050),
these technologies are simulated using Aspen Plus. An optimization model was developed using General Algebraic Mod-
eling System to determine optimum technologies with the minimum levelized cost of electricity and emission intensity. The
energy efficiency of the studied power generation technologies has been validated with the literature and it is found that the
deviation is only less than 4% which is within the acceptable range. From the parametric analysis, all the technologies expe-
rience cost reduction with GASIF+SOFC has the highest cost reduction with 58.5% from 2020 to 2050. The result shows
that the optimum technologies for 2020–2030 period, is pyrolysis combined with a gas engine. The optimum technologies
for 2035–2040 and 2045–2050 are pyrolysis with a gas turbine and gasification with solid-oxide fuel cell, respectively.
Graphical Abstract

Keywords Enviro-economic · Pyrolysis · Municipal solid waste · Multi-objective optimization · Waste to energy
* Widodo Wahyu Purwanto
widodo@che.ui.ac.id Nomenclature
1
Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty Technology
of Engineering, Universitas Indonesia, Depok 16424, AD Anaerobic digestion
Indonesia DE Diesel engine
2
Sustainable Energy Systems and Policy Research Cluster, GASIF Gasification
Universitas Indonesia, Depok 16424, Indonesia

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 Waste and Biomass Valorization

GE Gas engine CP Equipment cost ($)

GT Gas turbine FBM Bare module factor
INS Incineration
Greek Letter
MCFC Molten carbonate fuel cell
Β Learning index
PYRO Pyrolysis
Η Overpotential (V)
SOFC Solid oxide fuel cell
Α Electronic transfer coefficient
ST Steam turbine
Subscript
Power Generation Technology Modeling
act Activation
A Area ­(m2)
0 Reference
E Activation energy for electrode j
conc Concentration
Enernst Cell potential (V)
E Electric
F Faraday constant
J Electrode
I Current density (A/m2)
M MSW processing technology
Ioj Exchange current density (A/m2)
N Power generation technology
L Distance (km)
ohmic Ohmic
R Resistance (Ω)
T Year
R Gas ideal constant
Th Thermal
T Temperature (K)
Trans Transportation
V Voltage (V)
Y Sub-district
ΔG Gibbs Energy (kJ/kg)
ṅ O2 Mole flow of oxygen (kgmole/s)
Cp Heat capacity under constant pressure (kJ/
(kg-K)) Statement of Novelty
Cv Heat capacity under constant volume (kJ/
(kg-K)) Municipal solid waste (MSW) problem has been emerged
𝜸 Heat capacity ratio as one of the main problems in cities. One of the promising
H Enthalpy solutions to address this problem is to use waste to energy
K Pre exponential factor for electrode j (WtE) technology to utilize MSW to generate electricity.
The novelty of this study lies in selecting the WtE tech-
Objective Function & Constraint
nology selection of MSW conversion and power generation
CAPEX Capital expenditure ($/kWe)
using long-term multi-objective optimization by minimizing
CAPtruck Truck capacity (ton/trip)
both cost and ­CO2 emissions.
CF Capacity factor (%)
CRF Cost recovery factor
DOC Dismantled organic compound
E CO2eq emission (kg ­CO2eq) Introduction
EFF Efficiency (%)
F Fraction of ­CH4 in landfill gas Solid waste is a problem currently faced by entire communi-
FE Fuel economy (L/km) ties, especially in urban areas. Currently, the total amount of
FOM Fixed operation and maintenance cost (% of solid waste produced globally each year is 2.1 billion tons, of
CAPEX) which 33% is not treated optimally. Indonesia is among the
FP Fuel price ($/L) countries with such problem. According to [1], Indonesia’s
FUEL Fuel cost ($/year) current population is about 261 million, which corresponds
GWP Global warming potential (kg/kg ­CO2eq) to 65.2 million tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) gener-
LHV Lower heating value (kJ/kg) ated per year.
Lr Learning rate One of the solutions to MSW problem is to implement
MCF Methane correction factor waste to energy (WtE) power plant. There are several WtE
NEE Net Electrical Efficiency (%) technology that being developed such as, incineration,
P Power ­(kWe) anaerobic digestion, pyrolysis, and gasification [2]. These
TRANS Transportation cost ($) technologies are called MSW processing technology, they
VOM Variable operation and maintenance cost ($/ convert MSW into thermal energy or fuel. Power generation
kWhe) technology such as steam turbine, diesel engine, gas turbine,
CBM Bare module cost ($) gas engine, solid oxide fuel cell, and molten carbonate fuel

13
Waste and Biomass Valorization
cell are common technologies that can convert the thermal
energy or fuel into electricity.
The MSW processing technologies have gone through
various improvements. Anaerobic digestion recent devel-
opment revolved around the work to increase the yield of
biogas by modification of the pre-treatment using different
types of microorganism such as fungi, microbial consortium,
hyperthermophilic anaerobic bacterium, and enzyme, the
other measures are microaeration, composting, and ensil-
ing or even used genetic and metabolic engineering of tar-
get microorganism are also can be one of the measures to
increase the production of the biogas [3, 4]. In the pyrolysis
technology, microwave-assisted pyrolysis and co-pyrolysis
are the latest trend to increase the yield and quality of the
pyrolysis products. The latest trends are also concern about
the bio-oil upgrading since it is one of the vital processes to
be conducted to make the bio-oil can be utilized. The choice
of the catalyst is also essential, it can boost the production of
bio-oil such as the use of zeolite [5–7]. For gasification tech-
nology, plasma gasification become one of the latest devel-
opments in this technology. Plasma gasification can enhance
the yield of syngas. The other development is enhancing
the plasma gasification using microwave-assisted plasma
gasification [8]. While in the incineration technology, recent
development revolves around improving the environmental
and energy consumption of the system [9].
Many studies have discussed the choice of WtE technol-
ogy based on optimization methods. Behzadi et al., [10]
select the best waste processing technology using multi-
objective optimization. Korai et al., [11] performed opti-
mization to choose the best MSW processing technology
to produce electricity from MSW in Pakistan. Ng et al.,
[12] proposed a multi-objective optimization of end-to-
end WtE superstructure model systems to choose the best
WtE technology in Selangor. Mavrotas et al., [13] used
Table 1  Summary of the state-of-the-art
Study Objective function MSW processing technology option
Environment Economy AD INS
Behzadi et al. [10] ✓ ✓
Korai et al. [11] ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Ng et al. [12] ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Mavrotas et al. [13] ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Munster et al. [14] ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Syauqi et al. [15] ✓ ✓
Taskhiri et al. [16] ✓ ✓
Perera et al. [17] ✓ ✓
Saif et al. [18] ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Mayanti et al. [19] ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Ooi et al. [20] ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
This study ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
mathematical programming to optimize the MSW treat-
ment superstructure in Athens, to determine the optimal
pathway of waste processing. Munster et al., [14] used an
optimization method to choose the best pathway to pro-
cess MSW through WtE technologies. Syauqi et al., [15]
has explored the possibility of selecting power generation
technologies for only gasification technology. Taskhiri
et al., [16] developed a network based on optimization to
optimize the network to maximize the satisfactory level
of the potential stakeholder. Perera et al., [17] developed
multi-objective optimization to maximize NPV and land-
filling capacity using evolutionary algorithm. Saif et al.,
[18] performed a optimization to plan supply chain man-
agement of waste to energy and assess the sustainability of
the system based on optimization. Mayanti et al., [19] used
multi-objective optimization to find the optimal solution
in terms of energy, environment, and economic aspect for
incineration technology. Ooi et al., [20] planned country-
wide waste processing planning that includes waste to
energy technology such as anaerobic digestion, landfilling,
gasification, and incineration based on optimization. The
summary of the previous study can be found on Table 1.
However, those studies still focus on the selection of MSW
processing technology and rarely discussed the selection
of power generation technology. Furthermore, the poten-
tial advanced technology for generating electricity such as
solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) and molten carbonate fuel cell
(MCFC) are rarely discussed. Hence, this paper focuses
on determining the optimum power generation technology
and MSW processing technologies with the lowest emis-
sion intensities and levelized costs of electricity through
multi-period superstructure optimization, considering cost
reduction driven by the learning rate. This study used the
case study of Depok city, Indonesia.
Power generation technology option
GASIF PYRO GT GE ST DE SOFC MCFC
✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓
✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓
✓
✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
13

