Anda di halaman 1dari 120

COMPUTER MODEL FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

A thesis report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of degree of M.E. in Environment Engineering submitted by

Amit Jain (8012153)

Ms. Harsangeet Kaur

Supervisor

Dr. Sunil Khanna

Co-supervisor

Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, Patiala 147004

Department of Biotechnology & Environment Sciences

This is to certify that the thesis entitled Computer model for municipal solid waste management in developing countries submitted by Amit Jain (8012153) in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of degree of M.E. in Environment Engineering to Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology Patiala, is a record of students own work carried out by him under our supervision and guidance. The report has not been submitted for the award of any other degree or certificate in this or any other university or institute. Supervisor Co-Supervisor and Lecturer Head Deptt. of Biotech. & Env. Sciences Deptt. of Biotech. & Env. Sciences Thapar Institute of Engg. and Tech. Thapar Institute of Engg. and Tech. Patiala Patiala Dr. D.S. Bawa Dean (Academic Affairs) Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology Patiala

CERTIFICATE

I wish to thank all those, who have directly or indirectly contributed to the successful completion of this thesisr. Frstly I would like to thank Dr. SUNIL KHANNA (H.O.D. DBTES) for guiding me in the selection of thesisr topic and providing different perspectives to look at the subject matter. The thesis report could not have been in its shape without the help from my friends and well wishers ----- most importantly Mohit Dhamija , who does not know how important he has been to me. The most valuable contribution however has come from Ms. HARSANGEET KAUR, my guide, whose invaluable advice helped to wipe out many deficiencies in my writing. Also she has been my ever-patient and ever-encouraging guide in writing. I sincerely acknowledge the help provided by the libraries of TIET and TCRDC, & their able staff. I also pay my gratitude to the IIT Roorkee library from where I gathered a part of my literature. I sincerely acknowledge my gratitude and respect to all of them. Dated : (Amit Jain)

Acknowledgement

Integrated solid waste management (ISWM) in developing countries like India has traditionally focused on organizational and technical concerns. However, this approach neglects the many activities and actors that waste management comprises. A new paradigm of SWM is needed which must extend the technical model to tackle a range of problems associated with waste management in order to achieve socially and environmentally responsible waste management. Although many sophisticated models are available but are of little use to developing countries like India since it does not take into account typical developing countries municipal solid waste characteristics such as high organic content, poor performance of formal sector, high activity of scavengers and waste pickers etc. So, there is a need to have a fresh look at parameters involved in the municipal solid waste (MSW) management and developing a model from the third worlds perspective. To evaluate the effectiveness of different ISWM alternatives, firstly different models were analysed and then a linear programming model is discussed in detail, which has the prime objective of minimizing the overall systems cost and identifying the low cost alternatives for managing waste effectively. To demonstrate its applicability, the model was applied to the Indian city Amritsar, Timarpur incineration plant and Excel industry bio-composting plant in Delhi. A typical Indian city like Amritsar generates around 500 tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) per day with 45% moisture content, 30% volatile matter and calorific value of 1500 Kcal/kg. Software model was run for various technologies. Results show that for developing countries incineration incurs a loss of Rs. 296 whereas landfilling, v

Executive summary

composting and biomethanation gives a profit of Rs 6.4, Rs. 9 and Rs. 10.4 per ton of MSW respectively. The model is both user-friendly and sophisticated. In case extensive data is not available then model takes up standard default values automatically. But at the same time model requires careful feeding of data. As in case of Timarpur plant, model shows 3.5 kW of power recovery with calorific value (CV) of 1500 kcal/kg. In reality CV of MSW in Delhi is 700-800 kcal/kg because of activity of scavengers and waste-pickers. As a result energy recovery becomes half. So, in case of developing countries extra care has to be taken to include all the explicit and implicit variables. This empirical exercise not only reveals the models strengths such as highlighting important interdependencies in the waste management sector, but also its weaknesses such as its great demand for high quality data. Nevertheless, this model may be considered a valuable first step in evaluating integrated SWM in developing countries.

