University of Chicago

Waste-to-Energy in Mumbai, India

A Cost-Benefit Analysis: Why Waste-to-Energy isn’t Catching Fire in India

Authors:

Camille Bishop ChemistryUpasna Chakravarty Economics, StatisticsXiaolun Cheng Computer Science, EconomicsRuchi Mahadeshwar Economics, MathematicsVarsha Sundar Economics, Public PolicyJeannie Xu Economics, History

Energy & Energy Policy

Professors Stephen Berry and George Tolley

December 3, 2014

1. Abstract

Waste-to-energy refers to the energy recovery process of generating electricity and/or heat from the incineration of solid waste. The goal of this study is to evaluate the economic and environmental feasibility of implementing waste to energy facilities in India to tackle the nation’s energy production and waste management issues. To establish a framework, we focus our research on waste to energy techniques and understanding them within two contexts: a current successful implementation in Sweden and a potential future implementation in India. The study of India’s potential implementation includes an analysis of current Indian political, economic, and social climate surrounding waste to energy technologies as well as waste to energy techniques already proposed for potential implementation in India. Assuming an equal amount of land usage, we focus our model on a comparison of the costs and benefits associated with building a single waste to energy facility to the costs and benefits associated with current landfilling techniques in Mumbai, India. We analyze this possibility on a 25-year horizon and discount all future costs and benefits at a discount rate of 12%. Given what private and social costs and benefits can presently be quantified, the net costs and benefits of a potential waste to energy plant are XYZ and the net costs and benefits of current comparable landfilling are ABC. In addition, based on a five-legged cost-benefit analysis, we introduce the unquantifiable costs and benefits associated with our analysis. As such, we conclude from the analysis of a establishing a single waste to energy facility, implementation of waste to energy technology in India is not profitable, and hence, not feasible at this time. Finally, we conclude with our recommendations for India’s potential with respect to waste to energy technology.

1

Table of Contents

Abstract...................................................................................................................................................1Introduction........................................................................................................................................... 3

Statement of Purpose:........................................................................................................................5Technology Surrounding Waste to Energy................................................................................7

Sweden – A Success Story............................................................................................................16

The Indian Problem - The Current State of MSW Management.....................................21

Possible Future Solutions.............................................................................................................. 25

Optimization Model – Methodology and Results.................................................................27

Cost Benefit Analysis..................................................................................................................... 36

Barriers to Implementation...........................................................................................................44

Recommendation and Conclusion..............................................................................................47

Bibliography.......................................................................................................................................49

2

2.1 Introduction

As globalization and urbanization contribute to economic development, they also result in

a slew of environmental consequences that cannot be overlooked. Two major environment

problems have garnered the most attention in recent decades: firstly, climate change caused by

the accumulation of greenhouse gases and, secondly, depletion of the ozone layer caused by the

emission of chlorofluorocarbons. Although increased levels of municipal solid waste (MSW)

does not present the same level of negative impact, MSW has long posed threats to

environmental quality and human health that are widespread and of great local and immediate

concern.1

Municipal solid waste, commonly known as “trash” or “garbage”, consists of commercial

and residential wastes generated in a municipality or community in either solid or semi-solid

form, excluding industrial hazardous wastes, but including treated bio-medical wastes.2

Ten years ago, 2.9 billion urban residents generated about 0.64 kg/capita/day of MSW.

Today, waste generation has reached 1.2 kg/capita/day for the world’s 3 billion urban residents.

By 2025, it is estimated that the figure will increase to 4.3 billion urban residents generating

about 1.42 kg/capita/day of MSW.3 These data suggest that the amount of MSW is growing even

faster than the rate of urbanization.

This global trend of excessive MSW generation is a significant issue in India. The

amount of waste generated per capita is estimated to increase at a rate of 1% - 1.33% annually.4

1 David N. Beede and David E. Bloom, “The Economics of Municipal Solid Waste,” World Bank Research Observer, p. 1142 R. Rajput, G. Prasad and A.K. Chopra, “Scenario of solid waste management in present Indian context,” Caspian Journal of Environmental Sciences, 2009, Vol. 7 No.1 p. 45-433 “What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste Management,” The World Bank Publication, (http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTURBANDEVELOPMENT/Resources/336387-1334852610766/FrontMatter.pdf) 4 Shekdar. (1999) Municipal solid waste management-The Indian perspective. Journal of Indian Association for Environmental Management, 26 (2), 100-108

3

Currently, of the estimated 62 billion tons of MSW generated annually by 377 million people in

urban areas, more than 80% is indiscriminately disposed of by municipal authorities in dump

yards.5 The large amount of landfilled MSW has an enormous impact on health, local and global

environment, and the world economy. According to the WHO, the toxins emitted from

unsanitary landfilling can cause up to 22 preventable diseases. Additionally, the methane from

landfilled MSW contributes to greenhouse gas emissions.6

To reduce the stress that MSW places on the environment, health, and economy,

countries have adopted various waste management techniques, which generally fall into the

following four categories: recycling, thermal treatment, biological treatment, and landfilling.7

Recycling is the recovery of useful materials, such as paper, glass, plastic, and metals

from the trash to use to make new products, reducing the amount of virgin raw materials needed.8

In India, the separation and recovery of valuable materials from MSW is generally done by hand:

by rag pickers directly on the streets or on the dumpsites by scavengers. In many developed

countries, solid waste is separated from the source (households, institutions, organizations and

business) in separate bins (one of the bio-degradable fraction, another one for packages and a

third bin for glass and papers), which facilitates enormously the recycling of valuable materials.9

Thermal treatment of solid waste mainly consists of incineration, pyrolysis and

gasification. Incineration is a technology that involves the complete oxidation of organic waste to

carbon dioxide and water vapor (combustion) in an incinerator (a furnace) to generate heat,

which is used to generate electricity, and non-converted heat is recovered for other purposes.10

On the other hand, pyrolysis involves the drying and decomposition of organic substances in 5  “Report of the Task Force on Waste to Energy. (Vol I)” Government of India, 12 May 2014 6 “What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste Management” 7 Zayani, Amin; Riad, Maggie “Solid Waste Management: Overview and current state in Egypt,” Tri-Ocean Carbon, short paper series p.58 US Environmental Protection Agency, “Municipal Solid Waste” (http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/)9 Zayani, Riad, p. 5

4

absence of oxygen; and finally, gasification consists of converting organic substances into fuel

gas or synthesis gas by partial oxidation with pure oxygen.

Unlike recycling and thermal treatment of solid waste, biological treatment involves the

degradation of the native organic matter by biological conversions, which gives different final

products. Some examples of biological treatment include composting and biogas production.

One of the most common methods of waste management is landfilling, which disposes

waste by burial. It is best used to dispose of materials that cannot be repurposed or recycled.

However, landfilling can be extremely detrimental to the environment if the waste is not treated

carefully. The toxins released from the piles of trash create air and water pollutants that not only

affect the environment and people’s health, but also the aesthetic value of a city.

2.2 Statement of Purpose

For the scope of this study, we focus on the thermal treatment of municipal solid waste

though incineration. Unlike most waste management methods, incineration involves the

production of energy. It facilitates burning of waste materials in a furnace and boiler for the

generation of heat and electricity; this heat and electricity is known as WtE (Waste-to-Energy) or

EfW (Energy-from-Waste).

Today, there are countries that successfully implemented WtE policies. For example,

currently only 1% of the Sweden’s waste ends up in landfills. Half of it is recycled and 49% is

burned in WtE facilities, up from 39% in 1999.10 The MSW is burned to create steam, which

turns a steam turbine to produce electricity. The excess heat that is not used to generate

10 Haugen, Dan, “Is burning garbage green? In Sweden, there’s little debate,” Midwest Energy News, 10/17/2013. (http://www.midwestenergynews.com/2013/10/17/is-burning-garbage-green-in-sweden-theres-little-debate/)

5

electricity is captured and funneled into the city’s district heating system, supplying about 40%

of the city’s heating needs. 11

In this paper we explore whether a WtE plant would be beneficial for Mumbai, India.

Currently, Mumbai landfills its waste, with an informal sector separating recyclable materials

from the waste. Many professionals have proposed the building of a WtE plant in Mumbai to

combat the rising MSW generation and lack of space for landfilling. In order to evaluate the

feasibility of this plant, we build a model, detailed later in this paper, based on variables and

factors considered in Sarika Rathi’s Optimization Model for Integrated Municipal Solid Waste

Management in Mumbai, India (2007). In her paper, Rathi analyzes the feasibility of composting

as a possible solution for waste management in Mumbai. However, we believe that composting

alone does not adequately address India’s urban waste management problem. In our analysis, we

mimic Rathi’s analytical approach to understand if the Benefits minus the Costs of building an

Incineration WtE plant in Mumbai outweigh the benefits and costs of one landfill, in order to

make a recommendation on the building of the incineration plant.

11 Ibid.

6

3. Technology Surrounding Waste to Energy

Before we begin the analysis of the incineration plant, it is imperative to understand the

technology behind the various thermal treatment options for MSW.

The Process of Incineration

Figure 1. Diagram of an incineration plant12

First, MSW must go through pre-processing to optimize its composition for efficient burn.

The waste must be dried, which is a very energy-intensive process. Additionally, it must be

processed into a more or less uniform composition, preferably with smaller particles to increase

surface area for the most uniform burn possible. More energy is required in the pre-processing

to produce smaller particles.13

After pre-processing, the MSW is sent to a “flame zone”, in which it is broken down by

flame into volatile molecular components. This process is highly endothermic, and many 12 "What Is Energy from Waste (EfW)?" ARC21 -. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Dec. 2014. <http://www.arc21.org.uk/opencontent/?itemid=27&section=Residual+Waste+Project>.13 Fitzgerald, G.C. “Pre-processing and treatment of municipal solid waste (MSW) prior to incineration,” Waste to Energy Conversion Technology, 2013, p.55-71.