Methods
WtE was optimized in multiple periods in terms of envi-
ronmental and economic performance. The reviewed sys-
tem is a superstructure of WtE with various options for
conversion and power generation technology (see Fig. 1).
Process simulation of WtE is conducted using Aspen Plus
v11, then the superstructure is optimized using General
Algebraic Modeling System (GAMS) to select the best
WtE technology option.
Characteristics of Feedstock
The waste composition, proximate, and ultimate analysis
of the waste is described in Table 2. The MSW that enter
the system is assumed to have been segregated and under-
gone mechanical treatment before fed into all the MSW
processing technologies. Only the combustible part of the
Fig. 1  Proposed WtE superstructure, m is the MSW MSW process-
ing technologies and n is the power generation technologies. (MSW
municipal solid waste; INS incineration; AD anaerobic digestion;
13
Waste and Biomass Valorization
MSW that fed into MSW processing technologies while
the remaining non-combustible part is landfilled.
It is assumed that the waste generation from 2020 to 2050
will increase linearly in accordance with population growth
[23]. Thus, the projected MSW generation (mMSW ) in Depok
is 3690.81 ton/year by 2050 increased 87% from 2020. In
this research it is assumed that all MSW generated must be
processed in MSW processing facility in Cipayung landfill
(the main dump site in Depok) and converted into electric-
ity. It is also assumed that the composition of waste does not
change over time.
Process Description and Simulation
Figure 1 illustrates the proposed WtE superstructure. It can
be inferred those four MSW processing technologies (m) can
be coupled with six power generation technologies (n). How-
ever, because of the limitations of the process, there are con-
straints with respect to which MSW processing technologies
can be couples with which power generation technologies
GASIF = gasification; PYRO pyrolysis; ST steam turbine; GE gas
engine; GT gas turbine; SOFC solid oxide fuel cell; MCFC molten
carbonate fuel cell; DE diesel engine
Waste and Biomass Valorization
Table 2  Average composition, proximate, and ultimate analysis of MSW [21, 22]
Combustible (%)
Organics 65
Plastics 8 Glass
Paper/boxes 7 Other
Rubber 1
Total 81
Proximate analysis (%)
Moisture content 20
Fixed carbon 12.82
Volatile matter 77.66
Ash 9.51
LHV (kJ/kg) 16,013.6
and which waste can be fed into which MSW processing
technologies. INS can only be paired with ST. GASIF and
AD-INS can be coupled with all power generation technolo-
gies except diesel engines. PYRO can be coupled with all
power generation technologies. In addition, diesel engines
only produce electricity from pyrolysis oil. AD only can
be fed with organic MSW and the inorganic part is being
processed using INS as can be seen in Fig. 1.
Process simulations was carried out by Aspen Plus v11
providing heat and mass balance of each process which can
be further utilized to determine the size of equipment and
direct emissions both from the power generator and flare.
Waste‑to‑Energy MSW Processing Technologies
Anaerobic Digestion A thermophilic digester that produces
biogas from organic MSW was simulated. The digester
contains microbes that decomposes the MSW into methane
and several other impurities such as C­ O2 and sludge. The
digester is modeled using batch reactor. For the detail of
the modeling of the anaerobic digester is explained more
detail in our previous research [24]. Several types of data
are needed to simulate the biogas production process,
including reaction rates and process parameters. The reac-
tion was modeled using the Monod kinetic model and the
Buswell equation [25]. The input parameters for simulating
the digester are temperature, retention time, and moisture
content.
Gasification GASIF was simulated to produce syngas
using pure oxygen and steam as a gasification agent. A
bubbling fluidized bed was used as the gasifier and mod-
eled using RCSTR (continuous stirred tank reactor) in the
process simulator. For the detail of the modeling of the
anaerobic digester is explained more detail in our previ-
ous research [15]. Input parameters used in the simulation
Non-combustible (%)
Residue 17
1
1
Total 19
Ultimate analysis (%)
C 43.71
H 7.73
O 37.66
N 1.95
S 0.4
included the equivalent ratio, steam to carbon ratio, and
gasifier temperature. The equivalent ratio value was set to
0.25. The value of the steam-to-carbon ratio was 1.2. In
addition, the gasifier temperature was set to 1000 °C. The
kinetics used were retrieved from previous studies [15].
Incineration Incineration is the treatment of waste mate-
rial by combustion of organic substances present in the
waste materials. It converts the waste material into heat,
flue gas and ash which are released into the atmosphere
without any further treatment for usage [26]. In INS, MSW
is burned to heat water and convert it into high-pressure
superheated steam, which drives a ST to generate electric-
ity. The incinerator is modeled using the combustor and
the generated heat captured to boil the water to turn into
high-pressure superheated steam. The input parameters
for INS include an equivalent ratio, which was set to be
1.3 to ensure the complete combustion of MSW.
Pyrolysis Pyrolysis process in this research used fast
pyrolysis which was used to convert MSW into bio-oil
and pyro-gas. The bio-oil is used to generate electricity
by mixing bio-oil with biodiesel in ratio 1:1. While the
pyro-gas is used to generate electricity as well. Pyrolizer
was modeled using an equilibrium approach. The input
parameter used was temperature, which was set to 650 °C.
Produced oil and gas are used as fuel to generate elec-
tricity while the char is burned to provide heat for the
pyrolizer. The produced gas is used to generate electricity
from all power generation technology options examined;
for fuel cells, this gas must be enriched in H ­ 2 by adding
the steam reformer process. pyro-oil is used to generate
electricity using a diesel engine after it is blended 1:1 with
diesel fuel [27] except when the fuel cells are used, then
the pyro-oil is reformed to become additional source of
fuel for generating electricity in fuel cells.
13
 Waste and Biomass Valorization