Abstract: Many integrated solid waste management (ISWM) sophisticated models are available but are of little use to developing countries like India since it does not take into account typical developing countries municipal solid waste characteristics such as high organic content, poor performance of formal sector, high activity of scavengers and waste pickers etc. A cost minimisation model is proposed, which has the prime objective of minimizing the overall systems cost and identifying the low cost alternatives for managing waste effectively. To demonstrate its applicability, the model was applied to the Indian city Amritsar. A typical Indian city like Amritsar generates around 500 tons of MSW per day with 45% moisture content, 30% volatile matter and calorific value of 1500 Kcal/kg. Software model was run for various technologies. Results show that for developing countries incineration incurs a expenditure of Rs. 296 whereas landfilling, composting and biomethanation gives a income of Rs 6.4, Rs. 9 and Rs. 11 per ton of MSW respectively. The model is both user-friendly and sophisticated. This empirical exercise not only reveals the models strengths such as highlighting important interdependencies in the waste management sector, but also its weaknesses such as its great demand for high quality data.

1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. MUNICIPAL SOILID WASTE MANAGEMENT 7-31 2.1 INTRODUCTION 9 2. 1.1 Solid Waste Generation 9 2.1.2 Environmental Impact of Solid Waste Disposal on Land 12 2.1.3 Objective of Solid Wade Management 12 2.2 PRINCIPLES OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 15 2.2.1 Waste Reduction 15 2.2.2 Effective Management of Waste 15 2.2.3 Functional Elements of Municipal Solid Waste 18 Management 2.3 HIERARCHY OF WASTE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS 21 2.4 WASTE MINIMISATION 23 2.5 RESOURCE RECOVERY THROUGH MATERIAL RECYCLING 24 2.5.1 Sorting at Source 24 2.5.2 Centralized Sorting 24 2.5.3 Sorting Prior to Waste Processing or Landfilling 25 2.6 RESOURCE RECOVERY THROUGH WASTE PROCESSING 26 2.6.1 Biological Processes 26 2.6.2 Thermal Processes 26 2.6.3 Other Processes 29 vii 2.7 WASTE TRANSFORMATION (WITHOUT RESOURCE RECOVERY) PRIOR TO DISPOSAL 30 2.7.1 Mechanical Transformation 30 2.7.2 Thermal Transformation 30 2.8 DISPOSAL ON LAND 31 3. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING MODELS 33-47 3.1 MODEL SERVES THREE PURPOSES 35 3.2 WHY WESTERN MODELS ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN 41 DEVELOPING COUNTRIES 3.2.1 A high organic content 41 3.2.2 Extensive informal activities 47 3.2.3 Poor performance of the formal sector 47 4. MATERIALS AND METHODS 49-61 4.1 PARAMETERS AFFECTING ENERGY RECOVERY 51 4.2 A SPECIFIC INTEGRATED WASTE ASSESSMENT MODEL 52 4.3 MODEL SET UP 53 4.4 DIFFERENT VARIABLES INVOLVED 56

CONTENTS

CERTIFICATE i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii-iv

4.4.1 Demand and scarcity 56 4.4.2. Factor and intermediate inputs supply and scarcity 57 4.4.3. Environment and scarcity 58 4.4.4. Internal actors and activity levels 59 4.5 GOOD BALANCES AND COST MINIMISATION PROGRAMME 60 4.6 FUNDAMENTAL MATHEMATICAL EQUATIONS INVOLVED 61 IN THE COMPUTER MODEL 5. PROGRAM FOR ENERGY ESTIMATION 67-82 viii 6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 83-100 6.1 ANAEROBIC DIGESTION 87 6.2 INCINERATION 92 6.3 COMPOSTING 97 6.4 LAND FILLING 100 7. CONCLUSIONS 105-108 REFERENCES 109

CHAPTER 1.