7

modern incinerators use energy recovery from later exothermic processes to help generate the

energy for the pyrolysis to minimize the amount of new energy needed. After the compounds

have been broken down, the smaller, volatile molecular components react in the presence of

oxygen in combustion reactions (Fig. 2):14

(a )C x H y+O2→ xCO2+y2

H 2 O

(b )C x H y+ ( limited )O2 → x CO+ y2

H 2 O

Fig 2. General combustion reactions- (a) complete, (b) incomplete.

The combustion reactions are extremely exothermic and liberate large amounts of energy.

This energy is generally used to heat steam to power a steam turbine. Energy that is not

converted to mechanical energy by the turbine produces heat, which can be recovered for use in

the earlier endothermic reactions, or alternatively can be directed to buildings for residential or

commercial heat. In plants that combine power generation with heat generation, the thermal

efficiency can be as much as 85%.15

The products of the combustion reaction are sent through a series of filters and scrubbers

before being released to the air. Electrostatic precipitation and fabric filters separate particulate

emissions, acid gas treatments with lime remove harmful acidic chemical species, and additions

of carbonaceous adsorbent and sodium bicarbonate remove other harmful species such as dioxins

and heavy metals.16 In addition to the CO2 emissions, which are largely accepted by the scientific

community to have negative environmental effects,17 several other harmful compounds can be

14 “Waste Incineration and Public Health,” Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2000. p.37-8.15 Ryu, C., Shin, D. “Combined Heat and Power from Municipal Solid Waste: Current Status and Issues in South Korea,” Energies 2013. 6, p.45-57.16 Le Cloiric, P. “Treatments of polluted emissions from incinerator gases: a succinct review,” Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 11. 2012. p.381-92.17 “Advancing the Science of Climate Change,” National Academy of Sciences, 2010.

8

generated. Incomplete combustion may result in carbon monoxide, another environmental

pollutant. The varied composition of MSW, since it does not contain just alkyl compounds, can

result in harmful sulfur, nitrogen, and metal oxides as byproducts of combustion.18 The solid ash

left behind in the incinerator also needs to be disposed of.

Gasification and Pyrolysis: Emerging, improved forms of Incineration

Gasification is a process very similar to traditional incineration, with a few differences. In

the flame zone, combustion performed at a higher temperature, generally above 600° C,19 breaks

the MSW into a mixture of char (pure carbon), hydrogen, and methane. Like in traditional

incineration, the gasification process also involves char combusting with oxygen to form some

carbon dioxide. The energy harvested from this exothermic reaction can be recovered to assist in

earlier endothermic steps.

However, the primary difference between gasification and traditional incineration is the end

product and the way energy is generated from it. In gasification, rather than the heat from the

combustion reaction being used directly to generate heat and, further, mechanical energy, the end

goal is syngas. Syngas, a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide, is produced by the reaction

of char with water at extremely high temperatures.20 The syngas is then scrubbed to remove

impurities, and it can then be used for many different applications. For example, it can be used

in gas turbines, which are typically more efficient than steam turbines, combusted directly, or

processed into other biofuels.

18 “Waste Incineration and Public Health,” Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2000. p.37-8.19 Higman C. and van der Burgt M. 2003. “Gasification,” Gulf Professional Publishing20 Arena, U. “Process and technological aspects of municipal solid waste gasification: A review,” Waste Management 32, no.4. April 2012. 625-39.

9

Pyrolysis is a sub-process of both gasification and incineration that can be used on its own

for power generation. In pyrolysis, the fuel (in this case, pre-treated MSW) is heated in an

oxygen-deficient atmosphere to a temperature to pyrolyze the fuel into gaseous products and a

residue consisting of ash, carbon, glass, and metals.21 The typical running temperature for

pyrolysis is around 500-550° C, and can vary up to 900° C; however, at temperatures higher than

700° C, syngas is the main product.22 Pyrolysis produces lower amounts of nitrogen and sulfur

oxides than incineration and gasification due to the inert atmosphere in the process.23 Better

quality solid residues are also produced by pyrolysis.23

Gasification and pyrolysis offer several advantages over traditional incineration. (See Figure

3 below for a schematic representation of the relationship between gasification, pyrolysis, and

combustion.) There is a much smaller volume of gas to scrub when using gasification than in

traditional incineration, which reduces the amount of necessary resources.24 Both gasification and

pyrolysis produce syngas, rather than generating power directly from heat of combustion, so gas

turbines can be used instead of steam turbines. Gas turbines are much more efficient, with

current research producing testing efficiencies of up to 60%.25 Steam turbines, on the other hand,

typically have efficiencies around 35-45%.26 If gasification or pyrolysis is not feasible for an

entire plant, they can also be used in combination with traditional incineration.27 Pyrolysis can

21 “PAT Report: Disposing of solid wastes by pyrolysis,” Environ. Sci. Technol., vol 9, no. 2. 1975. p.9822 Chen, D. et. al. “Pyrolysis technologies for municipal solid waste: a review,” Waste Management 34, no. 12. December 2014. 2455-86.23 Saffarzadeh, A. et. al. “Chemical and mineralogical evaluation of slag products derived from the pyrolysis/melting treatment of MSW,” Waste Management 26. 2006. 1443-52.24 Thomas Malkow, “Novel and innovative pyrolysis and gasification technologies for energy efficient and environmentally sound MSW disposal,” Waste Management, Volume 24, Issue 1, 2004, p.53-7925 “MHI Achieves 1,600°C Turbine Inlet Temperature in Test Operation of World’s Highest Thermal Efficiency ‘J-Series’ Gas Turbine”. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. 26 May 2011.26 Ryu, C., Shin, D, p.45-57.27 Thomas Malkow, p.53-79

10

also produce slag as a residue, which has the potential to be reutilized as a construction and road-

building material.28

Figure 3. Schematic representation of relationship of combustion, gasification, and pyrolysis.29

Improvements in Waste Pre-Processing

The first step at which incineration and gasification efficiency can be improved is at the

waste pre-processing stage. While improvements at this step are not as effective as

improvements at other steps,30 they still impact the overall efficiency of the conversion of waste

to energy. For example, waste must be dry to burn. One problem with MSW generated in India

is that it generally has a fairly high organic content, around 40-60%, which must be dried31.

28Saffarzadeh, A. et. Al, p.1443-52.29 Knoef, H. “Practical aspects of biomass gasification,” Ch. 3 in Handbook Biomass Gasification edited by H. Knoef. BTG-Biomass Technology Group. Enschede, the Netherlands. 2005.30 Waldner, M.H., et. al. “Energy from Waste – Clean, efficient, renewable: Transitions in combustion efficiency and NOx control,” Waste Management 33, no. 2. 2013. 317-26.31 Sharholy, M., et. al. “Municipal solid waste management in Indian cities – A review,” Waste Management 28. 2008. 459-67.

11

One of the most significant improvements to waste pre-processing is refuse-derived-fuel

(RDF) generation. Rather than raw waste being processed and combusted or gasified directly on

site, RDF processing produces dry fuel that can be transported. The main steps in RDF

generation are mechanical separation to remove metals, glass, and wet waste; size reduction

through shredding, chipping, and milling; separation and screening; blending; and finally, drying

and pelletizing.32 During pelletization, the RDF particles are processed with approximately 11%

calcium hydroxide, as a binder, and formed into capsules. The calcium hydroxide binder reduces

SOx and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (such as dioxin and furan) emissions.33 In a study done

on several European countries, 23-50% of waste by weight could be turned into RDF.34 The RDF

can be used offsite as fuel in combustion and gasification plants.

Improvements in Power and Heat Efficiency

Factors inside the plant that affect the efficiency of combustion include residence time of

reactants at the proper reaction temperature, minimizing shutdowns of the plant for maintenance,

and monitoring turbulence inside the reactor to ensure proper mixing of combustion materials

and gas.35 One 2013 study found that with proper mixing of pyrolysis gases above a combustion

grate, combustion processes could be run at very low excess gas concentrations with well less

than 4% oxygen, with a 20% reduction in flue gas volume and 10% reduction in size of the

plant.36 A lower volume of flue gas reduces the amount of material needed to treat emissions.

32 Gendebien, A., Leavens, A., Blackmore, K., Godley, A., Lewin, K., Whiting,K. J., . . . Hogg, D. (2003). Refuse derived fuel, current practice and perspectives33 Binder Enhanced Refuse Derived Fuel. Daugherty, K.E., Venables, B.J., Ohlsson, O.O., assignee. Patent US5562743 A. 8 Oct. 1996. Print.34 Gendebien, A., Leavens, A., Blackmore, K., Godley, A., Lewin, K., Whiting,K. J., . . . Hogg, D. (2003). 35 “Waste Incineration and Public Health,” Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2000. P.37-8.36 Waldner, M.H., et. Al. p.317-26.

12

The final large step at which efficiency gains can be made is at the site of power and heat

generation at the steam turbines. Limiting leakage of gases in the turbine minimizes wasted

energy and improves efficiency. Gas leakage can be eliminated by reducing the clearance

between stationary and rotating parts of the turbine by making it highly symmetrical; advanced

sealing technologies, such as abradable coatings and brush seals, also aid in preventing steam

leakage.37 Blade design is also a crucial aspect of turbine efficiency. Installing bowed blades in

the turbine directs more steam into the body of the blade, minimizing sidewall losses. Proper

control of boiler chemistry is necessary to reduce deposits that may build up over time on the

turbine and decrease efficiency.38 The current program most commonly used to control boiler

water chemistry uses a combination of tri-sodium phosphate and sometimes some caustic sodium

hydroxide. This keeps the pH in a range from 9.0-10.0, with phosphate concentration below 3

ppm and caustic concentration below 1 ppm to prevent caustic gouging of the turbine.39 The

alkalinity reduces the dissolution of iron, which causes deposits, in the water.