Power Generation Technologies Diesel Engine Diesel engine is only used to generate electric-
ity from pyrolytic oil that has been mixed with biodiesel. Die-
Gas Turbine GT are used to generate electricity from biogas, sel engine is a well-known engine that work under the prin-
syngas, and pyrogas. This power generation technology uses ciple of diesel cycle similar to otto cycle but without spark
the Brayton cycle principle. The principle follows three ignition rather it uses compressed ignition. In this model
steps, i.e. compression, combustion, and expansion. The gas compression ratio of 14:1 and air-to-fuel ratio of 20 is used
turbine modeled using the combination of compressor for to ensure complete combustion and maximal efficiency. The
modeling compression process, combustion chamber for diesel engine is modeled based on the work of [29] that uses
modeling combustion process, and expander for modeling compressor to imitate the compression stage, reactor as the
expansion process. One of the most determining factor to combustion chamber, and expander to model the expansion
generate power in GT is the pressure ratio which is the com- stage. The equation used in this equipment is similar to the
parison of the pressure of
( after
) compression and after expan- gas turbine equation since the process basically the same i.e.
sion, the pressure ratio P2 was set to 18:1 [28]. The gen-
P
compression, combustion, and expansion.
1
eration of power in gas turbine follows the Eqs. 1–3
Solid Oxide Fuel Cell SOFC is used to generate electric-
P = ṁ × ΔH (1) ity from biogas, syngas, and pyrogas; however, because
a SOFC can process CO and H ­ 2, only syngas can be pro-
( )(𝛾−1)∕𝛾 cessed directly by SOFC, whereas the other types of gas
P1
𝜂 =1− (2) must undergo steam reforming. The reaction that occurs in a
P2
SOFC can be described as shown in Eqs. 4–6:

Cp Anode reaction ∶ H2 + CO + 2O2− → H2 O + CO2 + 4e−

𝛾= (3) (4)
Cv
Cathode reaction ∶ O2 + 4e− → 2O2− (5)
Gas Engine A GE is an internal combustion engine used
to convert biogas, syngas, and pyrogas into electricity. Overall cell reaction ∶ H2 + CO + O2 → H2 O + CO2 . (6)
This power generation technology is based on the princi-
For the simulation of SOFC, it was assumed that yttria-
ple of the Otto cycle. The Otto cycle principle consist of
stabilized zirconia (YSZ) was used as the electrolyte, Ni-
air intake, compression, ignition, and expansion process.
YSZ as the anode, and lanthanum strontium manganite as
The gas engine is modeled using reciprocating compres-
the cathode [15]. It was also assumed that the fuel utilization
sor for modeling the compression phase, combustion
rate in the SOFC was 85% [15]. Based on this assumption,
chamber for modeling ignition process, and reciprocating
15% of unreacted fuels were then utilized in the afterburner
expander for modeling expansion process. Similar to the
to generate additional electricity in the GT. SOFC was
gas turbine, the ratio
( )of pressure in compression and simulated in Aspen Plus using the CALCULATOR block
expansion process P2 is vital to determine the power
P
1 embedded with FORTRAN to calculate the power output.
generation. In the GT it is called pressure ratio where in The power output was calculated using Eqs. 7–17, retrieved
GE it is called compression ratio, which was set to 1:8. from [30], with the assumed temperature of the SOFC set
The generation of power in gas engine follows the same to 1000 °C:
equation as the GT since the process is similar thermody-
namically. V = ENernst − Losses (7)

[ ( )]
Steam Turbine ST was used for all MSW processing tech- ΔG RT Preact
nologies. The ST uses the Rankine cycle principle to gen-
ENernst = + ln (8)
nF nF Pproduct
erate electricity. The Rankine cycle consist of pumping,
heating, expansion, and condensing process. The process
Δṅ O2 nF
uses water to carry the energy from the combustion of i= (9)
fuel to generates electricity in the expansion process. The A
Rankine cycle modeled using pump to model the pumping
process, heat exchanger to models the heating and con- Losses = 𝜂ohmix + 𝜂act + 𝜂conc (10)
densing process, and expander to model expansion pro-
∑
cess The ST employs the equation similar to Eq. 1. 𝜂ohmix = i × rj , j = cathode, anode, electrolyte (11)

13
Waste and Biomass Valorization

( ) { [ ( )]}
RT i 1 1
𝜂act = ln , j = cathode, anode (12) 𝜂ohmix = i 0.5 × 10−4 exp 3016 − (21)
𝛼nF ioj T 923
[ ( ) ]
( ) Ea,ca
Ej 𝜂ca = i 7.505 × 10−10 × exp P−0.43 P−0.09
(22)
ioj = kj exp − , j = cathode, anode (13) RT O2 CO2
RT
[ ( ) ]
Ea,an
𝜂conc = 𝜂conc,an + 𝜂conc,cat (14) 𝜂an = i 2.27 × 10−9 × exp P−0.43
H2 P−0.17 −10
CO2 PH2 O (23)
RT
( )
RT PH2 PTPB
H O After every combination of conversion and power gen-
(15)
2
𝜂conc,an = ln eration technologies was simulated, coupled technologies
2F PH2 O PTPB
H 2 were evaluated based on EFF and NEE. Both are defined
in Eqs. 24 and 25:
� �0.5
⎡ ⎤
RT ⎢ PO2 ⎥ Pn
𝜂conc,cat = ln (16) EFF = (24)
4F ⎢ PTPB ⎥ mfuel × LHVfuel
⎣ O 2 ⎦

Pn
P = V × i × A. (17) NEE = . (25)
mMSW × LHVMSW

Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell MCFCs are used to generate

electricity from biogas, syngas, and pyrogas. The reaction Multi‑period Enviro‑Economic Optimization
that occurs in a MCFC is described in Eqs. 18–20 [31]:
General Mathematical Formulation
Anode reaction ∶ H2 + CO2−
3
→ H2 O + CO2 + 2e− (18)
Multi-objective optimization was performed to identify the
1 optimum conversion and power generation technologies
Cathode reaction ∶ O2 + CO2 + 2e− → CO2−
3 (19) in multiple periods (2020–2050). This determination was
2
based on environmental and economic aspects, which are
1 considered as objective functions. This optimization was
Overall cell reaction ∶ H2 + O2 → H2 O. (20) carried out using GAMS with BONMIN as the solver. The
2
proposed model is formulated based on the superstructure
To calculate the power output of the cell, the voltage depict in Fig. 1, the mathematical formulation is given in
(Eqs. 4, 5, and 7) and current density of the cell (Eq. 6) Eqs. 26–34. Equations 26 and 29 are the objective functions
must be calculated, while the voltage losses of the MCFC of this model based on levelized cost of electricity (LCOE)
are calculated using Eqs. 21–23, retrieved from [31]: and emission intensity, whereas Eq. 33 is the integer con-
straint that ensures only one technology is selected.