INTRODUCTION

10

11

It is estimated that the total solid waste generated by 300 million people living in urban India is 38 million tones per year. The collection and disposal of municipal solid waste is one of the pressing problems of city life, which has assumed great importance in the recent past. With the growing urbanization as a result of planned economic growth and industrialization, problems are becoming acute and call for immediate and concerted action. It is estimated that about 1,00,000 MT of Municipal Solid Waste is generated daily in the country (CPCB 2000). Per capita waste generation in major cities range from 0.20 Kg to 0.6 Kg. Generally the collection efficiency ranges between 7 to 90% in major metro cities whereas in several smaller cities the collections efficiency is below 50%. It is also estimated that the Urban Local Bodies spend, about Rs.500 to Rs.1500 per ton on solid waste for collection, transportation, treatment and disposal (Fig. 1.1). About 60-70% of this amount is spent on street sweeping of waste collection, 20 to 30% on transportation and less than 5% on final disposal, of waste, which shows that hardly any attention is given to scientific and safe disposal of waste. Population growth and the rapid pace of urbanisation pose many environmental challenges for large cities. One of these is solid waste management (SWM). Since the early 1970s SWM in developing countries has received increasing attention from researchers and policy makers concerned to establish a sustainable management system. In India the responsibility for SWM rests largely with municipal authorities who, for the most part, focus primarily on organisational aspects such as improvement of municipal management quality, cost recovery from users, privatised collection and transportation system, as well as technical aspects such upgrading of waste management equipment. The fact that waste management is a fairly extended economic sector, comprising a range of interlinked actors, activities, and commodities, has been neglected since decades. The ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India have notified Draft of Municipal Waste (Management Handling) Rules, 1999 on 27th Sep, 1999.

12

Very few Urban Local Bodies in the country have prepared long term plans, for effective Solid Waste Management in their respective cities. For obtaining long term economic solution, planning and modeling of the system on long-term sustainable basis is very essential.

13

Fig 1.1 An Integrated Municipal Solid Waste Management Model

14

15

CHAPTER 2.

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT


16

17

2.1

INTRODUCTION

Management of municipal solid waste involves (a) development of an insight into the impact of waste generation, collection, transportation and disposal methods adopted by a society on the environment and (b) adoption of new methods to reduce this impact. 2.1.1 Solid Waste Generation An indication of how and where solid wastes are generated is depicted in a simplified form in Fig. 2. 1. Both technological processes and consumptive processes result in the formation of solid wastes. Solid waste is generated, in the beginning, with the recovery of raw materials and thereafter at every step in the technological process as the raw material is converted to a product for consumption Fig. 2.2 shows generation of solid waste during technological processes involving mining, manufacturing and packaging. The process of consumption of products results in the formation of solid waste in urban areas as shown in Fig. 2.3. In addition, other processes such as street cleaning, park cleaning, waste-water treatment, air pollution control measures etc. also produce solid waste in urban areas. A society receives energy and raw material as inputs from the environment and gives solid waste as output to the environment as shown in Fig 2. 1. In the long-term perspective, such an input-output imbalance degrades the environment.

18

energy

Raw material

Technological processes Products Consumptive processes Solid waste Society environment

Solid waste

Disposable On land

FIG

2.1

SOLID

WASTE

GENERATION

19

SOLID WASTE GENERATION BY SOME TECHNOLOGICAL PROCESSES TECHNOLOGICAL PROCESSES Raw material energy FIG 2.2 Mining processes Refined energy Manufacturing processes Product energy material Packed products Solid waste material

Packaging process

20

FIG 2.3 SOLID WASTE GENERATION BY SOME CONSUMPTIVE PROCESSES AND OTHER PROCESSES Packed products Households Commercial centres Household waste Shops,hotels& Restaurant waste Schools,hospitals And Office waste Building material waste Sweepings&Trimmings Municipal Solid waste