Direct Environmental Effects of Incineration

MSW incineration does have many potential negative environmental effects. While

incineration may eliminate hazards from other processes, it does produce two distinct

environmental hazards: emissions released into the air and pollution caused by solid waste

disposal. The solid residue consists of: bottom ash and grate siftings, typically 20-30% by mass

of the original waste; boiler and economizer ash collected at the heat recovery section, typically

10% by mass of original waste; fly ash, still in flue gases downstream of heat recovery units, 37 Quinkertz, R., Ulma, A., Gobrecht, E., Wechsung, M. Siemens AG. “USC Steam Turbine technology for maximum efficiency and operational flexibility.” Presented at POWER-GEN Asia 2008 – Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. October 21-23, 2008.38 Ray, R. "Full steam ahead: a steam turbine rehabilitation can restore the efficiency and performance of aging power plants." Power Engineering 118, no. 5 (May 1, 2014): 56-59. Inspec, EBSCOhost (accessed November 30, 2014).39 Buecker, Brad. 2014. "Understand the importance of water/steam chemistry." Processing (08968659) 27, no. 7: 12-16. Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed November 30, 2014).

13

typically 1-3% by mass; and air pollution control (APC) residues, which consist of particulate

material captured before release of gases into atmosphere, typically 2-5% by mass.40

As the gases leave the plant, two types of emissions must be filtered out: particulate

emissions and gaseous emissions. To collect fine particulate emissions present in flue gas, plants

often use an electrostatic precipitator, or ESP. ESPs separate particle emissions by corona

charging the particles and driving them toward a collection plate with electrical forces. ESPs

typically achieve collection efficiency above 99%.41 Fabric filters also aid in filtering out

particulate emissions.42 To collect the gaseous emissions, scrubbers use chemical reactions to

remove harmful species from the gas. Dioxins can be collected from the gas with rapid gas

cooling, semi-dry lime scrubbing, and bag filtration combined with activated carbon injection

adsorption.43 Dry and semi-dry scrubber systems inject an alkaline powder, often containing

carbonaceous adsorbent and sodium bicarbonate,44 or slurry to remove acidic gases and other

pollutants. These generate a solid phase, scrubber sludge, and are a mix of fly ash, carbon, and

lime, and contain dioxins and furans.45 This solid phase is an APC residue, and must be landfilled

or utilized for a specific purpose.

The solid waste in bottom ash, grate siftings, boiler ash, fly ash, and APC residues

presents a hazard when disposed of in landfills. The primary concern is the production of

leachate when water travels through the MSW residue and leaches out some of the solid.

Residue characteristics, such as concentration of contaminants, physical and chemical properties

40 Sabbas, T. et al. “Management of municipal solid waste incineration residues.” Waste Management 23, no. 1. 2003. 61-88.41 Intra, P., YaWootti, A., Tippayawong, N. “Demonstration of a Modular Electrostatic Precipitator to Control Particulate Emissions from a Small Municipal Waste Incinerator. J. Electr.” Eng. Technol. 9, no. 1. 2014. 239-46.42 Le Cloiric, P. p.381-92.43 McKay, G. “Dioxin characterisation, formation, and minimisation during municipal solid waste (MSW) incineration: review” Chemical Engineering Journal 86, 2002. 343-68.44 Le Cloiric, P. p.381-92.45 Rani, D. et. al. “Air Pollution control residues from waste incineration: Current UK situation and assessment of alternative technologies,” Waste Management 28, no. 11. Nov 2008. 2279-92.

14

of the residue, size distribution of particles, and surface area play a role in the concentration of

contaminants in leachate. Hydrological conditions, such as flow velocity and rate of infiltration,

also play a role, and are influenced by the makeup of the land surrounding the waste. Finally,

interactions between the leachate and the soil, such as ion exchange and absorption, alter the

composition of the leachate.46

(See Figure 4 for typical concentrations of ions in leachate from residues.47)

Fig 4. Maximum concentrations of contaminants in leachates from various MSWI residues (Hjelmar, 1996)48

Incinerator residues can also be used in other novel ways. In the UK, several hazardous waste

companies use APC residues to treat waste acids. The lime (calcium hydroxide) component of

the residue is converted to calcium chloride, which is less hazardous and can be disposed of with

46 Sabbas, T. et al. Management of municipal solid waste incineration residues. Waste Management 23, no. 1. 2003. 61-88.47 Hjelmar, O. Disposal strategies for municipal solid waste incineration residues. J. Hazard. Mater., 47. 1996. 345-68 (Table)48 Ibid.

15

less risk.49 As mentioned previously, slag produced by pyrolysis may be significantly less

environmentally harmful, and may be reutilized in construction and road-building projects.50

4. Sweden – A Success Story

As mentioned earlier, Sweden is widely considered a waste-to-energy success story.

Today, only about 1% of Sweden’s waste ends up in landfills, while another 50% is recycled and

49% is burned in waste-to-energy facilities. This means an average of 232.6 kilograms per

person, or 2 million aggregate tons of waste, is converted to electricity or heat every year51.

Across Sweden’s 29 waste-to-energy plants, trash is burned through steam turbine generation

that produces 8.5% of the country’s electricity52. Any excess heat that does not get converted to

electricity in this process is captured in order to be funneled into city heating systems. Apart

from electricity and heat, though, these plants also produce ash.53

Sweden’s national circumstances, governmental policies, and division of responsibilities

in the waste management and energy production sectors all contributed to the creation of its

waste-to-energy success story.

49 Rani, D. et. al. Air Pollution control residues from waste incineration: Current UK situation and assessment of alternative technologies. Waste Management 28, no. 11. Nov 2008. 2279-92.50 Saffarzadeh, A. et. al. Chemical and mineralogical evaluation of slag products derived from the pyrolysis/melting treatment of MSW. Waste Management 26. 2006. 1443-52.

51 Williams, Matt. “Waste-To-Energy Success Factors in Sweden and the United States.” Web. 24 Nov. 2014. http://www.acore.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/WTE-in-Sweden-and-the-US-Matt-Williams..pdf52

Gross, Daniel. “Förbränning for All! The sensible Swedes burn a lot of their garbage. Why can’t we?” Web. 24 Nov 2014. http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_juice/2014/07/wte_in_sweden_weirdly_enough_burning_garbage_makes_environmental_sense.html53 Williams, Matt, “Waste-to-Energy Success Factors.”

16

Sweden’s Circumstances

Sweden’s waste-to-energy implementation success is partly a result of its special

circumstances with respect to how it handles waste and produces energy for the nation:

Waste Management

Sweden’s dense populations and high landfill gate and/or tipping fees make using

landfills expensive. While Sweden’s landmass is quite large in proportion to its population, 85%

of its population is concentrated in metropolises. This means that land prices are relatively high

in these cities – as indicated by high real estate prices54. As a result, the high gate and/or tipping

fees at landfills make their use relatively cost prohibitive compared to other waste management

techniques. Consequently, energy recovery techniques like waste-to-energy plants present an

attractive economic opportunity to mitigate the costs associated with disposing of solid waste.

Energy Production

Beyond waste management, Sweden’s shortage of traditional energy resources reflects its

lack of domestic supply of fossil fuels like coal, oil, or natural gas. This leads to high energy

prices across the grid55. Though energy from waste-to-energy facilities proves to be expensive

for other nations with cheap alternatives, Sweden’s attraction to the technology is founded in its

inability to product energy at a cheaper price.

54 Ibid.55 Ibid.

17

Sweden’s Policies

These special circumstances to Sweden’s waste production and energy production capabilities

are accompanied by institutional and political policies that have proven to be instrumental in

helping spur waste-to-energy development. First and foremost, Sweden’s official recognition of

waste-to-energy technology as a renewable source of energy set the groundwork for

development. First in 1991 and then again in 2007, Sweden’s implementation of a greenhouse

emissions tax, through a carbon tax, de-incentivized the more traditional means of energy

production through fossil fuels. Coupled with Europe’s official cap and trade system, the

European Union Emissions Trading Scheme, Sweden successfully created a national aversion to

the use of fossil fuels for energy production.56 As a result of the rising cost of using coal, oil, and

natural gas, Sweden’s recognition of waste-to-energy as a renewable energy source thus took the

limelight.

After the implementation of such policies urging Sweden to march toward cleaner energy

production, a shift in national consciousness about waste-to-energy technology also occurred.

According to the 2008 European Union Waste Framework Directive, Sweden should prioritize

recycling and reusing in their solid waste management system, with energy recovery as the next

most favorable option and landfilling as the least favorable option.57

Yet, the 2008 European Union Waste Framework Directive is not the only governmental

policy that places energy recovery options like the waste-to-energy method into the national

rhetoric. Sweden’s Renewable Portfolio Standards dictate that retail sellers of energy must

supply a certain fraction of energy from renewable resources to the general public.58 The

56 Ibid.57 European Union. “Directive 2008/98/EC on waste (Waste Framework Directive)”. Web. 24 Nov 2014. 2008/http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/framework/58 Williams, Matt, “Waste-to-Energy Success Factors.”

18

hierarchy directive (figure 5) and Renewable Portfolio Standards, coupled with a widespread

public education and support of such national policies, resulted in a strongly favorable political

and social climate surrounding waste-to-energy technology.

Figure 5. (http://recyctec.se/en/EU-waste-directive)

Following these events, a combination of other national landfill taxes and European

Union directives added to Sweden’s aversion to conventional means of energy production and

waste management. These European Union-wide and national policies de-incentivized landfilling

and forced the Swedish waste management sector to innovate more productive techniques. Given

the policy-level push toward more renewable energy and less landfilling, it is no surprise that this

dual pressure led to an emphasis on Sweden’s waste-to-energy sector.