OF1
( ( ) ( ) )
∑ ∑ ∑ CRFm,n,t CAPEXm,n,t × Pn,t + FOMm,n,t × CAPEXm,n,t × Pn,t + VOMm,n,t × Fpyro−oil + TRANSt − FUELt (26)
= min zi ( ( )) ,
i m∈M n∈N Pn,t − Pown used × mMSW × CF × 8760

13
 Waste and Biomass Valorization

∑ mMSWt,y Table 3  Distance from each Sub-district (y) Distance (km)

TRANSt = FE × 2Ly ×
CAPtruck
× FP (27) sub-district to the Cipayung
y landfill Sawangan 8
Bojongsari 10.6
FUELt = mMSW × TF (28) Pancoran Mas 4.2
Cipayung 3.7
( )
∑∑ ∑ Edirectm,n,t + Elandfillt + Etranst Sukmajaya 11.4
OF2 = min zi ( ( )) Cilodong 12.8
i m∈M n∈N Pn,t − Pown used × mMSW × CF × 8760
(29) Cimanggis 14.6
Tapos 16.6
( ) 8% Beji 8.5
Edirectm,n,t = Em,n + EFlare t × + Exm,n × mMSWt (30) Limo 7.7
81%
Cinere 11.6
16
Elandfillt = mMSWt × MCF × DOC × DOCF × F × × GWPCH4 .
12
(31) for $0.37/L. Since the amount of diesel fuel blended is equal
∑ mMSWt,y to the amount of pyro-oil.
Etranst = FE × 2Ly ×
CAPtruck
× GWPdiesel (32) Equations 27 and 28 are equations for calculating trans-
y
portation and fuel cost. TRANS was calculated using Eq. 27.
∑ The transportation cost is a function of round-trip distance
zi = 1, zi ∈ {0, 1} (33) of each sub-district in Depok to the Cipayung landfill (see
Table 3), the fuel economy of the truck, number of trips and
∀t ∈ T ∈ {2020, 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040, 2045, 2050}. (34) capacity of the truck, and fuel price. FUEL was calculated
using Eq. 28 from the tipping fee of Cipayung landfill i.e.
$10/ton and amount of mMSW .
In this study some of the assessed technology is new
Economic Objective Function
technology and not yet matured i.e. SOFC, MCFC, GASIF,
PYRO, AD, and GT. These technologies will experience
OF1 is the objective function for minimum LCOE which
CAPEX reduction due to the effect of accumulated experi-
consists of investment cost, operating & maintenance cost,
ence or learning that first observed by Wright in 1936 [35] in
fuel cost, transport cost, and electricity production. For
case of aeroplane manufacturing later Zimmerman in 1982
investment cost, it was assumed that all technologies have
[36] observed the same nature happen in the case of power
the same lifetime, 20 years, and annualized with a discount
plant. The phenomenon is explained as “learning by doing”
rate of 10%. The investment cost of each technology was cal-
by Arrow [37] and mathematically formulated as learning
culated based on size of each process equipment using Bare
curve [38, 39]. The CAPEX reduction is driven by a constant
module cost method and then benchmarked with literature in
called “learning rate”, a constant that describe how fast a
[32]. CAPEX can be estimated from several steps explained
technology (especially the new one) experience a CAPEX
in [33] and mathematically described by Eq. 35. The FBM is
reduction over cumulative installed capacity. This approach
a factor to compensate the indirect cost of equipment that
is often used to project the future CAPEX of certain technol-
includes delivery, construction, engineering expenses, and
ogy in energy modeling as presented by several researchers
procurement. While the CP is the cost of equipment which
[39–43].
calculated using Guthrie method [33].
Since this study examined several emerging technolo-
CBM = Cp × FBM (35) gies from 2020 to 2050 it is worth noted that some of the
technology will experience CAPEX reduction and need to
Operating & maintenance cost consists of fixed and be accounted in this model. Heuberger et al., [38] gives the
variable cost. The values of fixed operating & maintenance equation to mathematically estimates the CAPEX reduc-
(FOM) for INS, GASIF, AD, PYRO, GT, GE, ST, SOFC, tion as shown in Eqs. 36 and 37. Equation 36 estimates the
and MCFC were 3.2%, 4.5%, 2.6%, 4.5%, 5%, 1.5%, 1%, 5%, cost reduction as a function of ratio of global cumulative
and 5% of the investment cost, respectively [27, 32, 34]. The installed capacity at year t (Pt) and at year 2020 (P2020), the
values of variable operating & maintenance (VOM) for all cost reduction is in exponential term with the power of −𝛽
technologies except DE are negligible since the component which indicates the learning index of each technology that
of VOM are small [28]. For DE, VOM consists of diesel price can be calculated using Eq. 37. Learning index is a function
of learning rate (lr), which value are 22.78%, 20%, 15%,

13
Waste and Biomass Valorization

Fig. 2  Learning curves for con- 12,000.00

version and power generation
technologies
10,000.00

8,000.00

CAPEX ($2020/kW)
6,000.00

4,000.00

2,000.00

-
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

GT SOFC MCFC AD PYRO GASIF

15%, 35%, and 13% for GASIF, PYRO, AD, GT, SOFC, and
MCFC respectively [15, 44–46]. Learning rate is the only
driver of the CAPEX reduction the higher the learning rates
the steeper the CAPEX reduction. All the learning curves
for all the technologies are shown in Fig. 2. CAPEX that has
been calculated at year 2020 is considered as the CAPEX at
reference year (CAPEX0). In addition, the value of global
cumulative installed capacity of certain technology at year
t and cumulative installed capacity of certain technology at
2020 as the reference year is retrieved from data taken in
[15, 46–48]
( )−𝛽
CAPEXt = CAPEX0
Pt
P2020
−𝛽 = log2 (1 − lr).
Environment Objective Function
OF2 is the objective function for minimum GHG emissions
which the calculation is based on life cycle assessment
(LCA) method. The boundary of this study is depicted in
Fig. 3. This study does not consider the GHG emissions that
came from the plant installation and part manufacturing due
to the value of such emission is infinitesimal [49, 50]. The
calculated GHG emissions then benchmarked with literature
data to validate the calculation.
Transportation emission was calculated from the dis-
tance traveled by and the specifications of the truck. The
(36) parameter Etranst (Eq. 32) was calculated in accordance with
truck specifications and the distances between every sub-
district in Depok and the Cipayung landfill. The truck speci-
(37) fications are characterized by capacity, fuel economy, and
diesel GWP, with values of 3000 kg/trip, 0.373 L/km, and
2.9 kg-CO2-eq/L [51–53], respectively.

Fig. 3  LCA boundary of the study

13
 Waste and Biomass Valorization

Table 4  Additional LCA data MSW process- Process GHG emissions (kg Electricity consumption
ing technology ­CO2eq/ton MSW)(Ex ) (kWh/ton MSW)(Pown used )

INSa Air pollution control 10 0.8

ADb Wastewater and sludge treatment 0.81 0.25
GASIFc Ash treatment 0 0.77
PYROc Ash treatment 0 0.77
a
[55, 56]
b
[57]
c
[55]

( )
Furthermore, landfill emitted methane emission was
of plastic in the combustible MSW 8%
. The calculation
calculated using Eq. 31 retrieved from IPCC [54]. For cal- 81%

culation of the emission, it was assumed that the reserve
of MSW lasted for seven days in a fully operational power
plant. The values used for MCF, DOC, DOCF, and GWPCH4,
is in accordance to IPCC guideline [54].
Lastly, the direct emissions, either from a flare or power
generator (En + Eflare), were retrieved from the mass bal-
ance generated in process simulation. However, based on
IPCC guideline [54], MSW consists of fossil-based and
non-fossil based components; therefore, a fraction of C ­ O2
emissions that come from the non-fossil-based component
can actually be assumed to be carbon neutral, and only
emissions that come from the fossil-based component
count as direct emissions. Thus, the direct emissions cal-
culation should introduce a correction factor to satisfy
IPCC guideline, and the value must represent the fraction
for direct emission is defined by Eq. 30. However, due to
the limitation of the process simulator to mimic the real-
world process, there are an additional information needed
to complete the LCA calculation. The additional data for
the additional process (Ex) are shown in Table 4
All the mentioned cost and emissions are divided with
electricity production in a year to convert all cost and emis-
sion into per unit of kWh electricity. The calculation is given
in the denominator of Eqs. 26 and 29. The CF was assumed
to be constant for every combined technology i.e. 85% [32].
Multi-objective optimization was performed using the
ε-constraint method. The multi-objective optimization
results a series of non-dominated options called the Pareto
curve [58]. The Pareto curve is further analyzed using

