Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 58 (2016) 1007–1016

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Malaysia's stand on municipal solid waste conversion to energy:

A review
Alireza Fazeli, Farzaneh Bakhtvar, Leila Jahanshaloo, Nor Azwadi Che Sidik n,
Ali Esfandyari Bayat
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi, Malaysia, 81310 Skudai, Johor, Malaysia

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Malaysia is a fast emerging economy country with an average GDP growth of 4.6% and its outlook on
Received 16 October 2014 energy generation and sustainable development are at the center of debate. It is estimated that each 1%
Received in revised form growth in its GDP to be associated with 1.2–1.5% increase in total energy demand. An annual growth rate
18 December 2015
of 3.3% has been projected for municipal solid waste (MSW) production in the country while it lacks a
Accepted 27 December 2015
comprehensive waste management network and over 80% of collected MSW is landfilled in inert, and
unsanitary sites. This paper summarizes the status of the waste management techniques currently being
Keywords: used in Malaysia followed by an overview of sustainability analysis of the potential energy-recovered
Waste-to-energy waste treatment techniques. It is concluded that retrofitting current landfill sites to capture methane is of
Waste management
great interest as it requires less time and investment in comparison with standard energy-recovered
Municipal solid waste
waste incinerator. The use of sophisticated waste incineration plants will be inevitable and other
Incineration
Landfill approaches such as gasification, and pyrolysis should be considered as well. Gasification, and pyrolysis
Renewable energy are easily adaptable to bulky or powder-like wastes and drying of wet waste is performed through
Malaysia osmosis at no energy expenses. Due to the high level of moisture in Malaysian MSW, they therefore
appear to be suitable options. In addition, an upgraded Feed-in-Tariff (FiT) embracing waste-to-energy
techniques will effectively help to increase usage of renewable energy sources to acquire a green
energy mix.
& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1007
2. Msw characterization and recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1009
3. Energy recovery from landfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
3.1. Landfill facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
3.2. Problems with the use of landfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1011
4. Energy recovery from waste incineration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012
4.1. Waste incineration facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012
4.2. Problems with the use of waste incineration technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1012
5. Sustainability of the Wte methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013
6. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015

1. Introduction

Energy is a necessity for economic development and life quality

n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 60 75534718; fax: þ 60 75566159.
improvement, and yet it is mainly produced from fossil fuels that
E-mail address: azwadi@mail.fkm.utm.my (N.A. Che Sidik). are in contrast with sustainability therefore, developing green

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.270
1364-0321/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1008 A. Fazeli et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 58 (2016) 1007–1016
alternatives for energy production has been a major concern
worldwide [1]. Renewable energy projects accounted for 43.6%
(excluding hydro) of the new generating capacity installed
worldwide in 2013, raising its share of world electricity generation
from 7.8% in 2012, to 8.5%; however if this capacity were not
present, world energy-related CO2 emissions i.e. an indicator of
sustainability, would have been an estimated amount of 1.2 giga-
tonnes higher in 2013 [2]. The statistics place emphasis on the
importance of developing eco-friendly energy mixes. One poten-
tial green contributor – if properly managed, is conversion of
waste to energy (WtE). This involves any waste treatment process
that converts non-recyclable waste materials into useable heat,
electricity, or energy carrier. The conversion can take place
through a variety of processes e.g. combustion, gasification, pyr-
olization, anaerobic digestion, landfill gas recovery (LFG), and Fast
Pyrolysis yielding bio-oil. WtE technologies are applicable to dif-
ferent waste categories such as solid, liquid (e.g. domestic sewage),
and gaseous (e.g. refinery flue gas). However, due to the huge
amounts of municipal solid waste (MSW) produced daily in urban
areas worldwide, the attention is specifically focused on the con-
version of MSW [3]. According to Pressley et al. [4] from conver-
sion of one tonne U.S. MSW via gasification and Fischer–Tropsch
(FT) methods, 123 L of gasoline, 57 L of diesel, 79 kg of other FT
products, and 193 kWh of electricity can be produced. In other
words, conversion of one tonne MSW can produce 6.4 GJ energy
after subtracting 4.4 GJ of primary energy consumed for the
conversion process. The most common and widely used MSW-to-
energy methods are incineration in a combined heat and power
plant (CHP), and controlled landfilling to collect emitted methane
from waste [5].
The level of MSW generation is directly related to economic
development, rate of industrialization, and public practices of the
region. It has been proven that a higher advancement in economic
will result in a higher amount of MSW production [6]. Currently,
more than 50% of the world's population lives in urban areas and
the rate of population growth, global urbanization, and economic
development (especially in developing countries) all are con-
tributing to the escalation of MSW production globally [7].
Appropriate MSW treatments offer practical solutions to control
the environmental contaminations as well as climate change.
Furthermore, MSW has the potential to bring about new financial
advantages and sources of fuel for future energy needs. From 2011
to 2012, the growth of venture capital and private equity business
investment in WtE – together with biomass – recorded an increase
of 186%, summing up to a total investment of USD 1 billion [8]. In
addition, MSW provides an attractive investment since it is almost
a free fuel received contrary to other feedstock utilized for energy
generation, thus maximizes the revenue margin for WtE plant
operators [9]. However, the increasing rate of environmental
consciousness as well as certain financial and technical parameters
have prevented these technologies from spreading rapidly. In fact,
although WtE technologies with MSW as their feed-in materials
are well developed, but the disconformity of MSW composition,
complexity of the treatment procedures, and pollutant emissions
still have considerable issues. Expansion the use of WtE plants
requires a combination of endeavors from different views along
with future technical advancements, involving the introduction of
various incineration processes to the market and considering all
the social, economic and environmental problems that may hap-
pen in the decision making process of using the technology [10].
A report published by the World Bank in 2012, has approxi-
mated the global MSW generation to be 1.3 billion tonnes per year
or an average of 1.2 kg/capital/day differing within different areas
due to the local stage of urbanization and financial wealth. The
generation rate of MSW is anticipated to take over the urbaniza-
tion rate in the near future, reaching 2.2 billion tonnes/year by
Fig. 1. Malaysia energy production from 1995 untill 2013 reported by IEA (Inter-
national Energy Agency), 2015.
2025 and 4.2 billion by 2050 [11]. Presently, the bulk amount of
MSW is generated in developed countries nevertheless, for the
forthcoming decades, the fastest rate is predicted to be mainly in
emerging-economy countries in Asia (e.g. Malaysia), Latin Amer-
ica, and South Africa. With reference to waste composition, this
would be transmitted through an increased percentage in pro-
duction of plastic and paper wastes in the whole waste combi-
nation mainly in high-income countries; and it is expected that
middle- and low-income countries will be having the same trend
with the growth of urbanization and economic developments [12].