Sweden’s Division of Responsibilities

After Sweden’s special circumstances and policies helped set the right stage for the

development of waste-to-energy technology, the resulting waste management process also

contributed to the country’s success. More specifically, the process itself is built so that it can

improve its efficiency: a clear division of responsibilities for all involved parties throughout the

process provides ample opportunity for continual improvements. City municipalities are directed

19

by set waste management plans and take on the responsibility of collecting and disposing of

residential waste. This responsibility comes with the ability to issue regulations to households,

including fees. Households, on the other hand, are responsible for separating and depositing

waste at collection points throughout cities. The city municipalities maintain these collection

sites. For businesses, a similar system applies, though businesses carry slightly more of the onus

in caring for their waste.59

Because of Sweden’s special circumstances, governmental policies, and waste

management processes, Sweden stands as a poster child for successful waste-to-energy

integration. In some sense, though, opponents also argue that Sweden is “too green”. That is,

Sweden is currently running out of its own waste to use for energy production. On average,

Sweden imports 700,000 tons of garbage, most of which is from Norway. The deal is much to

Sweden’s short-term advantage, despite the reliance on imports for its electricity production:

Norway pays Sweden to take away its excess garbage, Sweden runs it through waste-to-energy

facilities to provide for its own population’s energy needs, and the remaining ash is shipped back

to Norway for disposal in Norway’s landfills.60 However, Sweden’s increased interdependence

on Norway (and potentially other surrounding nations) presents an alarming risk: once in place,

waste-to-energy technology can also lead to an unexpected dependence on other nations. In this

case, for example, Norway’s waste management sector could potentially overcharge Swedish

energy producers for its supply of waste. This can cause an interesting disruption in both

markets, and also, presents a potentially complex situation where waste has come to have little

intrinsic, but important economic value.

59 Williams, Matt, “Waste-to-Energy Success Factors.”60 Burgess, James. “Sweden has Run out of Rubbish for Waste-to-Energy Industry.” Web. 24 Nov 2014. http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Sweden-has-Run-out-of-Rubbish-for-Waste-to-Energy-Industry.html

20

5.1 The Indian Problem - The Current State of MSW Management

Traditionally in India, municipal solid waste is often disposed of in ‘open dumps,’ mostly

by the road side in open spaces.61 There are several deficiencies in the current system, which

vary greatly across states and cities. At the household level, there is limited primary collection

from individual households and limited storage and segregation. Streets are not cleaned or

cleared of trash regularly. In India, the generation of hazardous waste is directly proportionate to

the rate of urbanization and development of various cities - and has shown significant variation

in different Indian cities.

The flow of waste management in India would follow this general trajectory:

Figure 6.5

The management of municipal solid waste presents an enormous challenge, and there are

several options that need to be considered. In India at large, an estimated 62 million tons of

61 Perinaz Bhada, Nickolas.J. Themelis, “Potential for the first WTE facility in Mumbai (Bombay) India,” 16th Annual North American Waste-to-Energy Conference May 19-21, 2008, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, p.1

21

MSW is generated annually by the 377 million people residing just in urban areas.62 Over 80% of

this waste is disposed of indiscriminately in large open dumps. Urban society rejects and

generates solid material regularly at an entirely unsustainable rate. In Mumbai, between 1981

and 1991, there was a 49% increase in the population growth rate. In the same time frame, MSW

generation increased at a rate of 67%.63 By 2050, annual waste generation is projected to 436

million tons.64

The untapped waste has a potential of generating 439 megawatts of power from 32,890

tons per day of combustible wastes including Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF), 72 megawatts of

electricity from biogas, and 5.4 million metric tons of compost annually.65 A recent report

reveals that only 68% of the MSW generated in the country is actually collected, out of which

28% is treated by the municipal authorities. This means only 19% of the total waste generated is

being treated currently. The remaining waste, as discussed earlier, is left untreated in unsanitary

dump sites.66

Unregulated dumping of waste on valuable land in and around cities has created huge

piles of waste, some reaching millions of tons. These piles are a concerning source of

contamination of water and result in increased air pollution. These open dumps are breeding

grounds for many infectious agents causing diseases like cholera, dysentery, jaundice, typhoid

and diarrhea, thus posing a severe threat to public health and safety. If the vast quantity of MSW

generated annually is successfully managed, there is huge potential for economic, environmental,

62 "Waste To Energy." Ministry of New and Renewable Energy. Government of India, 16 Oct. 2014. Web. 26 Nov. 2014. <http://mnre.gov.in/related-links/offgrid/waste-to-energy/>.63 Roy, G.K. "Municipal Solid Waste Recycle - An Economic Proposition for a Developing Nation." Indian J. Environmental Protection 8.1 (1988): 51-54. Web. 26 Nov. 2014.64 Ibid.65 "Waste To Energy." Ministry of New and Renewable Energy. Government of India, 16 Oct. 2014. Web. 26 Nov. 2014. <http://mnre.gov.in/related-links/offgrid/waste-to-energy/>.66 Ibid.

22

and energy gain.67 Furthermore, the positive impact on public health and safety helps to offset the

costs of collection and treatment, which will be discussed later in this paper.

Various components of MSW have significant economic value, and energy can be

recovered in a cost effective manner. Currently, in urban centers in India, a sizable informal

sector of individual trash pickers collects parts of the refuse from the streets and open dumps in

order to earn a living. Despite this, a large portion of compostable waste and recyclable material

goes to landfills untreated. With planned efforts to implement thermal treatment of municipal

solid waste, through incineration techniques, significant amounts of energy can be generated. A

task force instituted by the government of India suggests that around 65% of MSW can be

profitably utilized in producing energy, thus bringing down landfill waste to under 20%.68

Existing Legislation

The 74th amendment, instated in 1992, of the Indian Constitution clearly delineates

management of solid waste as one of the primary functions of municipal authorities.69 At the

state level, laws governing the municipal authorities include the management of solid waste as an

obligatory function of the municipal authorities. Despite constitutional and legal mandate, no

serious efforts have been made by municipal authorities towards scientific processing and

disposal of MSW. It was only after further direction issued by the Supreme Court of India in a

public interest litigation in 2000,70 that the management and handling of MSW was finalized by

the Ministry of Environment. These rules define what constitutes MSW, and mandate that all

municipal authorities in the country must manage MSW in a timely and efficient manner,

67 Ibid.68 Ibid.69 Ibid.70 Ibid.

23

monitored at a state level. This includes collection, storage, segregation, transportation, and

disposal of MSW. While this legislation is in place, it is fairly evident from more recently

conducted studies that very little effort towards compliance and implementation was actually

made by most municipal authorities across the country.

Currently, the Government of India has in place specific protocols put forth by the

Ministry of New and Renewable Energy. For 2013 to 2014, the government of India is devoting

USD 6.1 million to renewable energy, mostly in subsidies71.

The following is a brief outline of the government’s protocols for this USD 6.1 million:

The government’s overall goal is ostensibly to promote the establishment of renewable

energy projects and create conducive conditions and environment for such projects with respect

to government finances. The scope of this government financing includes mainly subsidy and

grants funding for five pilot projects, various power generation projects (such as, biogas, WTE,

and so forth), promotional efforts, research and development, resources assessments, technology

upgrades, and performance evaluations72.

The funding selection process is typically judged on the basis of the potential amount of

waste that can be processed, sophistication of the technology, and capacity for impact. The

amount of funding itself is limited by the capacity of a given plant, its location, and other such

important circumstances. The Indian government, for example, heavily subsidizes a typical

waste-to-energy project in India, dolling out nearly 10 crore rupees (USD 1.6 million)/project.

This funding is typically transferred to project leads through banks and financial services

mediation. The government of India also set structured procedures for monitoring the progress of 71 Mishra, B.A. “Government of India Ministry of New and Renewable Energy: Programme on Energy from Urban, Industrial and Agricultural Wastes/Residues during 12th Plan period.” Web. 1 Dec 2014. http://mnre.gov.in/file-manager/offgrid-wastetoenergy/programme_energy-urban-industrial-agriculture-wastes-2013-14.pdf72 Ibid.

24

such waste-to-energy projects. This structure includes periodic monitoring by the federal and

state governments and frequent progress reports from the project lead to the government73.

The success of the implementation of the aforementioned protocols is unavailable in

public databases.

5.2 Possible Future Solutions

Studies have been done on the potential of waste-to-energy facility in India. Bhada and

Themelis, for example, examined the solid waste management process in Mumbai and the

potential for implementation of WtE facilities. Mumbai is the financial center of India and has

the highest potential for energy generation from the controlled combustion of solid wastes. The

authors estimate the lower heating value of MSW to be 9 MJ/kg, which is slightly lower than the

average MSW combusted in the E.U. (10 MJ/kg), perhaps due to regional differences in waste

composition.74 The major problem to overcome, however, is the source of capital, since the

present “tipping fees” are very low and inadequate to make the operation profitable and thus

attract private investors.75 The authors conclude that the only hope is for the local government

and one or more philanthropists in Mumbai to team up in financing the first WtE in the city as a

beacon that improves living conditions in Mumbai, reduces the City’s dependence on the import

of fossil fuels, and lights the way for other cities in India to follow.76

Bhada and Themelis’s study includes a detailed cost-benefit analysis on the first WtE

facility in Mumbai, taking into consideration capital and operation costs, revenues, land

requirements and direct benefits of a WtE facility in Mumbai. However, it lacks a rigorous 73 Ibid.74 Perinaz Bhada, Nickolas.J. Themelis, “Potential for the first WTE facility in Mumbai (Bombay) India,” 16th Annual North American Waste-to-Energy Conference May 19-21, 2008, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, p.175 Ibid.76 Ibid.

25

model to optimize the discrepancy between benefits and costs. In our paper, we build a

mathematical model and calculate the optimal solution for the potential of an incineration facility

in Mumbai.

Sarika Rathi has also studied the potential of MSW management in Mumbai. She

developed a linear programming model to integrate different options and stakeholders involved

in MSW management in Mumbai. Various economic and environmental costs associated with

MSW management were taken into consideration while developing the model.77 The objective

function includes minimization of net cost of an integrated solid waste management system,

which consists of community compost plant, mechanical aerobic compost plant and sanitary

landfill.78 The optimal strategy is, as the author concluded: all waste is processed at community

compost plants and only inert material is transported to dump sites.79 Hence, community compost

plants become the dominant option. Community employees collect segregated waste from

households. Recyclable material is sold to wholesalers, and organic material is composted and

then sold in the market. All inert material goes to the municipal bins, and is later transported by

the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) to disposal sites.80

While the optimization model that Rathi developed sheds light on the cost benefit

analysis of a MSW management facility in Mumbai, her model largely focuses on composting

and landfill. In our paper, we run a similar mathematical model focusing on incineration as a

WtE method. For the model, we incorporate both Bhada and Themelis’s cost-benefit analysis

and Rathi’s mathematical model to develop an original analysis of the future potential of an

incineration facility in Mumbai.