Institutional areas Construction/Demolition Sites

Parks and Streets

21

2.1.2 Environmental Impact of Solid Waste Disposal on Land When solid waste is disposed off on land in open dumps or in improperly designed landfills (e.g. in low lying areas), it causes the following impact on the environment. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) 2.1.3 Ground water contamination by the leachate generated by the waste dump Surface water contamination by the run off from the waste dumb. Bad odour, pests, rodents and wind-blown litter in and around the waste dump. Generation of inflammable gas (e.g. methane) within the waste dumb. Bird menace above the waste dump which affects flight of aircraft Fires within the waste dump Erosion and stability problems relating to slopes of the waste dump Epidemics through stray animals. Acidity to surrounding soil and Release of green house gas Objectives of Solid Waste Management The objective of solid waste management is t reduce the quantity of solid waste disposed off on land by recovery of materials and energy from solid waste as depicted in Fig. 2.4. This in turn results in lesser requirement of raw material and energy as inputs for technological processes. A simplified flow chart showing how waste reduction can be achieved for household waste is shown in Fig. 2.5. Such techniques and management programs have to be applied to each and every solid waste generating activity in a society to achieve overall minimization of solid waste.

22

FIG 2.4

ROLE OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT (SWM) Less energy Less raw material

Energy recovery

Technological Processes Products Material recovery

Solid waste SW M Energy recovery

Consumptive Processes Solid Waste SWM Less Solid Waste Disposal on Land

Material recovery

Less Solid Waste

23

FIG 2.5 (a) WASTE GENERATION WITHOUT INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT

Product

Household Consumption

Waste FIG 2.5 (b) WASTE MINIMISATION BY INTEGRATED


MANAGEMENT

Product Household Consumption Recycling Of Paper,Glass Metals,Plastics,Et c. Compost Recovery Energy Biological processing

Thermal Processing

Sorting

Thermal processing

24

2.2

PRINCIPLES OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Municipal Solid Waste Management involves the application of principle of

Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) to municipal waste. ISWM is the application of suitable techniques, technologies and management programs covering all types of solid wastes from all sources to achieve the twin objectives of (a) waste reduction and (b) effective management of waste still produced after waste reduction. 2.2.1 Waste Reduction It is now well recognized that sustainable development can only be achieved if society in general, and industry in particular, produces more with less i.e. more goods and services with less use of the worlds resources (raw materials and energy) and less pollution and waste. Production as well as product changes have been introduced in many countries, using internal recycling of materials or on-site energy recovery, as part of solid waste minimization schemes. 2.2.2 Effective Management of Solid Waste Effective solid management systems are needed to ensure better human health and safety. They must be safe for workers and safeguard public health by preventing the spread of disease. In addition to these prerequisites, an effective system of solid waste management must be both environmentally and economically sustainable. Environmentally sustainable: It must reduce, as much as possible, the environmental impacts of waste management. Economically sustainable: It must operate at a cost acceptable to community.

25

Clearly it is difficult to minimize the two variables, cost and environmental impact simultaneously. There will always be a trade off. The balance that needs to be struck is to reduce the overall environmental impacts of the waste management system as far as possible, within an acceptable level of cost. An economically and environmentally sustainable solid waste management system is effective if it follows an integrated approach i.e. it deals with &I types of solid waste materials and all sources of solid waste. A multi-material, multi-source management approach is usually effective in environmental and economic terms than, a material specific and source specific approach. Specific wastes should be dealt within such a system but in separate streams. An effective waste management system includes one or more of the following options: (a) Waste collection and transportation. (b) Resource recovery through sorting and recycling i.e. recovery of materials (such as paper, glass, metals) etc. through separation. (c) Resource recovery through waste processing i.e. recovery of materials (such as compost) or recovery of energy through biological, thermal or other processes. (d) Waste transformation (without recovery of resources) i.e. reduction of disposal. (e) Disposal on land i.e. environmentally safe and sustainable disposal in landfills. volume,

toxicity or other physical/chemical properties of waste to make it suitable for final