Malaysia has been proven to be a fast emerging economy
country and its future energy generation and sustainable devel-
opment have been at the center of debate [13]. Malaysia's GDP
growth is expected to be in the average of 4.6% between 2004 and
2030; it reached 341.6 billion USD by 2013. It is estimated that
each 1% growth in its GDP to be associated with 1.2–1.5% increase
in energy demand [14, 15]. Malaysia's energy mix as reported by
IEA (Fig. 1) mainly consists of natural gas 61.2%, oil 31.5%, biofuels/
waste 4.5%, coal 1.8%, and hydro 1%. Although the current mix has
proven to meet the demand by far, but the situation is expected to
shift as it has been anticipated that Malaysia will become a net
energy importer before the end of the present decade [16].
To meet the soaring energy demand and gradually upgrade the
energy mix to account for larger shares of renewables, there have
been dedicated sections in the Malaysia Plans (MP) setting a target
for utilization of renewable energy to be achieved by the end of
each MP. The 10th MP requiring to increase renewable energy
from 1% (41.5 MW) in 2009 to 5.5% (985 MW) of total electricity
generation by 2010 and it is estimated to be 11.5 GW by 2050 i.e.
approximately 34% of the power mix [17].
Renewable energy sources are rich in Malaysia; the most
important ones being biomass and solar. A study quantified their
potential in the country as shown in Fig. 2 where forest residues
and oil palm biomass are found to have potentially the highest
energy values respectively by 11,883 and 6291 million Malaysian
Ringgits (RM) per year. It is estimated that 85.5% of the available
biomass in the country to be from oil palm cultivation [18]. This
large amount of available biomass offers a great potential for large-
scale power generation in a manner that simultaneously would
address environmental concerns related to waste disposal
methods.
In Malaysia, utilization of agricultural waste such as palm bio-
mass to produce energy carriers such as biodiesel is at a satisfying
rate of development but the situation for MSW is totally different;
neither a practical recycling scheme nor an effective framework to
produce energy from MSW has been practiced yet. The total MSW
 A. Fazeli et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 58 (2016) 1007–1016
Fig. 2. Renewable energy sources potential in Malaysia.
Fig. 3. Waste treatment methods practiced in Malaysia; modified from [21,22].
production of Malaysia was 7 million tonnes in 2010, and given its
growing economy and GDP, a remarkable growth in MSW pro-
duction is expected. Malaysia generated 5.5 MW of electricity from
MSW in 2009 but according to the 10th MP it should rise to
360 MW by 2022 [17].
The most dominant waste disposal method in Malaysia is
unsanitary landfilling. Fig. 3 illustrates the percentage of different
waste treatment techniques practiced in Malaysia for the years
2002 and 2006 as well as the targeted percentage for 2020. Until
2006, no waste incineration or gas recovery from landfill was
utilized while if implemented, they would effectively reduce the
rate of today's usage of unsanitary landfilling and simultaneously,
the produced energy were a replacement equivalent to the sum of
fossil fuels. However, the 2020 target requires greater shares of
contribution for recycling, composting, incineration, inert landfill,
and 0% for unsanitary disposal sites. It has been reported that in
Malaysia, the profit of MSW utilization for energy generation has
not reached a sufficiently economic level mainly due to the cost of
WtE technologies and the high level of moisture in Malaysian
MSW. Therefore, the government has to deal with the challenges
in the trade-off for a cleaner environment and the technology/
maintenance costs [19]. Researchers have suggested various
techniques to make such technologies economically feasible. For
example, the idea of using more fuel sources (co-generation) for
1009
incineration e.g. combining MSW with agricultural residue bio-
mass, has been proposed to achieve a higher overall efficiency.
Such techniques suit Malaysia's waste management issues, since
there is an abundance of agricultural biomass from palm planta-
tion in the country [20].
This article reviews Malaysia's MSW management status with
emphasis on its conversion to energy as a subcategory of waste-to-
wealth affair. The discussion will include Malaysian MSW com-
position, production rate, WtE technologies, barriers, current dis-
posal practices, and capacities in Malaysia. Energy generation
potential from landfill gas recovery (LFG) and incineration plants
are discussed as they are expected to be key elements to address
Malaysia's waste management issues and its sustainable produc-
tion of energy.
2. Msw characterization and recycling
To manage waste and adopt the most suitable WtE technology
for a region it is important to have it characterized, since the
amount and composition vary within different regions depending
on the size, socioeconomic status, cultural habits, environmental
awareness, and particularly, the level of the 3R's (reduce, reuse and
recycle) being practiced [23–25]. For Malaysia, a study has pro-
jected an annual increase rate of 3% in MSW production. As shown
in Fig. 4, the total daily MSW generation was 2,9711 t/day in 2012,
30518 t/day in 2013 which varies for different cities: from 45 t/day
in Klang to 3000 t/day in Kuala Lumpur. The contributing factors
towards the increasing generation rate in Malaysia are almost
similar to that of other developing countries namely population
growth and rapid urbanization. According to the Ministry of
Housing and Local Government (MHLG) annual report in 2002,
total amounts of 13,069 and 16,248 t/day of MSW were generated
respectively for the years 1996 and 2001 which is inline with the
population increase from 15,146,236 to 17,136,575 in the same
period of time. In other words, the total MSW generation increased
by 20% which implies an annual growth rate of 3.3%. Malaysia still
shows a sharp increase in population. From 2000 to 2015, the total
population increased from 23.49 to 30.65 million that indicates a
growth of 30.5% in the fifteen-year period. Accordingly, an ever-
increasing generation rate of MSW is also expected. As Fig. 4
illustrates, an overall of 36,165 t/day of MSW has been projected to
be hit by 2020 [13]. The data indicates that the increase in MSW
generation is highly in connection with the population growth in
Malaysia.
The rapid urbanization process is another major contributing
factor to the MSW production rate in Malaysia. In 1980, the
urbanization growth in Malaysia was the most rapid in Southeast
Asia. From 1970 to 2005, Malaysia recorded a great growth in
urban population by 91.5%. In 2005, the rate of urbanization in
Pulau Pinang, Wilayah Persekutuan Labuan, Selangor and Wilayah
Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, Melaka, and Johor were higher than
the average rate of national urbanization (2.5%) [13]. According to
the federal policies in the MP's, an upgoing trend of urbanization is
expected for upcoming years. These policies advance a hierarchy
growth conurbation approach which includes national, regional,
intermediate and urban centers.