77 Sarika Rathi, “Optimization model for integrated municipal solid waste management in Mumbai, India,” Environment and Development Economics 12: 105-121, Cambridge University Press 2007, p. 10578 Ibid, p. 10679 Ibid, p.11480 Ibid, p.114

26

However, the drive to implement more incineration in India is not unanimous. In

Municipal Solid Waste Recycle – An Economic Proposition for a Developing Nation, Roy

expresses skepticism about future investment in incineration tactics in India. Roy emphasizes the

importance of investments in pyrolysis techniques over incineration techniques. With byproducts

of more than just fuel, but other valuable chemicals and feedstocks as well, Roy argues that

pyrolysis is better suited for India’s idiosyncratic refuse and energy situation.81 While we won’t

delve into the details of his argument here, Roy’s paper is significant because it reflects the lack

of cohesive support for incineration in Indian policy discourse.

6. Feasibility Model – Methodology and Results

Bhada’s Potential for the first WTE facility in Mumbai (Bombay) India proposes a plan to

build an 800 tons-per-day incinerator in Kanjur, Mumbai, on a government-owned landfilling

site. We will expand his study to include a detailed analysis studying the costs and benefits

associated with building an incineration plant in Mumbai and compare these figures to the

current costs and benefits of landfilling. Additionally, we will reference some figures from

Sarika Rathi’s 2007 paper. Using this analysis, we will evaluate the feasibility of building and

operating a waste to energy facility in Mumbai, India.

Objective FunctionWe want to evaluate the net cost of building an incineration plant in Kanjur, Mumbai in

comparison to continuing the current landfilling of MSW. For each waste management method,

we want to evaluate Costs-Benefits, where

Costs are the total costs associated with a given method;

Benefits are the total benefits associated with a given method.

27

CostWe model the costs of the incineration and landfilling methods respectively as follows:

cos t I=C I Construction+C ILand+C I Labor+C I Fuel+C I Collection+C I Transportation+C I Operating+C IEnvironmental

¿ $40+$ 0+$2.04+$ 0+$ 50.38+$ 10.42+$50.17+$ 130.59¿ $283.6 millioncos t L=C LLand+C LLabor+C LCollection+C LTransportation+C LOperating+C LEnvironmental

¿ $0+$0+$ 11.40+$ 2.36+$ 5.02+$ 9.41¿ $ 28.19 million where CostI is the total cost associated with incineration; CostL is the total cost associated with landfill; CIConstruction is the cost associated with the construction of one incineration plant; CILand is the cost associated with acquiring the land that will be used for one incinerator and necessary facilities; CILabor is labor costs needed to operate one incinerator and necessary facilities CIFuel is the fuel cost associated with operating one incinerator and necessary facilities CITransportation is the transportation cost, including relevant labor costs, associated with operating one incinerator CIEnvironmental is the monetary cost associated with emissions and other environmental effects of one incinerator CLLand is the cost associated with acquiring the land that will be used for one landfill site CLTransportation is the transportation cost, including relevant labor costs, associated with operating one comparable landfill CLEnvironmental is the monetary cost associated with emissions and other environmental effects of one landfill project

BenefitWe model the benefits of the incineration plant as following:

Benefit I=B I Energy+B I Environmental=$73.25+$4.01=$ 77.26 millionwhereBenefit I is the total benefit associated with incineration B I Energy is the monetary benefit (revenue) associated with selling electricity producedB I Environmental is the amount of emissions mitigated through switching to incineration

Net (Costs-Benefits)

Ne t Incineration=$ 206.34Ne tLandfill=$ 28.19

*In this comparison, note that the incineration site has the capacity to process 800 TPD, whereas the landfill site has capacity to process 181 TPD (given the same amount of 6 ha land usage).

28

Data Source and Assumptions

Timeframe and Discount RateWe assume that the incineration plant has a lifespan of 25 years based on data from

Chinese Waste to Energy facilities81

. Thus, we also use 25 years as the timeframe for the calculation. For discount rates, we use 12%

per year as indicated by the Indian Government’s Ministry of New and Renewable Energy

Programme for Waste to Energy Facilities82.

IncineratorAs a starting point, we use Bhada's proposal which outlines an 800-ton-per-daily-capacity

incinerator to be built at the site of Kanjur landfill83

. This location has already been allocated by the government to be used for waste management,

effectively eliminating land acquiring cost. Due to limited data, we assume that all waste is taken

to the incineration facility and incinerated without waste classification.

Construction Costs

Bhada estimates the construction cost for the incinerator at $50,000 per daily ton of

capacity for Mumbai, based data collected from the building of WtE plant in China84

. An incinerator with 800 ton per day capacity would have a construction cost of approximately

$40 million.

Land Costs

81 Zhou, J. Presentation of Waste Management & Incineration Situation in China & IPTE.82 "Waste To Energy." Ministry of New and Renewable Energy. Government of India, 16 Oct. 2014. Web. 26 Nov. 2014.83 Bhada, Perinaz et al. “Potential for the first WTE facility in Mumbai (Bombay) India,” p.5.84 Ibid.

29

Bhada's proposed site for the incinerator is government-owned and has already been

allocated to the MCGM for waste management by the state government, the Government of

Maharashtra. This eliminates land cost for incinerator creation85

. The cost of acquiring the land, if included, is estimated at $837 million, assuming the

incinerator site takes 6 ha of land86

at a land price of $5.66 million per acre87

.

Labor Costs

Labor costs are estimated at $170,000 per year, increasing at 5% per year, assuming a 50-

person staff in the plant88 (

as in the table below). Labor costs for transportation and collection are included in respective

costs. In a 25-year span, the cost will accumulate to

C I Labor=∑t=1

25 $170,000 (1+5% )t

(1+12% )t=$ 2.04 million

Position Number Monthly Salary($) Total Annual Salary($)

Manager 1 1,000 12,000Assistant Manager 1 1,000 12,000Foreman 4 750 36,000Administrative Assistants 4 300 14,400Facility Worker 40 200 96,000Total 50 170,000

Fuel Costs

85 Ibid, p. 686 Ibid87 Mehta, R. “Crompton Greaves sells Kanjurmarg land for over Rs 1,000 cr,” The Times of India, August 13, 2014.88 Bhada (2007), pg. 61.

30

We are assuming that Fuel Costs are negligible because the heating value of the incineration

plant is over 7,000 kJ/kg, the heat generated from the plant will be able to continue the

combustion processes89

.

Collection Costs

Rathi estimated that the collection cost of MSW in Mumbai is approximately $22 / ton90.

This equates to collection cost of $17,600 per day, or $6.424 million per year, for the 800 TPD

incinerator. In a 25-year span, the cost will accumulate to

C I Collection=∑t =1

25 $ 6.424 million(1+12 % )t

=$50.38 million

Transportation Costs

Rathi modeled that the average cost of transportation is $0.16/(ton ⋅ km). The average

distance between the 24 wards to the Deonar site is approximately 28.41 km91. Assuming

comparable distance from these wards to the potential incineration site in Kanjur, we use the

Deonar data to estimate the average distance to the incinerator site. Assuming that each ward

generates equal amount of MSW, the total transportation cost is estimated at $3,638 per day, or

$1.328 million per year, for the 800 TPD incinerator. In a 25-year span, the cost will accumulate

to

C I Transportation=∑t=1

25 $ 1.328 million(1+12% )t

=$ 10.42 million

Other Operating Costs

89 Ibid.90 Rathi, p. 116.91 MCGM, Survey of solid waste transported to four disposal sites in Mumbai from 24 wards in three shifts: period Dec. 12 2000 to Dec. 14 2000.

31

Other operating costs are estimated at $5 million per year, growing at 3% per year, based

on the Covanta Energy WTE Facility in Essex, New Jersey92

. In a 25-year span, the cost will accumulate to

C IOperating=∑t=1

25 $ 5million (1+3 % )t

(1+12 % )t=$50.17 million

Environmental Costs

We estimated the environmental cost at $45,616 per day, or $16.65 million per year. This

estimation is calculated at $57.02 per ton of MSW, based on the following: the composition of

Mumbai MSW and environmental cost for each category of waste (see table below) as well as

the 800 TPD capacity of the incinerator. The environmental costs include both the collection and

disposal costs. In a 25-year span, the cost will accumulate to

C I Environmental=∑t=1

25 $ 16.65 million(1+12% )t

=$ 130.59 million

Material Avg. Envir. Cost.93

( $/ton)Comp. of Mumbai MSW94

Envir. Cost for Mumbai ( $/ton)

Paper 67.04 7.9% 5.30Plastics 69.09 4.86% 3.36Glass 20.77 1.88% 0.39Metals 66.57 0.97% 0.65Organics 57.04 38.98% 22.23Other Waste

55.44 45.26% 25.09

Total 57.02

Energy Benefits

We value the energy that the incinerator would generate as $25,600 per day, or $9.34

million per year. This is based on MCGM's estimation of 25% average Waste-to-Energy

92 Bhada, p.5.93 CIWMB, Disposal cost fee study, final report. p.6-54.94 PCGI, Maharashtra Development Report. p.373.

32

efficiency, assuming that 15% of the energy is used for combustion, and $0.061 per kWH for the

energy purchase price of Reliance, Mumbai's leading electricity provider95

, and a 800 TPD incinerator capacity. In a 25-year span, holding the electricity price constant, the

benefit will accumulate to

BI Energy=∑t=1

25 $ 9.34 million(1+12 % )t

=$ 73.25 million

Environmental Benefits

We estimate the environmental benefits of the incinerator to be $1,400 per day, or $511,000 per

year. According to Bhada, 1 ton of MSW, when incinerated, can replace 0.25 tons of coal for

electricity generation96. According to the MGCM, the market rate for an emission reduction

project in Mumbai is $7 per ton of C O2 reduction, based on the Certified Emission Reductions

(CERs) developed by the Kyoto Protocol97. In a 25-year span, the benefit will accumulate to

B I Environmental=∑t=1

25 $ 0.511 million(1+12 % )t

=$ 4.01 million

Landfill

Because we are studying the cost of converting a 6 ha landfill site to an incineration

plant, we will only consider the capacity of the 6 ha of the landfill site, which is estimated as

$181 ton per day according to MCGM data98.