26

2.2.3

Functional Elements of Municipal Solid Waste Management The activities associated with the management of municipal solid wastes from

the point of generation to final disposal can be grouped into the six functional elements: (a) waste generation; (b) waste handling and sorting, storage, and processing at the source; (c) collection; (d) sorting, processing and transformation; (c) transfer and transport; and (f) disposal. The inter-relationship between the elements is identified in Fig. 2.6. Waste Generation: Waste generation encompasses activities in which materials are identified as no longer being of value (in their present form) and are either thrown away or gathered together for disposal. Waste generation is, at present an activity that is not very controllable. In the future, however, more control is likely to be exercised over the generation of wastes. Reduction of waste at source, although not controlled by solid waste managers, is now included in system evaluations as a method of limiting the quantity of waste generated. Waste Handling, Sorting, Storage, and Processing at the Source: The second of the six functional elements in the solid waste management system is waste handling, sorting, storage, and processing at the source. Waste handling and sorting involves the activities associated with management of wastes until they are placed in storage containers for collection. Handling also encompasses the movement of loaded containers to the point of collection. Sorting of waste components is an important step in the handling and storage of solid waste at the source. For example, the best place to separate waste materials for reuse and recycling is at the source of generation. Households are becoming more aware of the importance of separating newspaper and cardboard, bottles/glass, kitchen wastes and ferrous and non-ferrous materials. On-site storage is of primary importance because of public health concerns and aesthetic consideration. Unsightly makeshift containers and even open ground storage, both of which are undesirable, are often seen at many residential and commercial sites. The cost of providing storage for solid wastes at the source is normally borne by the

27

FIG 2.6

FUNCTIONAL ELEMENTS OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Waste Generation

Waste Handling,Sorting, Storage& Processing At The Source

Collection Transfer And Transport Disposal Sorting, Processing And Transformation Of Solid Waste

28

household in the case of individuals, or by the management of commercial and industrial properties. Processing at the source involves activities such as backyard waste composting. Collection: The functional element of collection includes not only the gathering of solid wastes and recyclable materials, but also the transport of these materials, after collection, to the location where the collection vehicle is emptied. This location may be materials processing facility, a transfer, station, or a landfill disposal site. Sorting, Processing and Transformation of Solid Waste: The sorting, processing and transformation of solid waste materials is the fourth of the functional elements. The recovery of sorted materials, processing of solid waste and transformation of solid waste that occurs primarily in locations away from the source of waste generation are encompassed by this functional element. Sorting of commingled (mixed) wastes usually occurs at a materials recovery facility, transfer stations, combustion facilities, and disposal sites. Sorting often includes the separation of bulky items, separation of waste components by size using screens, manual separation of waste components, and separation of ferrous and non-ferrous metals. Waste processing is undertaken to recover conversion products and energy. The organic fraction of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) can be transformed by a variety of biological and thermal processes. The most commonly used biological transformation process is aerobic composting. The most commonly used thermal transformation process is incineration. Waste transformation is undertaken to reduce the volume, weight, size or toxicity of waste without resource recovery. Transformation may be done by a variety of mechanical (e.g. shredding), thermal (e.g. incineration without energy recovery) or chemical (e.g. encapsulation) techniques. Transfer and Transport: The functional element of transfer and transport involves two steps: (i) the transfer of wastes from the smaller collection vehicle to the larger transport equipment and (ii) the subsequent transport of the wastes, usually over long

29

distances, to a processing or disposal site. The transfer usually takes place at a transfer station. Disposal: The final functional element in the solid waste management system is disposal. Today the disposal of wastes by land filling or uncontrolled dumping is the ultimate fate of all solid wastes, whether they are residential wastes collected and transported directly to a landfill site, residual materials from Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs), residue from the combustion of solid waste, rejects of composting, or other substances from various solid waste-processing facilities. A municipal solid waste landfill plant is an engineered facility used for disposing of solid wastes on land or within the earths mantle without creating nuisance or hazard to public health or safety, such as breeding of rodents and insects contamination of groundwater. 2.3 HIERARCHY OF WASTE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS Current thinking on the best methods to deal with waste is centered on a broadly accepted hierarchy of waste management (arrangement in order of rank) which gives a priority listing of the waste management options available (see Fig. 2.7). The hierarchy gives important general guidelines on the relative desirability of the different management options. The hierarchy usually adopted is (a) waste minimization/reduction at source, (b) recycling, (c) waste processing (with recovery of resources i.e. materials (products) and energy), (d) waste transformation (without recovery of resources) and (e) disposal on land (land filling). and