In Malaysia, households have been reported as the primary
source of MSW production. Several researches have been con-
ducted over randomly-selected landfill sites to estimate the com-
position of waste in Malaysia. They observed that the waste
comprised 50–60% of recyclable materials [26,27]. Fig. 5 illustrates
waste composition for the under-scrutiny landfill sites between
1980 and 2005. Compared to other waste categories, Organic
waste appeared to hold the dominant portion with an average of
47.5% of the total wet weight followed by Paper with an average of
1010 A. Fazeli et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 58 (2016) 1007–1016
Fig. 4. Annual MSW generation in Malaysia by state; modified from [13].
Fig. 5. Waste composition in Malaysia from 1980 to 2005.
17%. However, there is a considerable percentage of unidentified
matters with an average amount of 15.8% of the total waste as they
have been categorized under “Others” in Fig. 5. All the categories
demonstrate fluctuating portions over time except Plastic and
Paper. According to the graph, an ascending rate for Plastic and a
descending rate for Paper can be understandably predicted
over time.
A similar study conducted in 2009, characterized MSW col-
lected in Kuala Lumpur (KL), the capital city of Malaysia [28]. As
shown in Fig. 6, there is also a great amount of recyclable materials
as found in KL landfill sites. Plastic category with the total gen-
eration rate of 150,034 t/year has been the most common followed
by Paper with the total generation rate of 86.305 t/year. However
the greatest percentage in recycling belongs to Paper with 16.5%
being recycled per year. In sum, only 16.4% of the total recyclable
wastes in KL is recycled annually, and the rest undergoes land-
filling. Lack of practicing waste separation at source has been
reported as the key element to this trend, nevertheless Mohamad
et al. [29] have mentioned that Malaysia as a religious community
has the potential to participate effectively in recycling and waste
separation at source due to several key reasons: the systematic
Fig. 6. Recyclable components of Kuala Lumpur MSW.
way in which they operate, their ability to conduct long-term
recycling programs, the advantages of their institutional structure
as an established platform for recycling activities, their multiple
motivational drivers for recycling, and their collective potential to
expand their programs to various parts of the broader community.
However, to encourage households to participate in recycling
Malaysia has launched nationwide recycling campaigns twice in
1993 and 2000, but they turned up to be ineffective and were
abandoned truncated [30]. Several researchers have focused on
identifying reasons to these unsuccessful attempts. A case study to
estimate the willingness-to-pay of households for improving the
waste collection system in KL suggests that households neither
were aware about the benefits of recycling and waste separation
nor were prone to pay for facilities be given to them for waste
separation at source [31]. Another survey to study people's
awareness of doing recycling was conducted by Zen et al. [30].
They have reported that the non-recycler group in Malaysia is
dominated by the low-income group with low levels of education
and being predominantly Malay. On the contrary, the recyclers are
from middle-income group with high level of education and are of
the Chinese race. However, at present, 70% of the total waste
 A. Fazeli et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 58 (2016) 1007–1016
generated in the whole country is collected and only 1–5% is
estimated to be recycled [32]. Aside from the potential financial
benefits from recyclable materials, if recycling is practiced widely
it decreases the current volume of waste being landfilled. It not
only will reduce the environmental impacts but also will make the
implementation of a waste incineration technology less challen-
ging by lessening the level of moisture in Malaysian MSW which is
in the range of 52–66%.
Public contribution to the 3R framework has proven to be the
most effective mean in order to address these issues. Concreted
efforts are needed to raise environmental awareness of people and
to promote waste separation at source. For more strategic and
targeted approach to recycling campaigns at the local level, the
socio-economic backgrounds of the community, and more active
participation at all levels must be taken into account. Offering
financial incentives to the community is another proposal to
increase community’s contribution.
3. Energy recovery from landfill
Inert landfilling is the most common, least expensive, and less
desirable method of waste disposal in the world. Global methane
emission from landfills is approximated to be in the range of 30–
70 million tonnes per year [33]. At present, in Malaysia, over 80%
of collected MSW is landfilled (inert and unsanitary) as it is the
dominant technique of waste disposal in the whole country.
However, in the near future, this method will not be able to handle
the increasing generation rate of MSW, since the current landfills
are reaching their maximum capacity limit, and due to land scar-
city it is difficult to establish new damp sites [34].
Water, methane (CH4), CO2, and heat are the major products
resulting from aerobic and anaerobic processes accruing in damp
sites. CH4 and CO2 form the major landfill gases (LFG) with relative
volume amounts of 55–60% [33,35]. The major processes that
result in formation of LFG are bacterial decomposition, volatiliza-
tion, and chemical reactions [36]. Waste composition, availability
of biodegradable organic materials, age of waste, moisture content,
pH, and temperature are the main parameters that affect LFG
generation in a landfill. In Malaysia, the high level of moisture and
the great amount of organic waste in MSW, accelerate the process
of LFG production, and hence LFG capturing happens to be a sui-
table option. The Malaysian Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change has reported the total LFG emission from disposal sites
from 1996 to 2020 (Fig. 7) [37]. The trend shows an annual growth
rate of 8% for the total LFG emission being released to the atmo-
sphere. And it has been predicted that it will reach the total of
371,000 t by 2020 from which, if collected, total of 2650 GWh of
Fig. 7. Predicted methane emission and the equivalent electricity from landfills;
modified from [37].
1011
electricity can be generated. The available date confirms the great
potential of electricity generation from LFG in Malaysia.
3.1. Landfill facilities
Malaysia's landfill sites are under the supervision of the Min-
istry of Housing and Local Government. To meet the Action Plan
1988, the government has been attempting to upgrade the dis-
posal sites by establishing four stages of improvement. These
levels are:
 Level 1: Controlled dumping.
 Level 2: Sanitary landfill with daily cover.
 Level 3: Sanitary landfill with leachate circulation.
 Level 4: Sanitary landfill with leachate treatment.
However, these levels do not prioritize LFG capturing and are
mainly concerned with issues raising from unsanitary landfilling
which is the most common technique in the country. In 2001,
there were 155 landfills in operation but the number increased to
161 in 2002, and 176 in 2007. At present, there are 176 operational,
and 114 non-operational sites while methane recovery is imple-
mented only at five sites, and one of them is located in east
Malaysia (Sarawak) [38]. The Pulau Burung facility has the greatest
amount of MSW disposal (19,050 kilotonnes) and recovers
45,538 t of CO2eq (carbon dioxide equivalent, CDE). The Bukit
Tagar facility has the highest recovery by 219,625 t of CDE from
2,850,000 t of waste deposited [39].
