WASTE TO WEALTH

SIVAPALAN KATHIRAVALE

sivapalan@nuclearmalaysia.gov.my

Introduction

The need to understand waste

Waste generation rates
Waste management trends
Effect on the Environment
Waste to Wealth
Conclusion

Global Perspective of Municipal Solid Waste Generation

Rates and The Respective Management Costs
Units

Low Income

Middle Income

High Income

Mixed Urban Waste Large City

kg/cap/day

0.50 to 0.75

0.55 to 1.10

0.75 to 2.20

Mixed Urban Waste Medium City

kg/cap/day

0.35 to 0.65

0.45 to 0.75

0.65 to 1.50

Residential Waste Only

kg/cap/day

0.25 to 0.45

0.35 to 0.65

0.55 to 1.00

Average Income from GNP

USD/cap/yr

370

2,400

22,000

Collection Cost

USD/ton

10 to 30

30 to 70

70 to 120

Transfer Cost

USD/ton

3 to 8

5 to 15

15 to 20

Open Dumping Cost

USD/ton

0.5 to 2

1 to 3

5 to 10

Sanitary Landfill Cost

USD/ton

3 to 10

8 to 15

20 to 50

Tidal Land Reclamation Cost

USD/ton

3 to 15

10 to 40

30 to 100

Composting Cost

USD/ton

5 to 20

10 to 40

20 to 60

Incineration Cost

USD/ton

40 to 60

30 to 80

70 to 100

Total cost without Transfer

USD/ton

13 to 40

38 to 85

90 to 170

Total cost with Transfer

USD/ton

17 to 48

43 to 100

105 to 190

0.7 to 2.6

0.5 to 1.3

0.2 to 0.5

Cost as % of Income

Socio-economic data, generation rates and

major waste components in some countries
City

Country

Socio-economic factors
W T
PD
P/DW GNP POP

USA
Australia
Japan
France
Italy

1000 15 450
620 25
30
700 15 40 694
1250 10 4 000
580 14 700

4.2
4.2
7.0
2.5
4.9

12 800
4 100
4 910
18 400
7 000

Spain
Singapore
Philipines
Taiwan
Nigeria

410
440
64
220
70

14 290
29 26 472
27 983
22 1 250
30 200

4.2
3.9
5.0
4.2
4.5

5 000 3.19
4 000 2.44
807 1.63
2.50
2 000 1.00

India
Bangldeh
Pakistan
Indonesia
Burma

50
25
340
45
32

24 1 300 7.0
26 3 750 6.0
29 1 300 5.5
24 700 8.0
26 200 6.0

Municipal
Waste
MW

Major waste components (% by weight)

Paper Plastic Food Metal Glass

High Income
New York
Sydney
Tokyo
Paris
Rome

9.12
3.23
11.60
2.18
2.88

720
690
400
590
460

35
38
38
30
18

10
0.1
11
1
4

22
13
23
30
50

13
11
4
4
3

390
-

21
43
17
8
17

6
4
2
4

45
5
43
25
43

3
3
2
1
5

3
2
0.5
2
1

0.5
1
0.5
3
4

9
18
7
4
4

Medium Income
Madrid
Singapore
Manila
Taipei
Kano

4
1
5
3
2

Low Income
Banglore
Dacca
Karachi
Jakarta
Rangoon

320
200
1 890
474
120

2.91
1.31
5.10
6.50
2.60

65
40
56
82
80

0.4
1
0.5
4
3

0.2
9
0.5
0.5
6

Fo
od
/O
rg
M anic
ix
Pa
pe
N
H
ig ews r
h
Pr
G
Co rad int
rru e P
a
ga
te per
d
Pl
Pa
as
tic per
Pl (Rig
as
id
ti
)
Pl c (F
as
tic lim)
(F
oa
m
Pa )
m
pe
rs
Ru Te
xt
bb
er ile
/L
ea
th
er
W
oo
d
G
Y
la
ar
ss
d
G
(C
la
ss
le
a
(C
o l r)
ou
re
d
Fe )
r
N
o n rou
s
-F
er
r
ou
A
lu
s
Ba
m
tte
i
n
rie
i
s/H um
az
ar
ds
O
th
Fi
O er O ne
th
rg
er
In anic
-O
rg
an
ic
O
th
er
s

Percentage

Composition of MSW generated in Kuala Lumpur

70
Min
Average
Max

60

50

40

30

20

10

Solid Waste Management

Problem in Malaysia

MSW Generation 17,000 t/day (2003),

30,000 t/day (2020)
Kuala Lumpur Generates 2,500 t/day
95 97% of MSW is Land filled Currently
112 Disposal Sites (2002)
43% Open Dump, only 6.3% Sanitary
Landfill (SLF)
50% Remaining Lifespan < 5 yrs