30

WASTE MINIMISATION/SOURCE REDUCTION MATERIAL RECYCLING WASTE PROCESSING (ENERGY & MATERIAL RECOVERY) WASTE TRANSFORMATION LANDFILLING

FIG.- 2.7 HERTARCHY OF INTEGRATED SOLIID WASTE. MANAGEMENT OPTIONS The highest rank of the ISWM hierarchy is waste minimization or reduction at source, which involves reducing the amount (and/or toxicity) of the wastes produced. Reduction at source is first in the hierarchy because it is the most effective way to reduce the quantity of waste, the cost associated with its handling, and its environmental impacts. The second highest rank in the hierarchy is recycling, which involves (a) the separation and sorting of waste materials; (b) the preparation of these materials for reuse or reprocessing; and (c) the reuse and reprocessing of these materials. Recycling is an important factor which helps to reduce the demand on resources and the amount of waste requiring disposal by land filling. The third rank in the ISWM hierarchy is waste processing which involves alteration of wastes to recover conversion products (e.g., compost) and energy. The processing of waste materials usually results in the reduced use of landfill capacity.

31

Transformation of waste, without recovery of products or energy, may have to be undertaken to reduce waste. volume (e.g. shredding and baling) or to reduce toxicity. This is usually ranked fourth in the ISWM hierarchy. Ultimately, something must be done with (a) the solid wastes that cannot be recycled and are of no further use; (b) the residual matter remaining after solid wastes have been pre-sorted at a materials recovery facility; and (c) the residual matter remaining after the recovery of conversion products or energy. Land filling is the fifth rank of the ISWM hierarchy and involves the controlled disposal of wastes on or in the earths, mantle. It is by far the most common method of ultimate disposal for waste residuals. Land filling is the lowest rank in the ISWM hierarchy because it represents the least desirable means of dealing with societys wastes. It is important to note that the hierarchy of waste management is only a guideline. 2.4 WASTE MINIMISATION Waste minimization or reduction at source is the most desirable activity, because the community does not incur expenditure for waste handling, recycling and disposal of waste that is never created and delivered to the waste management system. However, it is an unfamiliar activity as it has not been included in earlier waste management systems. To reduce the amount of waste generated at the source, the most practical and promising methods appear to be (i) the adoption of industry standards for product manufacturing and packaging that use less material, (ii) the passing 4 laws that minimize the use of virgin materials in consumer products, and (iii) levying (by communities) of cess/fees for waste management services that penalize generators in case of increase in waste quantities.

32

2.5 RESOURCE RECOVERY THROUGH MATERIAL RECYCLING Material recycling can occur through sorting of waste into different streams at the source or at a centralized facility. Sorting at source is more economical than sorting at a centralised facility. 2.5.1 Sorting at Source Sorting at source (home sorting) is driven by the existing markets recyclable materials and the link between the house holder and the waste collector. The desirable home sorting streams are: (a) Dry recyclable materials e.g. glass, paper, plastics, cans etc., (b) Bio-waste and garden waste, (c) (d) (e) (f) Bulky waste, Hazardous material in household waste, Construction and Demolition waste, and Commingled MSW (mixed waste). At present recycling of dry recyclables does take place at the household level in India. However, source separation and collection of waste in stream of (b), (c), (d) and (e) has to be developed in most cities. 2.5.2 Centralised Sorting Centralised sorting is needed wherever recyclable materials are collected a commingled (mixed) state. Hand sorting from a raised picking belt is extensively adopted in several countries.

33

Mechanised sorting facilities using magnetic and electric field separate density separation, pneumatic separation, size separation and other techniques a used in some developed countries. Such facilities are usually prohibitively expensive in comparison to hand sorting. In India, centralised sorting is not adopted. However, some intermediate sorting does occur after household wastes reach kerbside collection bins (dhalaos through ragpickers. There is a need to formalize this intermediate sorting system or develop a centralised sorting facility to minimise recyclable materials reaching a waste processing facility or a landfill. 2.5.3 Sorting Prior to Waste Processing or Landfilling Home sorting and centralised sorting processes normally recover most of the recyclable materials for reuse. However, a small fraction of such materials n escape the sorting process. Sorting is also undertaken just prior to waste processing, waste transformation or landfilling to recover recyclable materials. In a landfill, sorting may be carried out by ragpickers immediately after spreading of a layer of waste. In waste processing or transformation centers, manual sorting size separation is usually undertaken. Wherever manual sorting is adopted, care must be taken to ensure that sorters are protected from all disease pathways and work in hygienic conditions.