3.2. Problems with the use of landfill
Landfill sites must be precisely engineered to prevent their
gaseous emissions and fluid leakages (leachate) which are harmful
to the environment. Over 80% of the collected MSW in Malaysia is
landfilled whereas most of the dump sites are open, unsanitary,
and over-loaded in capacity. A study conducted in 2001, reported
155 operational landfills in west Malaysia comprising 73 open
dumps, 71 semi-sanitary, and 11 sanitary sites [40]. In 2012, the
Ministry of Housing and Local Government reported on 165
operational landfills that service 95% of Malaysia's total waste
disposal with only 8 of them sanitary and 11 under different
extends of construction [41]. Another study in 2013, reported a
total of 14 sanitary landfills with 10 located in west Malaysia and
4 in Sarawak – an East Malaysian state [36].
The literature confirms that only 10% of the total operational
landfill sites in the country are sanitary with five of them reco-
vering methane. This situation has resulted in critical issues such
as outbreak of fires, contamination of rivers, and certain health
problems as reported by [36]. To tackle these issues, the sites must
be upgraded to the highest possible sanitary grade that is Level 4
(as discussed earlier) in which leachates are controlled, however
the GHG emissions will still remain uncontrolled. Upgrading the
dump sites to LFG-recovered level will not only reduce the overall
GHG emissions but also boost the efforts to achieve sustainable
development. With biodegradable components of more than 60%,
they are potential sources of cheaper and cleaner LFG. Such
upgrades lie within governmental efforts in promoting renewable
energy by establishing appropriate rules to ban landfill sites, and
subsidizing/introducing efficient technologies according to local
variable parameters. Privatizing will be another effective strategy
to promote LFG recovery from landfills. LFG recovery in Malaysia is
a very promising resource utilization potential that will be of
economic and environmental benefits, and will also create job
opportunities for the local community.
1012 A. Fazeli et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 58 (2016) 1007–1016
4. Energy recovery from waste incineration
Human evolution has always been associated with soaring
turnover of materials per capita. Primitive humans had a
throughput of about 6 t/capita/year but it has reached 86 t/capita/
year for affluent private households of today's modern citizenship.
Table 1 lists per-capita material flows through private households
in affluent societies. Solid waste appears in Output with 2.7 t/
capita/year which is 3.2% of the total material throughput. This
increasing rate of waste production is profusely aligned with
environmental burdens whilst conventional methods of waste
disposal are not able to handle it properly, therefore utilization of
waste incinerators come into sight as an inevitable solution to
overcome this issue.
Waste incineration was initially proposed for volume reduction
and sanitary reasons but it is now optionally possible to recover
energy from the process as well. In general, an energy-recovered
incineration of waste involves burning waste to boil water to run
steam generators to produce electricity and/or heat where they
can contribute in energy needs. With regards to the type of the
process employed, this technology can be categorized into com-
bustion, pyrolysis, gasification, plasma decomposition, and deto-
nation. However, there are several environmental concerns asso-
ciated with this technology that need to be carefully addressed.
The most important ones are the potential pollutants and the
greenhouse gases that are dispersed into the atmosphere from the
exhausts. These contaminations can be acidic and turn rain with
high acidic level. One method to resolve these issues is employing
lime scrubbers and electro-static precipitators on smokestacks. By
redirecting smoke through basic lime scrubbers, acids associated
with the gases are neutralized to prevent them from being
released into the atmosphere [43]. According to recent researches,
taking advantage of incineration facilities is not limited to the
energy they recover, and many studies have been carried out on
enhancement of ferrous/non-ferrous substances recovery from
both bottom and fly ashes resulting from the incineration process
[44,45].
In Malaysia, due to the current incapacitated waste manage-
ment system, the government ordered a special committee com-
prising cabinet members to propose a holistic waste management
system for the country, especially for populated areas [46]. There
were several reasons that caused the government to react; the
major ones are as follows: First, there have been reported pro-
blems posed to the environment and public health from operating
and closed landfills [47]. Second, beginning 2001, Malaysia has
focused on renewable energy sources to shrink its dependency on
fossil fuels where WtE can play an important role [37]. And the last
reason is the rate of waste generation in Malaysia which is
growing sharply. To tackle the situation, the committee was
ordered to place emphasis on development of energy-recovered
waste incineration plants [46].
Table 1
Per capita material flows through private households in affluent societies; modified
from [42].
Activity Input [t/c  y] Output [t/c  y]
Total Solid waste Sewage
To nourish 5.7 0.1 0.9
To clean 60 0.02 60
To reside 10 1.0 0 7.6
To transport 10 1.6 0 6.0
Total 86 2.7 61
4.1. Waste incineration facilities
In Malaysia, waste incinerators have been used mostly on small
scales with few of them capable of recovering energy. Small-scale
facilities were introduced to Malaysia in 1996 and first imple-
mented in popular Malaysian tourist islands namely Langkawi,
Labuan, Pangkor, and Tioman, where the local authorities have
been in charge of collecting, transporting, and incinerating the
waste. These facilities involve three major systems namely
Scrubber, Shredder, and Incinerator. Tioman Island has two 3-
tonne-capacity waste incinerators and as reported in 2001, they
incinerated an overall of 3221 t of MSW throughout the year. In
these islands, none of the facilities recovers energy from the
combustion except the plant operating in Langkawi Island with a
capacity of generating 1 MW of electricity [48].
At present, there is only one comprehensive energy-recovered
waste incinerator plant in Malaysia (Fig. 8) which belongs to Core
Competencies Sdn Bhd (CCSB) Company. It was established in
2008 in Semenyih, Selangor. Its operation is based on refuse-
derived fuel (RDF) technology that requires more processing steps
prior to the actual incineration. These steps are physical separation
of incombustible materials, moisture reduction, downsizing, and
palletizing (to ensure size homogeneity). The power plant com-
prises a single 8.9 MW turbine generator and a 55-tonne steam
generator. Its boiler operates at 46 t/h load and delivers 38 t of
steam to the turbine, and 8 t to the process plant to generate hot
air for the waste-drying step [37]. The pre-heating step is a key
step due to the high level of moisture.
The actual capacity of the plant is 1000 t of MSW per day or
8.9 MW of electricity generation nevertheless, it currently operates
on 70% of the actual capacity and exports 5 MW electricity to the
grid. It should be noted that incineration of one tonne MSW emits
about one tonne of CO2 however this is way less than that of the
waste degradation in open landfills [50]. Core competencies plant
is the only successful model of an efficient energy-recovered waste
incinerator in the country. The RDF technology employed in this
plant has been identified as the key element to achieve efficient
level of energy recovery.