Table 5  Technical performance MSW processing Power generation EFF (%) Reference EFF NEE (%) Reference
of combined technologies technology technology (%) NEE (%)

AD-INS GE 28.39 26.6b 21.37 21.3b

AD-INS GT 29.17 32.2b 21.80 25.8b
AD-INS ST 19.04 22.6b 18.27 18.1b
AD-INS SOFC 56.89 56.5b 33.29 38.7b
AD-INS MCFC 49.53 48.4b 31.76 38.7b
PYRO GE+DE 24.67 22.5a 22.55 18.6a
PYRO GT+DE 25.88 23.3a 23.63 19.2a
PYRO ST+DE 16.22 18.4a 15.42 14.8a
PYRO SOFC 51.12 50.0a 42.78 42.5a
PYRO MCFC 46.18 35.3a 37.62 30.0a
GASIF GE 25.42 20.1a 22.12 18.1a
GASIF GT 26.20 26.5a 22.90 23.6a
GASIF ST 19.35 18.9a 17.10 16.4a
GASIF SOFC 64.15 60.0a 42.90 42.0a
GASIF MCFC 56.20 50.0a 38.72 35.0a
INS ST 18.55 16.2a 18.55 16.2a
Deviation 3.96 3.74
a
[55]
b
[60–62]

13
Waste and Biomass Valorization
LINMAP method [59] to determine the most optimal solu-
tion from the curve.
Results and Discussion
Technical Performance of Technologies
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the
current study are available from the corresponding author on
reasonable request. The technical performances of various
WtE technologies were assessed. EFF and NEE based on
the simulation were reviewed. In brief, the technical perfor-
mance results for various WtE technologies are summarized
in Table 5. It can be inferred from the table the combination
of GASIF+SOFC has the highest efficiency due to the suit-
ability of the fuel (syngas) with the power generator tech-
nology. Based on the comparison of EFF and NEE among
technologies, fuel cells coupled with any MSW processing
technologies reaches highest efficiency among each MSW
processing technology, since fuel cells have very high effi-
ciency compared to other power generation technologies.
The high efficiency is contributed by the fact that fuel cells
convert chemical energy directly to electricity, while the oth-
ers need to convert chemical energy to thermal energy first
then to electricity. Since the pathway to generate electricity
is shorter the energy loss is also lower. Table 5 presents
the technical performance of all combined technologies and
comparing it to the literature, the standard deviation of EFF
and NEE are only 3.96% and 3.74% consecutively, as the low
standard deviation suggest that the model is valid.
Fig. 4  LCOE reduction for 0.36
combined technologies
0.32
0.28
LCOE ($2020/kWh)
0.24
0.2
0.16
0.12
0.08
2020
Parametric Analysis
Economic and environmental parametric analyses were
performed. By considering the learning curves of all tech-
nologies, LCOE projections for all technologies could be
evaluated. The LCOEs of all WtE technologies can be seen
in Fig. 4.
Based on the calculation, INS+ST technology had the
lowest LCOE compared with the other evaluated technolo-
gies, whereas AD-INS+SOFC had the highest LCOE.
The high LCOE is subjected to several variables such as
investment cost, operation and maintenance cost, and elec-
tricity production. However, investment cost plays a major
role on deciding LCOE for biomass [63], thus the high
LCOE contributed by the high investment and vice versa.
The INS-ST has the lowest LCOE since it is a mature and
simple technology since the investment cost is low while
AD-INS+SOFC has the highest LCOE since it has complex
technology and immature technology i.e. SOFC, thus the
investment cost will be high. Fuel cells coupled technology
such as GASIF+SOFC, AD-INS+SOFC, PYRO+SOFC,
PYRO+MCFC have higher LCOE since fuel cell has very
high investment cost [34].
Figure 4 shows that the LCOEs of all technologies
decreased over the time. The decline in LCOE for all tech-
nologies except INS+ST was caused by the learning rate of
each technology and the increasing capacity of the WtE plant
associated with population growth. However, the decrease in
LCOE for INS+ST was affected only by increasing capacity.
The fastest cost reduction is for the GASIF+SOFC tech-
nology which drop 58.5% from 2020 to 2050 due to fast
AD-INS+GE
AD-INS+GT
AD-INS+ST
AD-INS+SOFC
AD-INS+MCFC
PYRO+GE
PYRO+GT
PYRO+ST
PYRO+SOFC
PYRO+MCFC
GASIF+GE
GASIF+GT
GASIF+ST
GASIF+SOFC
GASIF+MCFC
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
INS+ST
Year
13

1.4000
Emission Intensity (kg-CO2eq/kWhe) 1.2000
1.0000
0.8000
0.6000
0.4000
0.2000
0.0000
Fig. 5  GHG emission intensity of combined technologies
learning rate. The emission intensities from all combined
technologies are shown in Fig. 5. The emission intensities
of all combined technologies were the same over the studied
period. The emission intensities from all combined tech-
nologies are also benchmarked with reference data shown
in Table 6.
Enviro‑Economic Optimization
Multi-objective optimization was performed to determine
the optimum technology in every period from 2020 until
2050 that had the lowest LCOE and emission intensity. Some
candidate technologies were excluded outright because of
the dominance of the other technologies. The non-dominated
technology candidates were then plotted into the Pareto
curve (Fig. 6) to identify the optimum technologies.
Over the studied period, there were changes in the Pareto
curve. Figure 6 shows that the GASIF+SOFC technology
did not appear in the first and second periods (2020 and
2025). However, in the third period, this combined technol-
ogy appeared in the Pareto curve. This phenomenon can
be explained by the Pareto curve shows the non-dominated
options; thus, when an option does not appear in the curve,
it is dominated by other technologies that are cheaper and
13
Waste and Biomass Valorization
cleaner. However, because of the effect of learning, this tech-
nology became cheaper and dominated the technologies that
previously dominated it. This phenomenon also occurred for
AD-INS+GE, which appear in the first period but was then
dominated by AD-INS+GT in the second period.
LINMAP was used to determine the best technology
with the lowest LCOE and emission intensity. In the multi-
period review, the optimum technology was chosen for every
5-year interval. Table 7 presents the decision results from the
Pareto curve, which represent the optimum WtE technolo-
gies selected under the reviewed periods.
Based on the decision results, the optimum technology
in 2020–2030 is PYRO+GE. This selection is based on
PYRO+GE was found to be quite clean and relatively cost-
competitive compared with other MSW processing technolo-
gies in this period. However, in 2035–2040, the optimum
technology selected is replaced with PYRO+GT because
of the learning effect experienced by GT. For 2045–2050,
GASIF+SOFC becomes the chosen technology. The change
in selection of WtE technology was attributed to the effect
of learning, which made SOFC cost competitive relative to
other power generation technologies, and SOFC coupled
well with gasification because it does not need any addi-
tional processing, which could add other costs. Despite all
Waste and Biomass Valorization

Table 6  Benchmarking of LCA result for different combined technol- tolerance, such as H
­ 2S limit for fuel cell is very strict it
ogies with literatures should be lower than 1 ppm.
Technology Model (kg Reference (kg Error (%)
­CO2eq/kWh) ­CO2eq/kWh)