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

Environmentally Sustainable
Reduce the Environmental Impact

Reduce Energy Consumption

Reduce Pollution of Land, Air & Water
Reduce Loss of Amenity
Economically Sustainable
Balance between Cost versus Env. Impact
BATNEEC, BPEO
LEADING TO IWMS

ROLE of INTERGRATED WASTE

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM(IWMS)

Energy
Raw
Material

Energy
Recovery
I.W.M
Material
Recovery

Landfill

Amount of waste collected and the management

methods
Country

Data
latest
year
available

Municipal
waste
collected
(1000
tonnes)

Population
served by
municipal
waste
collection
(%)

Municipal
waste
collected
per
capita
served
(kg)

Municipal
waste
landfilled
(%)

Municipal
waste
incinerated
(%)

Municipal
waste
recycled/
composted
(kg)

Europe
Sweden

2001

3 930

...

...

22.4

38.2

38.7

United Kingdom

2001

34 851

...

...

79.9

7.3

12.3

Bulgaria

2002

3 199

81.1

495

99.7

...

...

Czech Republic

2002

2 845

100.0

278

70.3

14.0

...

Denmark

2002

3 587

100.0

670

8.3

58.3

34.6

North & Central America

Belize

2000

62

48.6

532

100.0

...

...

Canada

2000

10 870

...

...

...

...

32.2

Costa Rica

2000

71

...

...

...

...

...

Mexico

2002

32 174

86.0

367

97.6

0.0

2.4

United States

2001

207 957

100.0

722

55.7

14.7

29.7

Cont
South America
Bolivia

2002

662

...

...

...

...

...

Chile

2002

5 558

...

...

41.0

...

...

Colombia

1998

7 430

...

...

...

...

...

Peru

2001

1 444

100.0

64.6

...

...

Uruguay

2000

910

Algeria

2003

8 500

...

...

99.9

...

0.1

Benin

2002

986

23.0

654

0.0

0.0

...

Egypt

2000

15 000

...

...

...

...

...

Madagascar

2002

151

100.0

100.0

0.0

0.0

Mauritius

2003

351

95.0

303

100.0

...

...

China,
Hong
Kong SAR

2002

5 399

100.0

773

63.7

...

36.3

Japan

2000

52 362

100.0

412

5.9

77.0

15.0

Cyprus

2002

500

...

709

90.0

0.0

0.0

Singapore

2002

4 402

...

...

3.7

55.0

41.3

Thailand

2000

13 972

...

...

...

0.8

14.3

Australia

1999

13 200

...

...

95.0

0.0

7.3

New Zealand

1999

1 541

...

...

84.7

...

15.3

Africa

Asia

Oceania

Waste Management/Thermal Treatment

Trends

Gasification
Pyrolysis
Mass Burn
Sanitary Landfill
Dumping

Environmentally the best

Economically the best

Hydrogen

Global New Approach

4.RDF Burn /GAM

Electricity
? MW Export
Ash

MSW

MRF/
RDF Plant

Organics

Digestate

1.Reduction

2. Recycle Materials

SLF

3.A.D/
Electricity Composting

? MW Export

Compost

Selection is not simple, depends on:

Waste Size, Composition and Need for ReProcessing

Choice of Recycling Options-Energy,
Chemicals, Slag
Regulation
Local Conditions
Flexibility with Regards to Waste Stream
Technology Maturity and Track Record
Economics Issues
Public Acceptance

Greenhouse gas emissions of different waste

management systems
+
CO2
equivalents
per annum

Landfill +
Gas recovery +
Power Production

Landfill

Mix waste
combustion plant +
power production

Energy

SRF production cogasification in coal

boiler

Recycling

SRF and paper fibre

recovery + cogasification in coal
boiler

Total

GHG emissions from the MSW incineration and

landfill (Germany)
Emission in 2002
[million t CO2eq]

Total Emissions

Landfill

MSW Incineration

Carbon dioxide CO2

863.5

6.45

Methane CH4

74.5

13.7

Nitrous oxide N2O

49.5

0.03

HFCS

8.2

PFCS

0.7

SF6

4.1

Total

1000.5

13.7

6.49

Greenhouse gas emissions from electricity production

1 tonne
MSW

MSW Incineration

1100 kg CO2
(220 kg fossil and 880 kg biogenic)