4.2. Problems with the use of waste incineration technology
There are several hurdles in the way of waste incineration
technology to be widely used in Malaysia: lack of waste sorting at
source, being more expensive than landfilling, release of pollutants
into the air, public opposition, and the high level of moisture
content. Among these, the level of moisture has been reported as
the major barrier as it highly reduces the calorific value of waste.
For Malaysia, this property was found to be in the range of 6276
and 10,878 kJ/kg [51] while in developed countries it has a value
between 8000 and 12,000 kJ/kg based on which the MSW can be
compared with fresh wood or lignite [52].
Reported in 2008, the use of small-scale incinerators operating
in the tourist islands were discontinued due to the high operation
costs caused by moisture as it increases fuel costs. However, in
2012, the incinerators became again active as their operations
were scheduled based on the volume of waste received. As
instance, the operation capacity of Pangkor Island incineration
plant is 20 t/day, but the daily MSW generation is 6–7 t/day, thus
the facility works for 3–4 days a week, and the rest days are
dedicated to waste sorting and recovering of recyclable materials
Off gas
[34]. It has been always challenging to adopt an incineration
4.7 technology to operate economically with low calorific feed-in
0 materials. The situation becomes worse when there is a readily
available alternative with less complexities such as landfilling.
19
Although landfilling is cheap but over a long period of time it
emits more CO2 compared to standard waste incinerators. Waste
 A. Fazeli et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 58 (2016) 1007–1016 1013

Fig. 8. Core Competencies incineration plant located in Selangor; retrieved from [49].

Table 2 Table 3
U.S. Federal emission limits for large MWC units; extracted from [54]. Renewable feed-in tariffs for biomass and biogas in Malaysia; extracted from [57–
59].
Pollutant Emission limits for new MWC units
Renewable energy utilization Years RM/kWh Degression
Dioxin/furan (CDD/ 13 ng dscm  1
CDF) Biomass
Cadmium (Cd) 10 μg dscm  1 o 10 MW 16 0.31 0.5%
Lead (Pb) 140 μg dscm  1 4 10 MWo 20 MW 16 0.29 0.5%
Mercury (Hg) 50 μg dscm  1 or 85% reduction in Hg emissions 4 20 MWo 30 MW 16 0.27 0.5%
Particulate Matter 20 mg dscm  1 Bonus for gasification 16 0.02 0.5%
(PM) Bonus for stream generation 414% efficiency 16 0.01 0.5%
Hydrogen Chloride 25 ppm (dry volume) or 95% reduction in HCl Bonus for local manufacturer 16 0.01 0.5%
(HCl) emissions Bonus for MSW 16 0.10 1.8%
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 30 ppm (dry volume) or 80% reduction in SO2 Biogas
emissions o 4 MW 16 0.32 0.5%
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 180 ppm (dry volume) dropping to 150 ppm (dry 4 4 MWo 10 MW 16 0.30 0.5%
volume) after the first year of operation 4 10 MWo 30 MW 16 0.28 0.5%
Bonus for gas engine 440% efficiency 16 0.02 0.5%
Bonus for local manufacturer 16 0.01 0.5%
incineration along with proper recycling and energy recovery Bonus for landfill or sewage gas 16 0.08 0.5%
reduces the emission while saving cost of energy generation as
less fossil fuels being consumed [37]. In Malaysia, waste sorting at
been the major measure adopted by the Malaysian government to
source has not been yet practiced effectively while it is another
promote the use of renewable energy (RE) [55]. FiT guarantees
essential measure to make the incineration technology feasible.
payments for the utilization of electricity generated by RE. Table 3
With proper implementation of waste sorting at source, moisture shows Malaysian FiT for energy utilization from biomass and
content of the waste will significantly drop which will improve the biogas categories (including MSW) under the tenth MP. According
calorific value. Considering the significant percentage of paper, to M. Lim [56] the current FiT is not likely to promote energy
plastic, wood, and textile materials in the Malaysian MSW, if they production from waste effectively. The study has suggested to
are sorted properly they will also create good opportunities for upgrade the current FiT through Environmental Full Cost
resource recovery [34]. Accounting (EFCA). The new FiT will involve economic, social and
Another challenge is to meet stringent emission standards environmental aspects through EFCA which are currently lacking.
which are necessary to minimize the environmental impacts and
to ensure the public attitude that this technology is not a threat to
their health. One instance of public resistance in Malaysia is the 5. Sustainability of the Wte methods
controversial Broga incinerator project [53]. In 2001, a 1.5 billion
Ringgit waste incinerator with a capacity of 1500 t/day was plan- “A sustainable process is one that constrains resource con-
ned to be built in Broga, Selangor, which if implemented, it was sumption and waste generation to an acceptable level, makes a
one of the largest incinerator plants in Asia. It was to be built by an positive contribution to the satisfaction of human needs, and
overseas contractor and a local partner in an area surrounded by provides enduring economic value to the business enterprise” [60].
vegetable farms. Intensive public outcries and complaints as well Several methods have been developed to assess sustainability of a
as the required large investment were reasons for the project to be process/product either quantitatively or qualitatively e.g. Exergy
discarded. However, in 2007, the Prime Minister of Malaysia (chair Analysis, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Exergetic Life Cycle Assess-
of cabinet committee on solid waste management) stated that ment (ELCA), and Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) [61]. Many
incineration plants would be built in the near future, regardless of papers have reviewed across sustainability assessment of the
public opposition (due to necessity) [14]. To ensure the local discussed WtE techniques. This section summarizes selected
community that such technology is safe, also to minimize the papers to provide insights into their relative level of sustainability.
environmental impacts, it is necessary to comply with the stan- The discussion begins with an overview of Malaysia's CO2 emis-
dards. Table 2 lists the limitation applied on toxic/harmful emis- sion status as it is an important indicator for sustainability
sions from large municipal waste combustors (MWC) plants by the assessment.
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [54]. Malaysia is facing increasing courses of per-capita CO2 emis-
Another hurdle is the large investment that establishment of a sion, GDP, and energy consumption [62]. According to the World
standard MWC plant requiring, which implies the necessity of Bank institution, for the past 30 years, electricity consumption and
government investment and support. So far, Feed-in Tariff (FiT) has economic growth both have grown exponentially. The total Gross
1014 A. Fazeli et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 58 (2016) 1007–1016
Fig. 9. Malaysia economic development and energy use trends.
Fig. 10. CO2 emission in Malaysia from 1998 to 2011.
Domestic Product (GDP) in Malaysia was worth 124.7 billion US
dollars in 2004, and reached 326.93 billion in 2014 that indicates a
growth rate of 162.2% over the ten-year period. According to the
World Bank reports, as illustrated in Fig. 9, per-capita energy use
totaled about 2011.5 kg of oil equivalent in 2000, and reached
2840 in 2013 owing mainly to the rapid population growth and
economic expansion of Malaysia.