AD-INS+GE 0.381 0.4a 5.0

AD-INS+GT 0.372 0.342b 8.1
Conclusion and Future Direction
AD-INS+ST 0.462 0.411c 12.4
There are several technologies used in WtE systems. From
AD-INS+SOFC 0.228 0.219d 3.9
a technical point of view, the most efficient option is GASIF
AD-INS+MCFC 0.24 0.342e 29.8
with SOFC. From an economic standpoint, the most eco-
PYRO+GE 0.566 0.536f 5.3
nomical option is INS, because of the simplicity of the
PYRO+GT 0.54 0.535f 0.9
system. However, AD-INS+SOFC is the cleanest option
PYRO+ST 0.827 0.753g 9.8
because it produces the lowest emission intensity. In sum-
PYRO+SOFC 0.291 0.26h 11.9
mary, from an environmental and economic standpoint,
PYRO+MCFC 0.339 0.312h 8.6
the optimum technology in 2020–2030 is PYRO+GE. In
GASIF+GE 0.758 0.728f 4.0
2035–2040 and 2045–2050, PYRO+GT and GASIF+SOFC
GASIF+GT 0.702 0.73f 4.0
become the optimum technologies, respectively. The future
GASIF+ST 0.899 1.1f 22.4
direction of the study should be more concern on the deep
GASIF+SOFC 0.354 0.253i 28.5
analysis regarding the exergy analysis, it can also combine
GASIF+MCFC 0.437 0.459h 4.8
with the sustainability analysis hence a more complete pic-
INS+ST 1.31 1.29 h 1.5
ture of the whole impact of the technology on the economy,
a
[50] social, and environment aspect can be understood. The sec-
b
[64] ond direction can move by addressing the technical barriers
c
[65] to implement the technology in the real-world application.
d
[66] Lastly, since one of the main barriers of WtE technology
e
[67] is cost of generation electricity, uncertainty regarding the
f
[55] future cost reduction should be well studied to estimate more
g
[68] precisely on the risk of implementing the technology.
h
[68–70]
i
[71]

of the result, technical barrier for implementation to support

the practical application of the technology must be consid-
ered. For example, fuel cell’s fuel has very strict quality

13
 Waste and Biomass Valorization

Fig. 6  Pareto curve, arrow indicating the optimal point (INS incineration; PYRO pyrolysis; AD anaerobic digestion; GASIF gasification; ST
steam turbine; GE gas engine; GT gas turbine; MCFC molten carbonate fuel cell; SOFC solid oxide fuel cell)

Table 7  The preferred in-m

​ enuru​ t-k​ ecama​ tan-d​ i-k​ ota-d​ epok-2​ 017.h​ tml (2018). Accessed
Years Technology selected
combination technology as 6 Nov 2019
a result of multi-objective 2020 PYRO+GE 2. Kumar, A., Samadder, S.R.: A review on technological options
optimization of waste to energy for effective management of municipal solid
2025 PYRO+GE waste. Waste Manag. 69, 407–422 (2017). https://​doi.​org/​10.​
2030 PYRO+GE 1016/j.​wasman.​2017.​08.​046
2035 PYRO+GT 3. Hansen, J.C., Aanderud, Z.T., Reid, L.E., Bateman, C., Hansen,
2040 PYRO+GT C.L., Rogers, L.S., et al.: Enhancing waste degradation and biogas
production by pre-digestion with a hyperthermophilic anaerobic
2045 GASIF+SOFC bacterium. Biofuel Res. J. 8, 1433–43 (2021). https://​doi.​org/​10.​
2050 GASIF+SOFC 18331/​BRJ20​21.8.​3.3
4. Tabatabaei, M., Aghbashlo, M., Valijanian, E., Kazemi Shariat
Panahi, H., Nizami, A.-S., Ghanavati, H., et al.: A comprehensive
review on recent biological innovations to improve biogas produc-
Funding The authors did not receive support from any organization tion, part 1: upstream strategies. Renew. Energy 146, 1204–20
for the submitted work. (2020). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​renene.​2019.​07.​037
5. Xia, C., Cai, L., Zhang, H., Zuo, L., Shi, S.Q., Lam, S.S.: A review
Data Availability Enquiries about data availability should be directed on the modeling and validation of biomass pyrolysis with a focus
to the authors. on product yield and composition. Biofuel Res. J. 8, 1296–315
(2021). https://​doi.​org/​10.​18331/​BRJ20​21.8.​1.2
6. Ge, S., Yek, P.N.Y., Cheng, Y.W., Xia, C., Wan Mahari, W.A.,
Declarations Liew, R.K., et al.: Progress in microwave pyrolysis conversion
of agricultural waste to value-added biofuels: a batch to continu-
Conflict of interest The authors declare no conflict of interest. ous approach. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 135, 110148 (2021).
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​rser.​2020.​110148
7. Soltanian, S., Lee, C.L., Lam, S.S.: A review on the role of hier-
archical zeolites in the production of transportation fuels through
catalytic fast pyrolysis of biomass. Biofuel Res. J. 7, 1217–34
References (2020). https://​doi.​org/​10.​18331/​BRJ20​20.7.​3.5
8. Munir, M.T., Mardon, I., Al-Zuhair, S., Shawabkeh, A., Saqib,
1. BPS-Statistic Indonesia. Total population and gender ratio by N.U.: Plasma gasification of municipal solid waste for waste-
district in Depok City, 2017. https://​depok​kota.​bps.​go.​id/​dynam​ to-value processing. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 116, 109461
ictab​le/​2018/​07/​20/​18/​jumlah-​pendu​duk-​dan-​rasio-​jenis-​kelam​ (2019). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​rser.​2019.​109461