Land Costs

95 “Mumbai Power Scenario,” http://www.rinfra.com/pdf/Mumbai_Power_Scenario.pdf, accessed December 2, 2014.98 “Landfill Management,” Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, (http://www.mcgm.gov.in/irj/portal/anonymous/qllandfillMgmt)

33

Bhada's proposed site is government-owned and has already been allocated to the MCGM

for the use of waste management by the Government of Maharashtra. This eliminates potential

land costs for the landfill99

. If we include the purchase cost of land, it would be $837 million, the same as mentioned above.

Labor Costs

The vast majority of labor costs for the landfill are incurred during collection and

transportation. With limited data available, we can only evaluate the labor costs during collection

and transportation, which are included below.

Collection Costs and Transportation Costs

The collection cost and transportation costs are estimated similarly to how they are

estimated in the above incineration analysis. This is because we assume both projects would take

place on the same piece of land, with the same collection and transportation facilities. We adjust

for the decreased amount of MSW that can be collected via landfilling. Therefore, we have

C LCollection=C ICollection

800 ton /day⋅181ton /day=$ 11.40 million

C LTransportation=C ITransportation

800 ton /day⋅181 ton /day=$ 2.36 million

Other Operating Costs

Other operating costs are estimated at $7.5 per ton, or $0.50 million per year and are

growing at 3% per year based on Rathi's estimation100

. In a 25-year span, the cost will accumulate to

C LOperating=∑1

25 $ 0.50 million (1+3%)t

(1+12 %)t=$5.02 million

99 Bhada, p.6.100 Rathi, p.114

34

Environmental Costs

We estimate the environmental costs are $3,290 per day, or $1.20 million per year. This

estimation is calculated at $18.18 per ton, based on the composition of Mumbai MSW and

environmental cost for each category of waste (see table below) as well as the landfill’s 181 TPD

capacity. The environmental costs include both collection and disposal costs. In a 25-year span,

the cost will accumulate to

CLEnvironmental=∑1

25 $1.20 million(1+12 % )t

=$9.41 million

Material Avg. Envir. Cost.101

( $/ton)

Comp. of Mumbai MSW102

Envir. Cost for Mumbai ( $/ton)

Paper 24.96 7.9% 1.97Plastics 43.84 4.86% 2.13Glass 11.27 1.88% 0.21Metals 53.06 0.97% 0.51Organics 23.66 38.98% 9.22Other Waste

9.13 45.26% 4.13

Total 18.18

101 CIWMB, Disposal cost fee study, final report, p.6-54.102 PCGI, Maharashtra Development Report. p.373.

35

7. Cost Benefit Analysis

In order to complete a thorough Benefit/Cost Analysis of the WtE plant in Mumbai, we

must consider the five legs: The With & Without Principle, Present Value, Whose Benefits and

Whose Costs, Quantify the Unquantifiable, and Estimate uncertainty.

With and Without Principle:

We consider how Mumbai will have to manage its waste with the WtE plant or without it.

We assume that waste generation, population, and urban demographics will remain constant in

both cases.

With the WtE plant in Mumbai Without the WtE plant in Mumbai80% of the waste generated can be incinerated, reducing the amount of waste that ends up in landfills by 80%.103

Greater push towards composting and sanitary landfilling.104However, composting and biomethanation are slow processes and require much more land than WtE plants.105

Increased air pollution by emissions from the WtE plant.106 However, the total amount of particulate matter from refuse burnings is only 500tons/year, compared to the power plants in Mumbai that release about 1,500 tons/year.107

Negligible labor costs keeps the cost of landfilling and/or composting low.108 Rag pickers are responsible for picking up around 12kgs of waste everyday.109

The World Health Organization states that up to 22 diseases can be prevented from the creation of a safe WtE plant.110

There could be a greater push towards recycling. However, it may not be feasible in the same time period that a WtE plant can be built because it will require changing the mindsets of the Indian people, who are not used to recycling.111

103 Ibid.104 Kasturirangan, K. 105 Bhada, Perinaz. p.57106 "India Solar, Wind, Biomass, Biofuels, Waste to Energy - EAI." India Solar, Wind, Biomass, Biofuels, Waste to Energy - EAI. N.p., 2012. Web. 26 Nov. 2014.107 Bhada, Perinaz, p. 72108 Kasturirangan, K. 109 Rathi, Sarika. 110 Kasturirangan, K

36

About 20% of the weight of MSW is “bottom-ash”, which after treatment can be used for road construction; formation of concrete blocks, fill material and as a daily and final cover for landfills.112

The increased air pollution from the WtE plants would be avoided.

A WtE facility would only use 0.06km2 of land.113

Continued use of 1.7 km2 for unsanitary landfilling.114

Provide supplemental energy source to meet some of Mumbai’s electricity demand, especially during peak hours.115 Mumbai currently faces a peak shortfall of 400MW.116

Greater use of non-renewable energy sources, such as coal, to reduce the gap of the peak energy production shortfall.

Reduces the air pollution and odor released from unsanitary landfills.117

The government will have to increase health care costs to handle the increased health risks from air pollution and water pollution from the landfills

Possibility for decreased water pollution if WtE plant is built properly.118

Possibly increased use of other non-renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind, however these are less reliable than WtE.119

Decrease in costs and emissions related to transportation of MSW.120

WtE plants do not necessarily reduce the amount of waste being reduced, however without the WtE plant the government can implement education plans and policies that incentivize individuals to reduce the amount of waste generated.

Choosing the Appropriate Discount Rate:

The Indian Government uses a discount rate of 12% when it awards grants and subsidies

to private companies that wish to build WtE plants.121 The Indian Government doesn’t

111 Ibid.112 Bhada, Perinaz , p.67113 Ibid.114 Ibid.115 Ibid, p.70 116 Ibid. p.78117 Ibid. p.70118 Roy, G.K.119 Bhada, Perinaz , p.78120 Bhada, Perinaz, and Nickolas Themelis. "Potential for the First WTE Facility in Mumbai India." 16th Annual North American Waste-To-Energy Conference (2008): n. pag. Columbia University. Web. 26 Nov. 2014.121 "Waste To Energy." Ministry of New and Renewable Energy. Government of India, 16 Oct. 2014. Web. 26 Nov. 2014.

37

substantiate its choice. However, according to the World Bank, most developing nations are

assigned a social discount rate of 10-12%.122 The social discount rate is the interest rate used in

cost-benefit analyses of infrastructure and other public projects. It is based off the social rate of

time preference and the social opportunity cost of capital.123 The Municipal Corporation of

Greater Mumbai specified that the WtE plant would definitely remain in operation for 25

years124. Hence, we will accept the discount rate of 12% because it accurately portrays the social

opportunity cost of capital (as this capital could be used for other developmental projects) and it

accurately portrays the long time period of the project.

Whose Benefits? Whose Costs?

There are many benefits of the WtE plant in Mumbai that are dispersed to a wide range of

beneficiaries. All residents of Mumbai would benefit from the waste reduction in landfills and

the increased energy generation. The reduced uses of landfills will not only alleviate the

environmental problems Mumbai faces, but it will also help alleviate health risks. Additionally,

the reduction in waste will improve the aesthetic value of Mumbai. The increased energy to the

grid will improve individual’s productivity. Additionally, if through the use of a WtE plant,

Mumbai can use less of non-renewable sources then residents of Mumbai will benefit from

reduced pollution.

However, these benefits are not just felt by residents of Mumbai. If the WtE plant

becomes successful, then other municipal corporations of other urban areas might follow

Mumbai’s model. Neighboring urban areas will also feel the effects of reduced waste following

122 "FRB: FEDS Notes: The Social Discount Rate in Developing Countries." FRB: FEDS Notes: The Social Discount Rate in Developing Countries. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Nov. 2014. <http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/notes/feds-notes/2014/the-social-discount-rate-in-developing-countries-20141009.html>.123 Ibid.124 Bhada, Perinaz , p.63

38

in from Mumbai. These neighboring towns will be able to transport their wastes to the Mumbai

WtE facility.

Additionally, the reduction in the use of land that would have otherwise gone to create

landfills would become available for other pertinent development projects, such as affordable

housing in an already overcrowded city.

The new WtE plant will require high skilled labor, which increases the employment rate

in the city. It also creates a demand for energy specialists. Finally, the proposed WtE facility will

be built through a Private-Public Partnership (PPP). This will benefit private companies who

wish to enter the WtE space, but cannot do so because of the high capital costs. This will also

benefit the Public sector, which is looking for a radical solution in waste management, and can

decrease its costs because the private sector will bare the front of operating costs. The public

sector will still be responsible for the collection and transportation of the MSW, but will be able

to save the costs associated with landfilling. While we do not address this in our model, PPPs

would be the more effective, and thus realistic, approach to any WtE system being implemented.

Finally, any positive environmental changes from this program will not only benefit the

residents of Mumbai, but also the residents of the whole country. As Mumbai is on a peninsula,

the fear of rising sea levels is very serious. If Mumbai is able to lead the path towards fewer

emissions, and the country follows, then further global warming issues might be alleviated.