CO2 emission in Malaysia has been reported to be mainly due to
the combustion of coal, lignite, petroleum, natural gas, wood,
agricultural waste, and improper disposal of municipal waste [63].
Owing mainly to the rapid growth of primary energy consumption,
CO2 emission in particular has increased rapidly from 1990 until
now. Per-capita CO2 emission reported 5.11 t in 1998, 6.86 t in
2005, and according to the latest data released by the World Bank,
it hit a peak of 7.9 t per capita in 2011. This evidence also suggests
that degradation of the environment precedes economic growth.
Fig. 10 shows the ascending rate of CO2 emission in Malaysia from
1998 to 2011 [64]. The current CO2 emission and energy con-
sumption trends place emphasis on the importance of imple-
mentation appropriate energy-recovered waste disposal projects
in the country. They will recover energy from waste incineration
that can supersede the equivalent amount of conventional fuels,
and decrease the CO2 emission from landfills through LFG cap-
turing. Another solution to control CO2 emission within waste
management is to augment Biochar utilization. Biochar is a
carbon-retainer matter that can be produced from waste incin-
eration as a byproduct [65]. In Malaysia, it can be produced from
the abundant agricultural waste, of which 85.5% coming from
palm plantation [66]. Biochar is capable of retaining carbon and
preventing the gas from being released back into the atmosphere.
By adding it to soil, it will also improve soil fertility that will result
in more sustainable agriculture.
Several researchers have reviewed across sustainability
assessment of WtE techniques including waste incineration and
landfill. Antonopoulos et al. [2] used the Analytical Hierarchical
Process (AHP) to rank the following techniques based on the
environmental and economic performances: 1. Mechanical biolo-
gical aerobic without refuse-derived fuel, 2. Mechanical biological
anaerobic, and 3. Incineration with energy recovery. They were
examined in the range of 70–90 kilotonnes of MSW. The study has
yielded that the incineration technique with energy recovery
offers the best performance owing to the high value of energy
generated. They have also emphasized the capital cost this method
requires compared to the other techniques studied. Toniolo et al.
[49] selected an Italian MSW incinerator, and used Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA) to quantitatively rate the expanse to which the
real environmental impacts of an incineration mirrors those con-
sidered within its design phase. Their study has indicated that, for
almost all of the categories assessed, the impacts linked with the
process under design overestimated the impacts associated with
the real operating. From the findings of these studies, it can be said
that re-adjusting the overestimated parameters can reduce the
capital cost required for establishing a standard energy-recovered
waste incinerator plant.
Arafat et al. [67] apportioned MSW into six categories i.e. food,
yard, plastic, paper, wood and textile, and assessed incineration,
gasification, anaerobic digestion, LFG, and composting to deter-
mine the optimal approach for each category. The study has shown
that it is ideal to recycle paper, wood, and plastics, to anaerobically
digest food, and yard wastes, and to incinerate textile. Through
their environmental impact assessment by LCA, anaerobic diges-
tion and gasification have been determined as the most eco-
friendly approaches. Another LCA analysis was done by Elwan
et al. [68] using Gabi™ software. They studied two waste treat-
ment scenarios for the waste generated at University of Technol-
ogy Malaysia (UTM). In the first scenario, all the waste was land-
filled; in the second scenario, energy and material recoveries were
considered. According to their analysis, 12 MW of electricity can be
produced by harnessing the garbages in UTM that will be along
with a reduction in CO2 emission from 5 to 0.97 t, and no depos-
ited goods. Cherubini et al. [69] assessed the following methods
using LCA for the amount and composition of MSW reported by
the Municipality of Rome, Italy: 1. Landfill without LFG capture, 2.
Landfill with LFG capture to generate electricity, 3. Sorting plant
which separates the inorganic waste portion (used to produce
electricity via RDF) from the biogenic waste (used to produce
biogas via anaerobic digestion), and 4. Incineration. The study has
indicated Method 2 as the best option which is able to replace the
conventional Italian power mix. However, from environmental
perspective, there will be non-negligible emissions associated
with this method.
A research by Tan et al. [70] was conducted to determine an
economical and eco-friendly MSW processing system for produ-
cing energy and value-added products in Iskandar Malaysia (the
main southern development corridor in Johor, Malaysia). They
used an in-house mixed integer linear programming model to
predict the best mix of waste treatment techniques, production of
by-products, and GHG of the system. The results have suggested
waste allocations of 14% LFG, 3% incineration, 56% recycling, and
27% composting as the optimal combination for the region.
A large and growing body of literature has investigated the
sustainability and suitability of the WtE methods by LCA. More
researches are needed to fill a gap in the literature by studying the
performance of the techniques through exergy analysis. It is
necessary to quantitatively determine the performability of the
methods under Malaysian conditions. To assess the real
 A. Fazeli et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 58 (2016) 1007–1016
environmental impacts of a sophisticated energy-recovered waste
incineration plant in the country, further studies with focus on
CCSB plant is therefore suggested.
6. Summary
Malaysia is a fast emerging economy with an average GDP
growth of 4.6%. It has been estimated that each 1% growth in its
GDP to be associated with 1.2–1.5% increase in energy demand. The
fact that its energy needs are mainly supplied by fossil fuels i.e.
natural gas 61.2% and oil 31.5%, it is anticipated that the country will
become a net energy importer in the near future. On the other side,
the problem of global warming has fostered the idea to increase
usage of renewable energy sources so that according to the MP, by
2020, RE in Malaysia must make up 17% of the fuel mix. Due to the
current incapacitated waste management in the country, the idea of
implementing an effective framework to produce energy from
municipal solid waste can contribute in addressing these issues.
Currently, an overall of 32,000 t of MSW is produced daily and over
80% of collected MSW is landfilled in inert and unsanitary sites.
There are 176 operational, and 114 non-operational sites while
methane recovery is implemented only at five of them. The trend
shows that the total LFG emission will reach 371,000 t by 2020 from
which, if captured, a total of 2650 GWh of electricity can be pro-
duced and exported to the national grid.