13
Waste and Biomass Valorization
9. Makarichi, L., Jutidamrongphan, W., Techato, K.: The evolution
of waste-to-energy incineration: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 91, 812–821 (2018). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​rser.​2018.​04.​
088
10. Behzadi, A., Gholamian, E., Houshfar, E., Habibollahzade, A.:
Multi-objective optimization and exergoeconomic analysis of
waste heat recovery from Tehran’s waste-to-energy plant inte-
grated with an ORC unit. Energy 160, 1055–1068 (2018). https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​energy.​2018.​07.​074
11. Korai, M.S., Mahar, R.B., Uqaili, M.A.: Optimization of waste to
energy routes through biochemical and thermochemical treatment
options of municipal solid waste in Hyderabad, Pakistan. Energy
Convers. Manag. 124, 333–343 (2016). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
encon​man.​2016.​07.​032
12. Ng, W.P.Q., Lam, H.L., Varbanov, P.S., Klemeš, J.J.: Waste-
to-energy (WTE) network synthesis for municipal solid waste
(MSW). Energy Convers. Manag. 85, 866–874 (2014). https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​encon​man.​2014.​01.​004
13. Mavrotas, G., Gakis, N., Skoulaxinou, S., Katsouros, V., Georgo-
poulou, E.: Municipal solid waste management and energy pro-
duction: consideration of external cost through multi-objective
optimization and its effect on waste-to-energy solutions. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 51, 1205–1222 (2015). https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​rser.​2015.​07.​029
14. Münster, M., Ravn, H., Hedegaard, K., Juul, N., Ljunggren, S.M.:
Economic and environmental optimization of waste treatment.
Waste Manag. 38, 486–495 (2015). https://​doi.o​ rg/​10.​1016/j.w ​ as-
man.​2014.​12.​005
15. Syauqi, A., Purwanto, W.W.: Mixed-integer non-linear program-
ming (MINLP) multi-period multi-objective optimization of
advanced power plant through gasification of municipal solid
waste (MSW). Chem. Prod. Process Model. (2020). https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1515/​cppm-​2019-​0126
16. Taskhiri, M.S., Behera, S.K., Tan, R.R., Park, H.-S.: Fuzzy opti-
mization of a waste-to-energy network system in an eco-industrial
park. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 17, 476–489 (2015). https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10163-​014-​0259-5
17. Perera, A.T.D., Kuruppumullage, D.N.S., Nissanka, N.A.I.D., de
Alwis, A.A.P.: Evolutionary multi objective optimization to opti-
mize waste to energy network. Int. Conf. Green Technol. Environ.
Conserv. (2011). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​GTEC.​2011.​61676​37
18. Saif, Y., Griffiths, S., Almansoori, A.: Municipal solid waste sup-
ply chain management under an integrated optimization of sus-
tainability targets. Comput. Chem. Eng. (2022). https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​compc​hemeng.​2022.​107725
19. Mayanti, B., Songok, J., Helo, P.: Multi-objective optimization to
improve energy, economic and environmental life cycle assess-
ment in waste-to-energy plant. Waste Manag. 127, 147–157
(2021). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​wasman.​2021.​04.​042
20. Ooi, J.K., Woon, K.S., Hashim, H.: A multi-objective model to
optimize country-scale municipal solid waste management with
economic and environmental objectives: a case study in Malaysia.
J. Clean. Prod. 316, 128366 (2021). https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.j​ clep​
ro.​2021.​128366
21. Kristanto, G.A., Gusniani, I., Ratna, A., Ratna, A.: The perfor-
mance of municipal solid waste recycling program in Depok,
Indonesia. Int. J. Technol. 6(2), 263 (2015)
22. Khuriati, A., Purwanto, P., Setiyo Huboyo, H., Suryono, S.,
Bawono, P.A.: Application of aspen plus for municipal solid
waste plasma gasification simulation: case study of Jatibarang
Landfill in Semarang Indonesia. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. (2018).
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1088/​1742-​6596/​1025/1/​012006
23. Prajati, G., Padmi, T., Rahardyan, B.: The influence of economic
and demographic factors to waste generation in capital city of
Java and Sumatera. In: The Third Joint Seminar of Japan and
Indonesia Environmental Sustainability and Disaster Preven-
tion, vol. 21, pp. 69–80. (2015)
24. Octavianthy, D., Purwanto, W.W.: Municipal solid waste to elec-
tricity using anaerobic digestion and incineration conversion
technologies: a comparative study. In: 2019 IEEE International
Conference on Innovative Research and Development. (2019).
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​ICIRD​47319.​2019.​90747​51.
25. Ostrem, K.: Greening Waste: Anaerobic Digestion for Treat-
ing the Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste. Coloumbia
University, New York (2004)
26. Nidoni, P.G.: Incineration process for solid waste management
and effective utilization of by products. Int. Res. J. Eng. Tech-
nol. 4(12), 378–82 (2017)
27. Yang, Y., Wang, J., Chong, K., Bridgwater, A.V.: A techno-
economic analysis of energy recovery from organic fraction of
municipal solid waste (MSW) by an integrated intermediate
pyrolysis and combined heat and power (CHP) plant. Energy
Convers. Manag. 174, 406–416 (2018). https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​
1016/j.​encon​man.​2018.​08.​033
28. Branchini, L.: Waste-to-Energy and Gas Turbine: Hybrid Com-
bined Cycle Concept. Waste-to-Energy, pp. 57–70. Springer
International Publishing, Cham (2015). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
978-3-​319-​13608-0_5
29. Luo, X., Wang, M.: Study of solvent-based carbon capture for
cargo ships through process modelling and simulation. Appl.
Energy 195, 402–413 (2017). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​apene​rgy.​
2017.​03.​027
30. Sahli, Y., Ben Moussa, H., Zitouni, B.: Optimization study of
the produced electric power by SOFCs. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
(2018). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijhyd​ene.​2018.​08.​162
31. Duan, L., Xia, K., Feng, T., Jia, S., Bian, J.: Study on coal-fired
power plant with ­CO2 capture by integrating molten carbonate
fuel cell system. Energy 117, 578–589 (2016). https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​energy.​2016.​03.​063
32. IRENA: Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2017. Interna-
tional Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi (2018)
33. Seider, W.D., Seader, J.D., Lewin, D.R.: Process Design Princi-
ples—Synthesis, Analysis & Evaluation. Wiley, New York (1998)
34. IEA-ETSAP. Fuel Cells for Stationary Applications. International
Energy Agency, Paris (2013)
35. Wright, T.P.: Factors affecting the cost of airplanes. J. Aeronaut.
Sci. 3, 122–8 (1936). https://​doi.​org/​10.​2514/8.​155
36. Zimmerman, M.B.: Learning effects and the commercialization of
new energy technologies: the case of nuclear power. Bell J. Econ.
13, 297–310 (1982). https://​doi.​org/​10.​2307/​30034​55
37. Arrow, K.J.: The economic implications of learning by doing. In:
Hahn, F.H. (ed.) Readings in the Theory of Growth: A Selection
of Papers from the Review of Economic Studies, pp. 131–49.
Palgrave Macmillan UK, London (1971). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
978-1-​349-​15430-2_​11
38. Heuberger, C.F., Rubin, E.S., Staffell, I., Shah, N., Mac, D.N.:
Power capacity expansion planning considering endogenous tech-
nology cost learning. Appl. Energy 204, 831–845 (2017). https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​apene​rgy.​2017.​07.​075
39. Rubin, E.S., Yeh, S., Antes, M., Berkenpas, M., Davison, J.: Use
of experience curves to estimate the future cost of power plants
with ­CO2 capture. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 1, 188–197 (2007).
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S1750-​5836(07)​00016-3
40. Reyseliani, N., Purwanto, W.W.: Pathway towards 100% renew-
able energy in Indonesia power system by 2050. Renew. Energy
176, 305–321 (2021). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​renene.​2021.​05.​
118
41. Pratama, Y.W., Purwanto, W.W., Tezuka, T., McLellan, B.C.,
Hartono, D., Hidayatno, A., et al.: Multi-objective optimization
of a multiregional electricity system in an archipelagic state: the
role of renewable energy in energy system sustainability. Renew.
13