However, we shouldn’t ignore the very real costs of the WtE plant in Mumbai. There are

still going to be high waste segregation costs because wet waste cannot be incinerated in the WtE

plant. This will require the municipal corporation to spend more money on ensuring the waste is

properly segregated. This could lead to an increase in taxes, which would affect the residents of

39

Mumbai. It could also lead to an increased opportunity cost if the municipal corporation decides

to reallocate resources from another project to waste segregation.

Additionally, the environmental costs of the WtE plant are not negligible. Without proper

safety standards and protocols in place, the air pollution of a WtE plant can be very high. The ash

generated from the incineration plant needs to be disposed of properly in landfills. Hence, the

need for landfills is not completely eliminated. Taking into account Mumbai’s history with

unsanitary landfills, the landfilling of ash poses a problem. The municipal corporation or the

private company will have to take serious and costly steps to ensure that the ash is not polluting

the land. Furthermore, without proper ash disposal, there could be ground water seepage. This

would affect all residents of Mumbai that still rely on ground water for survival. This would also

incur costs to companies that are responsible for filtering ground water for consumption.

Currently, the Indian government gives a subsidy to private companies that build WtE

plants. By reallocating funds, the subsidy results in an opportunity cost for the government.

Additionally, the subsidy acts as a tax to residents who must pay this increased fee so that the

plant can be built.

Finally, and most importantly, the WtE plant does not incentivize a reduction in waste

generation. People are still going to produce as much waste, if not more, than before. This poses

a real environmental cost and drain on resources, as they become scarcer.

Quantifying the Unquantifiable

According to the model by Sarika Rathi in Optimization model for Integrated Municipal

Solid Waste Management in Mumbai, India, the total environmental cost for landfilling is

$165.92 per ton of MSW. These figures are from the California Integrated Waste Management

40

Board.125 These are average figures based on the environmental costs of paper, plastics, glass,

metals, organics and other wastes. The environmental costs for waste generation in Mumbai is

$18.18 per ton.

There are also high emissions of pollutants from MSW landfill dumps in Mumbai.

According to the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute in India, 39.6kg total of

suspended particulates are emitted from MSW dumps in Mumbai every hour.126 Of these,

3.4kg/hr are SO2 and 20.4kg/hr are NOX. In contrast the estimated emissions from incineration is

9.17 tons per day.127

There are also going to be costs associated with social change and changing the Indian

people’s mindset towards waste reduction which could come in the form of a social behavior

campaign. The Indian government is currently spending $291,000,000 on a Clean India Mission,

which is a public campaign to improve hygiene in the nation; we can use this as an estimate of

cost to run a public awareness campaign.128 The Mumbai municipal corporation will probably

spend less than the nationwide public campaign.

Finally, there are some unquantifiable aspects that we must discuss. There is a huge

aesthetic value of less trash accumulated in landfills and on the streets in Mumbai. The increase

in visual appeal may improve the productivity or happiness of the residents. There is an increase

in the quality of life of the residents, due to the improvements in pollution and waste reduction.

However, we can’t quantify how much happier people will become. There are also healthcare

costs that are slightly more difficult to quantify. While many health risks are connected with

landfilling, there are also other contributions to the health risks, such as poverty, inadequate food 125 Rathi, Sarika, p.112126 Bhada, Perinaz , p.71127 Ibid, p.72128 "Soon, Rs 1,800 Crore Awareness Campaign under Clean India Mission." The Economic Times. Times of India, 28 Oct. 2014. Web. 26 Nov. 2014. <http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-10-28/news/55521131_1_swachh-bharat-mission-additional-rs-clean-indi-mission>.

41

supply and general dirtiness of the city. There also might be an improvement in general civic

sense amongst the residents of Mumbai. If residents are convinced that WtE is a viable option for

waste management, then some residents may take on the task of segregating waste themselves.

While there are many costs and benefits that we cannot quantify, there are many more

that we can and we hope to incorporate in our model.

Estimating Uncertainty

We realize that there are huge uncertainties in our model. All of our data used in the

model is pulled from secondary sources published in 200 or 2008. These numbers could have

drastically changed in the past decade. Additionally, we’ve had to use various papers to find the

data points, and each paper may be using different assumptions that we are not aware of.

Additionally, we do not know the switching costs of switching the purpose of the land from its

current use to the building of the incineration plant. Since we were unable to collect data

ourselves in Mumbai, we have to rely on the accuracy of these secondary papers.

Additionally, there are uncertainties in our prediction of the future of certain variables.

For example, we are not sure how effectively managed the new WtE plant will be. If it is not

managed and used to its full potential, then there could be huge pollution costs and very low

revenue growth for the plant. Additionally, we are not certain about the technological

improvements available in the WtE space and for other renewable energy sources. We don’t

know how future wind, solar and WtE techniques will either improve or incentivize one

technique over the other. We are also uncertain about the rate of MSW generation in the future.

If MSW generation grows exponentially, then building more WtE plants might be beneficial.

However, if the growth of MSW stagnates, then composting or recycling might be more efficient

42

methods. Additionally, we are unsure about what the composition of waste will be in the future.

WtE plants are most effective for dry wastes. If the Indian population starts to generate more dry

wastes, then the WtE plant could be very successful. However, if the percentage of wet wastes

increases, then Mumbai will have to look at different waste management techniques.

We are uncertain about the rate of economic development in India, which could either

severely increase or decrease the amount of capital in the country. If the economy of India

drastically falls, then the capital required to build WtE plants will dry up. In tandem, we are

unsure whether the price of diesel or propane (necessary for operating the WtE plant) will

increase or fall.

One of the negative effects of building the incineration plant might be the decrease in

property values of the land near the WtE plant. This would affect the economic development of

Mumbai and the nearby resident’s quality of life.

Finally, we are not sure how Mumbai’s future government policies will incentivize the

building of WtE plants. If the government continues to implement positive policies to encourage

the building of WtE plants and discourage landfilling, then incineration might be the better

option. However, if the Mumbai government continues to be as ineffective in implementing

sustainable policy, then landfilling might continue to be attractive.

All these uncertainties are very prevalent in our model; hence we have to make certain

assumptions. We assume that the WtE plant will be effectively managed, there will be no drastic

technological improvements in renewable energy technology, and MSW generation will continue

to grow at the same composition of wet and dry wastes. We also assume that India will have

access to capital to build the projects, and the price of fuel will not be too volatile.

43

7.1 Barriers to Implementation

The industry of generating energy from solid waste - especially municipal solid waste

from urban areas - is entering a period of rapid growth in urban centers in India.129 The dual

pressing needs for improved waste management and a reliable renewable energy source are

creating attractive opportunities for investors and project developers. Despite these conditions,

signifiant barriers to implementation exist. The lack of commercial technologies, high capital

requirements, predominant dependence on government infrastructure, and a sub-par regulatory

environment present significant industry challenges. These challenges have resulted in many

critical questions regarding the viability of waste to energy projects unanswered. The complexity

of navigating through these challenges calls for a clear understanding of the stakeholders and

their roles, business models, and technologies behind the waste-to-energy solutions.130

Information & Awareness

A general lack of information and awareness impacts every aspect of India's waste

management industry - not just WtE. While there has been an increase in investment, research

and development in the industry, there is still a lack of information about the quantity,

composition, calorific value and seasonal variations of MSW. As a result, municipalities are

struggling to come up with a structured and a well-moderated response to their own needs. A

lack of data reduces the clarity in legal tender requirements put forward by municipalities and

decreases incentives for public-private partnerships. A lack of consistent operational data is the

reason for improperly conceived projects, whether it is regarding negotiations about preferential

tariffs, tipping fees, or risk and profit sharing. Adding to these challenges facing WtE in India, a

129 Sarika Rathi, p.114130 Christensen, Ronald, Wesley Johnson, Adam Branscum, and Timothy E. Hanson. Municipal Solid Waste Incineration: WORLD BANK TECHNICAL GUIDANCE REPORT. CRC, 2010. Web.

44

lack of consultants and professional expertise has led to tender documents being developed that

are often not clearly defined, not thorough, or are just copied from existing tenders from other

cities and do not consider local requirements.

Waste Composition & Technological Barriers

The outcome of a waste incineration plant is highly dependent on the future waste

quantities and characteristics available. MSW for incineration must meet certain requirements,

such as energy content and composition.131 Some inherent problems which render the refuse from

Indian cities at times unsuitable to the incineration system are inadequacy of combustible

materials and high levels of moisture present in the refuse.132 A comprehensive study on waste

content and processing needs to be undertaken to determine if MSW can be incinerated year-

round, given that seasonal variations - such as the monsoon period - can significantly affect the

combustibility of waste. Future research conducted on the feasibility of incineration must focus

on the waste that is ultimately supplied to the waste incineration plant. In urban centers in India

particularly, the effect of informal recycling activities from scavengers and rag pickers that

change the composition of the waste must be considered.133 Given the challenges associated with

quantifying the informal waste sector, this may create barriers to effective incineration. The

characteristics of waste vary with region, source and scale, resulting in uncertainties over optimal

designs and processes.

Institutional Framework Issues131 Christensen, Ronald, Wesley Johnson, Adam Branscum, and Timothy E. Hanson. Municipal Solid Waste Incineration: WORLD BANK TECHNICAL GUIDANCE REPORT. CRC, 2010. Web.132 Ibid.133 Ibid.

45

The potential success of an MSW incineration plant depends as much on the institutional

framework as on the waste and available technology. The waste sector, the organization and

management of the incineration plant itself, the energy sector, and the levels of government

responsible for implementation and enforcement are some of the main stakeholders to consider.

Incineration plants are influenced by and depend on numerous legal, institutional, and socio-

economic factors in the environment.

Municipal governments are rife with excessive bureaucracy and corruption, so levels of

control and enforcement may not be ideal. An organizational set-up that can effectively

administer the plant and support the waste incineration system is essential. If the waste

management system is not regulated fully, the high costs associated with incineration are likely

to encourage or instigate more illegal waste disposal activities or uncontrolled dumping. While

MSW management is an important aim for every state government and municipal body in India,

and this has been written into legislation, this goal has not translated itself into clear policies on

contracts, feed-in-tariffs and other incentives.