In Malaysia, waste incinerators have been used mostly on small
scales with few of them capable of recovering energy. At present,
there is only one sophisticated energy-recovered waste incinerator
plant i.e. CCSB, in the country with a capacity of 1000 t of MSW per
day or 8.9 MW of electricity generation. However, current facilities
will not be able to handle the increasing rate of MSW production
in the near future. Considering that the dominant disposal method
is landfill, LFG recovery from current sites will provide an effective
measure to shrink overall greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) as well
as decrease dependency on fossil fuels. Upgrading current landfill
sites requires less capital investment compared to a standard
energy-recovered incineration plant, nevertheless due to land
scarcity and the leakage of pollutants, other methods such as
energy-recovered incineration, gasification, and pyrolysis should
be considered. Although the use of energy-recovered incineration
plants is unavoidable but there are three major challenges asso-
ciated with them. First, the potential pollutants that are dispersed
into the atmosphere by the exhaust gases. Second, the large
investment they require. Third, due to the high level of moisture in
Malaysian MSW, drying of waste is performed with energy
expenses. While promoting waste sorting at source will reduce the
energy expenses of the pre-heating step but to develop a holistic
waste-to-energy system for Malaysia, other approaches as gasifi-
cation, and fast pyrolysis should be considered as well. They are
easily adaptable to bulky or powder-like wastes and drying of wet
waste is performed through osmosis at no energy expenses.
References
[1] World Final Consumption 2012. International Energy Agency; 2014. p. Sankey
Diagram.
[2] Antonopoulos I-S, Perkoulidis G, Logothetis D, Karkanias C. Ranking municipal
solid waste treatment alternatives considering sustainability criteria using the
analytical hierarchical process tool. Resour Conserv Recycl 2014;86:149–59.
[3] Energy from waste – a guide to the debate. UK Department for Environment
Food & Rural Affairs; 2014.
[4] Pressley PN, Aziz TN, DeCarolis JF, Barlaz MA, He F, Li F, et al. Municipal solid
waste conversion to transportation fuels: a life-cycle estimation of global
warming potential and energy consumption. J Clean Prod 2014;70:145–53.
[5] Review of state-of-the-art waste to energy technologies. WSP; 2013.
1015
[6] Rahman Ha. Incinerator in Malaysia: really needs? Int J Chem Environ Biol Sci
2013;1(4):678–81.
[7] Waste to Energy. World energy resources: World Energy Council; 2013.
[8] Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment. Frankfurt School – UNEP
Collaborating Centre for Climate & Sustainable Energy Finance; 2012.
[9] Energinet. Technology data for energy plants-generation of electricity and
district heating. Energy storage and energy carrier generation and conversion.
In: Agency TDE, editor; 2012.
[10] Cucchiella F, D’Adamo I, Gastaldi M. Sustainable management of waste-to-
energy facilities. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;33:719–28.
[11] Hoornweg D, Bhada-Tata P. What a waste: a global review of solid waste
management. Urban Development Series Knowledge Papers, World Bank;
2012.
[12] Troschinetz Am, Mihelcic Jr. Sustainable recycling of municipal solid waste in
developing countries. Waste Manag 2009;29:915–23.
[13] Tarmudi Z, Abdullah ML, Tap AOM. An overview of municipal solid wastes
generation in Malaysia. J Teknol 2012;51:1–15.
[14] Oh TH, Pang SY, Chua SC. Energy policy and alternative energy in Malaysia:
issues and challenges for sustainable growth. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2010;14:1241–52.
[15] Begum RA, Sohag K, Abdullah SMS, Jaafar M. CO2 emissions, energy con-
sumption, economic and population growth in Malaysia. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2015;41:594–601.
[16] Khor CS, Lalchand G. A review on sustainable power generation in Malaysia to
2030: historical perspective, current assessment, and future strategies. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2014;29:952–60.
[17] Mekhilef S, Barimani M, Safari A, Salam Z. Malaysia's renewable energy poli-
cies and programs with green aspects. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2014;40:497–504.
[18] Sulaiman F, Abdullah N, Gerhauser H, Shariff A. An outlook of Malaysian
energy, oil palm industry and its utilization of wastes as useful resources.
Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35:3775–86.
[19] Ng WPQ, Lam HL, Varbanov PS, Klemeš JJ. Waste-to-Energy (WTE) network
synthesis for Municipal Solid Waste (MSW). Energy Convers Manag
2014;85:866–74.
[20] Rentizelas AA, Tolis AI, Tatsiopoulos IP. Combined municipal solid waste and
biomass system optimization for district energy applications. Waste Manag
2014;34:36–48.
[21] Samsudin MDM, Don MM. Municipal solid waste management in Malaysia:
current practices, challenges and prospects. J Teknol 2013;62:95–101.
[22] Periathamby A, Hamid FS, Khidzir K. Evolution of solid waste management in
Malaysia: impacts and implications of the solid waste bill, 2007. J Mater Cycles
Waste Manag 2009;11:96–103.
[23] Badgie D, Samah MAA, Manaf LA, Muda AB. Assessment of municipal solid
waste composition in Malaysia: management, practice and challenges. Pol J
Environ Stud 2012;21:539–47.
[24] Begum RA, Siwar C, Pereira JJ, Jaafar AH. Attitude and behavioral factors in
waste management in the construction industry of Malaysia. Resour Conserv
Recycl 2009;53:321–8.
[25] Agamuthu P, Fauziah S, Khidzir K, Aiza AN. Sustainable waste management –
Asian perspectives. In: Proceedings of the international conference on sus-
tainable solid waste management; 2007.
[26] Moh YC, Abd Manaf L. Overview of household solid waste recycling policy
status and challenges in Malaysia. Resour Conserv Recycl 2014;82:50–61.
[27] Omran A, Mahmood A, Abdul Aziz H, Robinson G. Investigating households
attitude toward recycling of solid waste in Malaysia: a case study. Int J Environ
Res 2009;3:275–88.
[28] Saeed Mo, Hassan Mn, Mujeebu Ma. Assessment of municipal solid waste
generation and recyclable materials potential in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Waste Manag 2009;29:2209–13.
[29] Mohamad ZF, Idris N, Baharuddin A, Muhammad A, Nik Sulaiman NM. The
role of religious community in recycling: empirical insights from Malaysia.
Resour Conserv Recycl 2012;58:143–51.
[30] Zen IS, Noor ZZ, Yusuf RO. The profiles of household solid waste recyclers and
non-recyclers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Habitat Int 2014;42:83–9.
[31] Afroz R, Masud MM. Using a contingent valuation approach for improved solid
waste management facility: evidence from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Waste
Manag 2011;31:800–8.
[32] 3R in Asia – a gap analysis in selected asian countries. In: (AIT) AIoT, editor: 3R
knowledge hub secretariat; 2008.
[33] Johari A, Ahmed SI, Hashim H, Alkali H, Ramli M. Economic and environmental
benefits of landfill gas from municipal solid waste in Malaysia. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2012;16:2907–12.