Sustain. Energy Rev. 77, 423–439 (2017). https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​rser.​2017.​04.​021
42. Schmidt, O., Melchior, S., Hawkes, A., Staffell, I.: Projecting the
future levelized cost of electricity storage technologies. Joule 3,
81–100 (2019). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​joule.​2018.​12.​008
43. Gils, H.C., Simon, S.: Carbon neutral archipelago—100% renew-
able energy supply for the Canary Islands. Appl. Energy 188,
342–355 (2017). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​apene​rgy.​2016.​12.​023
44. Michailos, S., Parker, D., Webb, C.: Comprehensive design of a
fast pyrolysis reactor for waste utilization. Int. J. Renew. Energy
Res. 7, 1613–1620 (2017)
45. Junginger, M., Visser, E., Hjort-Gregersen, K., Koornneef, J.,
Raven, R., Turkenburg, W.C.: Technological change in bioenergy
systems. Energy Policy 34, 4024–4041 (2006). https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​enpol.​2005.​09.​012
46. Schoots, K., Kramer, G.J., van der Zwaan, B.C.C.: Technology
learning for fuel cells: an assessment of past and potential cost
reductions. Energy Policy 38, 2887–2897 (2010). https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​enpol.​2010.​01.​022
47. Hart, D., Lehner, F., Jones, S., Lewis, J.: The fuel cell industry
review 2019. 2. Fuel cell industry review 2019. E4Tech, London
(2019)
48. The Shift Data Portal. Electricity Capacity (2019). https://​thesh​
iftda​tapor​tal.​org/​energy/​elect​r icity?​chart-​type=​stack​ed&​chart-​
types=​stack​e d&​chart-​t ypes=​stack​e d-​p erce​n t&​chart-​t ypes=​
pie& ​ c hart- ​ t ypes= ​ l ine& ​ c hart- ​ t ypes= ​ r anki ​ n g& ​ d isab ​ l e- ​ e n=​
false​&​ef-​gener​ation=​Oil&​ef-​gener​ation=​Coal&​ef-​gener​ation=​
Gas&​ef-​gener​ation. Accessed 20 Aug 2021
49. Brogaard, L.K., Riber, C., Christensen, T.H.: Quantifying capi-
tal goods for waste incineration. Waste Manag. 33, 1390–1396
(2013). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​wasman.​2013.​03.​007
50. Lausselet, C., Cherubini, F., Oreggioni, G.D., del Alamo, S.G.,
Becidan, M., Hu, X., et al.: Norwegian waste-to-energy: cli-
mate change, circular economy and carbon capture and storage.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 126, 50–61 (2017). https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​resco​nrec.​2017.​07.​025
51. Chang, N.-B., Pires, A.: Sustainable Solid Waste Management:
A Systems Engineering Approach, 1st edn. Wiley, New Jersey
(2015)
52. ATRI. An analysis of the operational costs of trucking:
American Trucking Research Institute. 2018 update October
2018, Arlington (2018)
53. Dinh, D.D., Kubota, H.: Profile-speed data-based models to
estimate operating speeds for urban residential streets with a
30 km/h speed limit. IATSS Res. 36, 115–122 (2013). https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​iatssr.​2012.​06.​001
54. IPCC. Chapter 5: Waste. IPCC Good Pract. Guid. Uncertain.
Manag. Natl. Greenh. Gase Invent. Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, Geneva (2000)
55. Dong, J., Tang, Y., Nzihou, A., Chi, Y., Weiss-Hortala, E., Ni,
M.: Life cycle assessment of pyrolysis, gasification and incin-
eration waste-to-energy technologies: theoretical analysis and
case study of commercial plants. Sci. Total Environ. 626, 744–
753 (2018). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​2018.​01.​151
56. Mattila, H.-P., Hudd, H., Zevenhoven, R.: Cradle-to-gate life
cycle assessment of precipitated calcium carbonate production
from steel converter slag. J. Clean. Prod. 84, 611–618 (2014).
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2014.​05.​064
57. Ritzkowski, M., Heerenklage, J., Stegmann, R.: An overview on
techniques and regulations of mechanical-biological pre-treat-
ment of municipal solid waste. Environ. Biotechnol. 2, 57–68
(2006)
13
Waste and Biomass Valorization
58. Smith, A.E.: Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary
algorithms [book review]. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 6, 526–526
(2005). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​tevc.​2002.​804322
59. Wang, Z., Rangaiah, G.P.: Application and analysis of methods
for selecting an optimal solution from the pareto-optimal front
obtained by multiobjective optimization. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
56, 560–574 (2017). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1021/​acs.​iecr.​6b034​53
60. Suhartini, S., Lestari, Y.P., Nurika, I.: Estimation of methane and
electricity potential from canteen food waste. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth
Environ. Sci. 230, 12075 (2019). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1088/​1755-​
1315/​230/1/​012075
61. Seruga, P., Krzywonos, M., Seruga, A., Niedźwiecki, Ł, Pawlak-
Kruczek, H., Urbanowska, A.: Anaerobic digestion performance:
separate collected vs. mechanical segregated organic fractions of
municipal solid waste as feedstock. Energies (2020). https://​doi.​
org/​10.​3390/​en131​53768
62. Baldi, F., Wang, L., Pérez-Fortes, M., Maréchal, F.: A cogenera-
tion system based on solid oxide and proton exchange membrane
fuel cells with hybrid storage for off-grid applications. Front.
Energy Res. (2019). https://​doi.​org/​10.​3389/​fenrg.​2018.​00139
63. Ramsden, T., Steward, D., Zuboy, J.: Analyzing the Levelized Cost
of Centralized and Distributed Hydrogen Production Using the
H2A Production Model, Version 2. National Renewable Energy
Lab. (NREL), Golden (2009). https://​doi.​org/​10.​2172/​965528
64. Ayodele, T.R., Ogunjuyigbe, A.S.O., Alao, M.A.: Life cycle assess-
ment of waste-to-energy (WtE) technologies for electricity gen-
eration using municipal solid waste in Nigeria. Appl. Energy 201,
200–218 (2017). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​apene​rgy.​2017.​05.​097
65. Opatokun, S.A., Lopez-Sabiron, A., Ferreira, G., Strezov, V.:
life cycle analysis of energy production from food waste through
anaerobic digestion, pyrolysis and integrated energy system. Sus-
tainability (2017). https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​su910​1804
66. Lin, J., Babbitt, C.W., Trabold, T.A.: Life cycle assessment inte-
grated with thermodynamic analysis of bio-fuel options for solid
oxide fuel cells. Bioresour. Technol. 128, 495–504 (2013). https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​biort​ech.​2012.​10.​074
67. Hamad, T.A., Agll, A.A., Hamad, Y.M., Bapat, S., Thomas,
M., Martin, K.B., et al.: Study of combined heat, hydrogen and
power system based on a molten carbonate fuel cell fed by biogas
produced by anaerobic digestion. Energy Convers. Manag. 81,
184–191 (2014). https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.e​ nconm
​ an.2​ 014.0​ 2.0​ 36
68. Dong, J., Tang, Y., Nzihou, A., Chi, Y.: Key factors influencing the
environmental performance of pyrolysis, gasification and incinera-
tion Waste-to-Energy technologies. Energy Convers. Manag. 196,
497–512 (2019). https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.e​ nconm
​ an.2​ 019.0​ 6.0​ 16
69. Saidi, M., Ghaffari, A.: Chapter 14—waste management. In: Shar-
ifzadeh, M. (ed.) Design and Operation of Solid Oxide Fuel Cells.
Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy, pp. 395–444. Academic
Press, Cambridge (2020). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​B978-0-​12-​
815253-​9.​00014-8
70. McPhail, S., Leto, L., Boigues Muñoz, C.: The Yellow Pages
of SOFC Technology International Status of SOFC deployment
2012–2013. Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Rome
(2013)
71. Tonini, D., Astrup, T.: LCA of biomass-based energy systems:
a case study for Denmark. Appl. Energy 99, 234–246 (2012).
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​apene​rgy.​2012.​03.​006
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.