In cities like Mumbai, waste management has diverse stakeholders, many of whom are in

the informal sector. Rag pickers represent one prominent category in this context; another is the

society in the vicinity of dump yards, landfills or waste to energy power plants.134 Unless the

WtE business model is structured in a manner that will incentivize all stakeholders, a number of

operational and legal problems could arise. The roles of various parties involved may be clear on

paper, but there is a lack of initiative taken to deal with waste at the municipal level.

134 Ibid.

46

8. Recommendation and Conclusion

In spite of the drastic difference in the net costs for incineration and landfilling derived

from our model, we still believe that there is potential for a WtE plant in Mumbai and possibly

other urban centers in India.

The data used in our model for the landfilling costs assume that the government will be

able to sanitarily landfill the waste. However, our research shows that Mumbai has unsanitary

landfilling and most of the waste is disposed of in open dumps. Hence, the environmental costs

of landfilling in our model do not accurately portray the reality. The pollutants emitted from

unsanitary landfilling and the general health risks are very high. More importantly, landfilling is

unsustainable given the fact that Mumbai’s population will grow and there is a severe lack of

space. A WtE plant can significantly reduce the need for land. Unfortunately we weren’t able to

quantify this benefit in our model, thus a direct comparison of the cost of landfilling versus

incineration based one plot of land may not be the most applicable model.

Our model does not take into account the Public-Private Partnerships that could create

beneficial synergies that would reduce the capital costs of building an incineration plant. For

example, private incineration plants would be able to earn revenues from tipping fees and public

subsidies. Due to the lack of data we were unable to evaluate the effectiveness of these varied

revenue sources. More importantly, we wanted to keep the ownership of the incineration plant

and the landfill constant in order to reach a more valuable comparison. Additionally, our

incineration plant does not create RDF pellets, which could be sold on the energy market to

create further revenues for the plant. Since there is very little data available in India about the

effectiveness of creating and selling RDF pellets, we did not include this in our model. However,

47

if technology were to improve to reduce the costs of the creation of RDF pellets, this could create

a large benefit in our model.

Looking forward, further research needs to be conducted to find more accurate and timely

data. Given that the outcome and content of a cost benefit analysis is so dependent on the local

socio-economic conditions, a more comprehensive cost-benefit assessment should be conducted,

which would include many of the uncertainties we discussed earlier. These would include the

long-term environmental impact of waste disposal, long term costs of land use, sustainable

energy generation and economic development.

48

8. Bibliography

“Advancing the Science of Climate Change,” National Academy of Sciences, 2010.

Arena, U. “Process and technological aspects of municipal solid waste gasification: A review,” Waste Management 32, no.4. April 2012.

Bhada, Perinaz, and Nickolas Themelis. "Potential for the First WTE Facility in Mumbai India." 16th Annual North American Waste-To-Energy Conference (2008): n. pag. Columbia University. Web. 26 Nov. 2014.

Binder Enhanced Refuse Derived Fuel. Daugherty, K.E., Venables, B.J., Ohlsson, O.O., assignee. Patent US5562743 A. 8 Oct. 1996. Print.

Buecker, Brad. 2014. "Understand the importance of water/steam chemistry." Processing (08968659) 27, no. 7: 12-16. Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed November 30, 2014).

Burgess, James. “Sweden has Run out of Rubbish for Waste-to-Energy Industry.” Web. 24 Nov 2014.

Chen, D. et. al. “Pyrolysis technologies for municipal solid waste: a review,” Waste Management 34, no. 12. December 2014. 2455-86.

Christensen, Ronald, Wesley Johnson, Adam Branscum, and Timothy E. Hanson. Municipal Solid Waste Incineration: WORLD BANK TECHNICAL GUIDANCE REPORT. CRC, 2010. Web.

David N. Beede and David E. Bloom, “The Economics of Municipal Solid Waste,” World Bank Research Observer.

European Union. “Directive 2008/98/EC on waste (Waste Framework Directive)”. Web. 24 Nov 2014. 2008/http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/framework/

Fitzgerald, G.C. “Pre-processing and treatment of municipal solid waste (MSW) prior to incineration,” Waste to Energy Conversion Technology, 2013,

"FRB: FEDS Notes: The Social Discount Rate in Developing Countries." FRB: FEDS Notes: The Social Discount Rate in Developing Countries. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Nov. 2014.

Gendebien, A., Leavens, A., Blackmore, K., Godley, A., Lewin, K., Whiting,K. J., . . . Hogg, D. (2003). Refuse derived fuel, current practice and perspectives

Gross, Daniel. “Förbränning for All! The sensible Swedes burn a lot of their garbage. Why can’t we?” Web. 24 Nov 2014.

49

Haugen, Dan, “Is burning garbage green? In Sweden, there’s little debate,” Midwest Energy News, 10/17/2013.

Higman C. and van der Burgt M. 2003. “Gasification,” Gulf Professional Publishing

Hjelmar, O. Disposal strategies for municipal solid waste incineration residues. J. Hazard. Mater., 47. 1996. 345-68 (Table)

"India Solar, Wind, Biomass, Biofuels, Waste to Energy - EAI." India Solar, Wind, Biomass, Biofuels, Waste to Energy - EAI. N.p., 2012. Web. 26 Nov. 2014.

Intra, P., YaWootti, A., Tippayawong, N. “Demonstration of a Modular Electrostatic Precipitator to Control Particulate Emissions from a Small Municipal Waste Incinerator. J. Electr.” Eng. Technol. 9, no. 1. 2014.

Knoef, H. “Practical aspects of biomass gasification,” Ch. 3 in Handbook Biomass Gasification edited by H. Knoef. BTG-Biomass Technology Group. Enschede, the Netherlands. 2005.

Le Cloiric, P. “Treatments of polluted emissions from incinerator gases: a succinct review,” Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 11. 2012.

McKay, G. “Dioxin characterisation, formation, and minimisation during municipal solid waste (MSW) incineration: review” Chemical Engineering Journal 86, 2002.

“MHI Achieves 1,600°C Turbine Inlet Temperature in Test Operation of World’s Highest Thermal Efficiency ‘J-Series’ Gas Turbine”. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. 26 May 2011.

Mishra, B.A. “Government of India Ministry of New and Renewable Energy: Programme on Energy from Urban, Industrial and Agricultural Wastes/Residues during 12th Plan period.” Web. 1 Dec 2014.

“PAT Report: Disposing of solid wastes by pyrolysis,” Environ. Sci. Technol., vol 9, no. 2. 1975.

Perinaz Bhada, Nickolas.J. Themelis, “Potential for the first WTE facility in Mumbai (Bombay) India,” 16th Annual North American Waste-to-Energy Conference May 19-21, 2008, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,

Quinkertz, R., Ulma, A., Gobrecht, E., Wechsung, M. Siemens AG. “USC Steam Turbine technology for maximum efficiency and operational flexibility.” Presented at POWER-GEN Asia 2008 – Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. October 21-23, 2008.

Rani, D. et. al. “Air Pollution control residues from waste incineration: Current UK situation and assessment of alternative technologies,” Waste Management 28, no. 11. Nov 2008. 2279-92.

Ray, R. "Full steam ahead: a steam turbine rehabilitation can restore the efficiency and performance of aging power plants." Power Engineering 118, no. 5 (May 1, 2014): 56-59. Inspec, EBSCOhost (accessed November 30, 2014).

50

Roy, G.K. "Municipal Solid Waste Recycle - An Economic Proposition for a Developing Nation." Indian J. Environmental Protection 8.1 (1988): 51-54. Web. 26 Nov. 2014.

R. Rajput, G. Prasad and A.K. Chopra, “Scenario of solid waste management in present Indian context,” Caspian Journal of Environmental Sciences, 2009, Vol. 7 No.1

“Report of the Task Force on Waste to Energy. (Vol I)” Government of India, 12 May 2014 

Ryu, C., Shin, D. “Combined Heat and Power from Municipal Solid Waste: Current Status and Issues in South Korea,” Energies 2013. 6,

Sabbas, T. et al. “Management of municipal solid waste incineration residues.” Waste Management 23, no. 1. 2003.

Saffarzadeh, A. et. al. “Chemical and mineralogical evaluation of slag products derived from the pyrolysis/melting treatment of MSW,” Waste Management 26. 2006. 1443-52.

Sarika Rathi, “Optimization model for integrated municipal solid waste management in Mumbai, India,” Environment and Development Economics 12: 105-121, Cambridge University Press 2007,

Sharholy, M., et. al. “Municipal solid waste management in Indian cities – A review,” Waste Management 28. 2008.

Shekdar. (1999) Municipal solid waste management-The Indian perspective. Journal of Indian Association for Environmental Management, 26 (2),

"Soon, Rs 1,800 Crore Awareness Campaign under Clean India Mission." The Economic Times. Times of India, 28 Oct. 2014. Web. 26 Nov. 2014.

Thomas Malkow, “Novel and innovative pyrolysis and gasification technologies for energy efficient and environmentally sound MSW disposal,” Waste Management, Volume 24, Issue 1, 2004, p.53-79

US Environmental Protection Agency, “Municipal Solid Waste”

Waldner, M.H., et. al. “Energy from Waste – Clean, efficient, renewable: Transitions in combustion efficiency and NOx control,” Waste Management 33, no. 2. 2013.

“Waste Incineration and Public Health,” Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2000.

"Waste To Energy." Ministry of New and Renewable Energy. Government of India, 16 Oct. 2014. Web. 26 Nov. 2014.

“What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste Management,” The World Bank Publication,

51

"What Is Energy from Waste (EfW)?" ARC21 -. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Dec. 2014.

Williams, Matt. “Waste-To-Energy Success Factors in Sweden and the United States.” Web. 24 Nov. 2014.

Zayani, Amin; Riad, Maggie “Solid Waste Management: Overview and current state in Egypt,” Tri-Ocean Carbon, short paper series

52