[34] Aja OC, Al-Kayiem HH. Review of municipal solid waste management options
in Malaysia, with an emphasis on sustainable waste-to-energy options. J
Mater Cycles Waste Manag 2013;16:1–18.
[35] Aguilar-Virgen Q, Taboada-González P, Ojeda-Benítez S, Cruz-Sotelo S. Power
generation with biogas from municipal solid waste: prediction of gas gen-
eration with in situ parameters. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;30:412–9.
[36] Noor ZZ, Yusuf RO, Abba AH, Abu Hassan MA, Mohd Din MF. An overview for
energy recovery from municipal solid wastes (MSW) in Malaysia scenario.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;20:378–84.
[37] Abd Kadir SAS, Yin C-Y, Rosli Sulaiman M, Chen X, El-Harbawi M. Incineration
of municipal solid waste in Malaysia: salient issues, policies and waste-to-
energy initiatives. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;24:181–6.
1016 A. Fazeli et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 58 (2016) 1007–1016
[38] Chua K, Sahid EJM, Leong Y. Sustainable municipal solid waste management
and GHG abatement in Malaysia. ST-4: Green & Energy Management; 2011.
04–2.
[39] Abushammala MF, Basri NEA, Basri H, El-Shafie AH, Kadhum AAH. Regional
landfills methane emission inventory in Malaysia. Waste Manag Res 2010;
29(8):863–73, 0734242X10382064.
[40] Manaf LA, Samah MAA, Zukki NIM. Municipal solid waste management in
Malaysia: practices and challenges. Waste Manag 2009;29:2902–6.
[41] Said M. Solid waste management in Malaysia: The way forward. Environ-
mental Health Focus. 2003;1:12–6.
[42] Brunner PH, Rechberger H. Waste to energy – key element for sustainable
waste management. Waste Manag 2015;37:3–12.
[43] Austrian Federal Ministry of Agriculture F. Environment and water manage-
ment. Waste-to-energy in Austria. 2nd ed.; 2010.
[44] Meylan G, Spoerri A. Eco-efficiency assessment of options for metal recovery
from incineration residues: a conceptual framework. Waste Manag
2014;34:93–100.
[45] Allegrini E, Maresca A, Olsson ME, Holtze MS, Boldrin A, Astrup TF. Quantifi-
cation of the resource recovery potential of municipal solid waste incineration
bottom ashes. Waste Manag 2014;34(9):1627–36.
[46] Sharifah AA, Abidin HZ, Sulaiman MR, Khoo KH, Ali H. Combustion char-
acteristics of Malaysian municipal solid waste and predictions of air flow in a
rotary kiln incinerator. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 2008;10:116–23.
[47] Sovacool BK, Drupady IM. Examining the small renewable energy power
(SREP) program in Malaysia. Energy Policy 2011;39:7244–56.
[48] Unit EP. Handbook: economic instruments for environmental management
Malaysia. EPU, Putrajaya; 2004.
[49] Toniolo S, Mazzi A, Garato VG, Aguiari F, Scipioni A. Assessing the “design
paradox” with life cycle assessment: a case study of a municipal solid waste
incineration plant. Resour Conserv Recycl 2014;91:109–16.
[50] Sovacool BK, Drupady IM. Innovation in the Malaysian waste-to-energy sec-
tor: applications with global potential. Electr J 2011;24:29–41.
[51] Kathirvale S, Muhd Yunus MN, Sopian K, Samsuddin AH. Energy potential
from municipal solid waste in Malaysia. Renew Energy 2004;29:559–67.
[52] Kokalj F, Samec N. Combustion of municipal solid waste for power production.
INTECH Open Access Publisher; 2013.
[53] Pek C-K, Jamal O. A choice experiment analysis for solid waste disposal option:
a case study in Malaysia. J Environ Manag 2011;92:2993–3001.
[54] Funk K, Milford J, Simpkins T. Waste not, want not: analyzing the economic
and environmental viability of waste-to-energy (WTE) technology for site-
specific optimization of renewable energy options. Joint Institute for Strategic
Energy Analysis (JISEA); 2013.
[55] Hashim H, Ho Ws. Renewable energy policies and initiatives for a sustainable
energy future in Malaysia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:4780–7.
[56] Lim M. Measuring waste in Malaysia: a neglected approach. Procedia-Soc
Behav Sci 2012;42:198–204.
[57] Chua SC, Oh TH, Goh WW. Feed-in tariff outlook in Malaysia. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2011;15:705–12.
[58] Ahmad S, Kadir MZAA, Shafie S. Current perspective of the renewable energy
development in Malaysia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:897–904.
[59] Chua SC, Oh TH. Review on Malaysia's national energy developments: key
policies, agencies, programmes and international involvements. Renew Sus-
tain Energy Rev 2010;14:2916–25.
[60] Wan Alwi SR, Manan ZA, Klemeš JJ, Huisingh D. Sustainability engineering for
the future. J Clean Prod 2014;71:1–10.
[61] Vandermeersch T, Alvarenga R, Ragaert P, Dewulf J. Environmental sustain-
ability assessment of food waste valorization options. Resour Conserv Recycl
2014;87:57–64.
[62] Ahmad S, Tahar RM. Selection of renewable energy sources for sustainable
development of electricity generation system using analytic hierarchy pro-
cess: a case of Malaysia. Renew Energy 2014;63:458–66.
[63] Shafie S, Mahlia T, Masjuki H, Andriyana A. Current energy usage and sus-
tainable energy in Malaysia: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2011;15:4370–7.
[64] World Development Indicators: The World Bank; 2015.
[65] Rebitanim NZ, Wan Ab Karim Ghani WA, Rebitanim NA, Amran Mohd Salleh
M. Potential applications of wastes from energy generation particularly bio-
char in Malaysia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;21:694–702.
[66] Umar MS, Jennings P, Urmee T. Sustainable electricity generation from oil
palm biomass wastes in Malaysia: an industry survey. Energy 2014;67:496–
505.
[67] Arafat HA, Jijakli K, Ahsan A. Environmental performance and energy recovery
potential of five processes for municipal solid waste treatment. J Clean Prod
2015;105:233–40.
[68] Elwan A, Arief Yz, Adzis Z, Saad MHI. The viability of generating electricity by
harnessing household garbage solid waste using life cycle assessment. Pro-
cedia Technol 2013;11:134–40.
[69] Cherubini F, Bargigli S, Ulgiati S. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of waste man-
agement strategies: landfilling, sorting plant and incineration. Energy
2009;34:2116–23.
[70] Tan ST, Lee CT, Hashim H, Ho WS, Lim JS. Optimal process network for
municipal solid waste management in Iskandar Malaysia. J Clean Prod
2014;71:48–58.