600 kWhe

Coal

Coal Combustion

592 kg
CO2

600 kWhe equivalent

1 tonne
MSW

Landfill

1610 kg
CO2

With out gas utilization

Net reduction in CO2 = 220-592-1610 = -1982 kg

What is Dioxin

A Common Name for a Group of Chemicals

called Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
(PCDD), furans(PCDF) and certain PCBs
As its name suggests, it forms from a
chemical combination of Carbon,
Hydrogen, Oxygen and Chlorine
Pure dioxins are colorless solids or crystals

Source of Dioxin

In Japan, more than 80% dioxin comes from

incineration
In the USA, about 38% comes from incineration
In the Ireland, only 0.32% comes from
incinerators whereas the biggest sources are from
accidental fires and illegal domestic waste
combustion (58%). Note: Ireland produces about
38 g TEQ/yr compared to other European
countries ranging from 50 1123 g-TEQ/yr.
I.e depends on the industrialization and the use of
many old incinerators

Dioxin Level in Environment

Malaysia
Air (pg/Nm3) 0.1- 0.17
Soil (pg/g)
MSW (pg/g)

Germany
0.1

Japan
Std
0.6

(MINT,2003)

(Vehlow,2000)

(Sakai,
2000)

2-5

1-10

1000

(MINT, 2003)

(Vehlow, 2000)

(Sakai,
2000)

11-25

20-100

NA

(MINT, 2003)

(Vehlow, 2000)

Pathways for processing of municipal solid

waste
Processing

Intermediate
Products

Materials
For Market

Conversion
To Energy
Incineration

Compost

MSW

Mechanic
Separati
al
on

Anarobic
Digestion

Biodegradable
Fraction

Secondary
Raw material

Glass, Metals,
Aluminium etc

Pyrolisis

Gasification
Solid
Recovered
Fuels

Combustion

Co-utilisation
with Fossil Fuels

SA

ECU/ton
400

U
S
Si
ng A
ap
o
M re
al
ay
si
a
M
al
ay
si
a

Au
st
ria
Be
lg
iu
Be m
lg
iu
m
D
en
m
ar
Fi k
nl
an
Fi d
nl
an
G
er d
m
an
G
er y
m
an
G y
N ree
et
he ce
r
N l an
et
he ds
rl a
nd
s
Sp
ai
n
Sp
Sw a in
ee
d
Sw en
ee
de
n

Cost comparison between land filling and

incineration
Incineration

Landfill

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

Amount of Energy Recoverable from MSW by Various

Treatment Technologies [15]
Material

Treatment
Technology

Conversion Efficiency

Calorific Value of
Fuel

Energy
Recoverable /
ton of Fuel

Total Energy
Recovered
(based on 1500
tons/day

Energy
Recoverable
(Normalized to
per ton of
MSW Input)

MSW

Incineration

WTE - 25 %

2200 kcal/kg

639 kW.hr

960 MW.hr

639 kW.hr

MSW

Incineration

WTE - 25 %

1500 kcal/kg

436 kW.hr

655 MW.hr

436 kW.hr

MSW

Incineration

WTE - 25 %

800 kcal/kg

233 kW.hr

350 MW.hr

233 kWhr

RDF

Incineration

MSW to RDF - 30%,

WTE - 25%

3500 kcal/kg

1017 kW.hr

458 MW.hr

305 kW.hr

MSW

Anaerobic
Digestion,

MSW to Digester
60%, Biogas to energy
25%

5000 kcal/m3

218 kW.hr

196 MW.hr

131 kW.hr

MSW

Anaerobic
Digestion,

MSW to Digester
60%, Biogas to energy
with steam recovery
80%

5000 kcal/m3

697 kW.hr

627 MW.hr

418 kW.hr

MSW

Anaerobic
Digestion and
Fuel Cell

MSW to Digester
60%, Biogas to energy
by Fuel Cell 50%

241.83 kJ /mol H

585 kW.hr

526 MW.hr

351 kW.hr

Conclusion

Waste generated and managed in a proper

manner could be advantageous to the
environment
The environment has already suffered enough
from the actins of its inhabitants
Education and realization is necessary to ensure
sustainability
The Challenges is how and what action should
be taken?

Matters to ponder!

Most of current technology is focused on

treating waste that has already been generated
What about reducing the need to manufacture
less for less consumption?
Ensuring manufacturing processes are 110%
efficient and do not produce waste at all.
How to contain the huge appetite for modern
lifestyle?
Ensuring zero waste production by the general
population?

Thank You

THANK YOU AND HELP PRESERVE THIS