34

2.6

RESOURCE RECOVERY THROUGH WASTE PROCESSING Biological or thermal treatment of waste can result in recovery of us products

such as compost or energy (Table 2.1). 2.6.1 Biological Processes Biological treatment involves using micro-organisms to decompose the biodegradable components of waste. Two types of processes are used namely: (a) Aerobic processes: Windrow composting, aerated static pile composting and invessel composting; vermi-culture etc. (b) Anaerobic processes: Low-solids anaerobic digestion (wet process), high- solids anaerobic digestion (dry process) and combined processes. In the aerobic process the utilisable product is compost. In the anaerobic process the utilisable product is methane gas (for energy recovery). Both processes have been used for waste processing in different countries - a majority of the biological treatment process adopted world-wide are aerobic composting; the use of anaerobic treatment has been more limited. In India, aerobic composting plants have been used to process up to 500 tons per day of waste. 2.6.2 Thermal Processes Thermal treatment involves conversion of waste into gaseous, liquid and solid conversion products with concurrent or subsequent release of heat energy. Three types of systems can be adopted, namely: (a) Combustion systems (Incinerators): Thermal processing with excess

amounts of air. (b) Pyrolysis systems: Thermal processing in complete absence of oxygen (low temperature). 35

( c)

Gasification systems: Thermal processing with less amount of air (high

temperature). Combustion system is the most widely adopted thermal treatment process world-wide for MSW. Though pyrolysis is a widely used industrial process, the pyrolysis of municipal solid waste has not been very successful. Similarly, successful results with mass fired gasifiers have not been achieved. However both pyrolysis and gasification can emerge as viable alternatives in the future. Three types of combustion systems have been extensively used for energy recovery in different countries namely: mass-fired combustion systems (M-ASS Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF), fired combustion systems and Fluidised Bed (FB) combustion systems. To be viable for energy recovery through thermal processing, the municipal solid waste must possess a relatively high calorific value. In the MSW generated in developed countries, presence of significant quantity of paper and plastic yields a high calorific value of the MSW (typically above 2000 kcal/kg) which makes it suitable for thermal processing. In Indian MSW, the near absence paper and plastics as well as the presence of high quantities of inert material, combine to yield a low calorific value of the MSW (typically less than 10 kcal/kg). In its mixed form, such waste may not be suitable for thermal processing However, removal of inerts from Indian MSW as wed as development combustion system for low-calorific value wastes can result in a reversal of position in the future.

36

Table 2.1 Comparison of various technological options


Method of Disposal Landfill gas Technology Merits Low initial cost Easy to operate Demerits Large area of land required (Nonavailability of Wasteland for such use around Metropolitan cities) Causes air pollution, ground water pollution Creates unhygienic scene / conditions and nuisance in the surroundings Causes air pollution Marketing of compost is still a difficult task

Composting

Biomachination

Easy to operate Low maintenance cost Highly useful product for soil conditioning Technology suitable for Indian MSW Semi skilled manpower required for operation Waste processing in closed reactor provides very Good protection to environment Resource recovery in the form of biogas and bio fertilizer Less land requirement Incentives available from various Govt. organizations Requires less land Reduces the volume of waste to great extent Plastics in the MSW can be disposed off only by this technique at present. The increasing use of plastics and non availability of land would necessitate incineration.

Requires controlled conditions High initial cost Technology still in experimental state in India

Incineration

High initial cost Causes environmental pollution due to stack emission and temperature rise No plant operating in India High moisture content, high percentage of inorganic and low calorific value of Indian MSW is unsuitable fort his technology Requires skilled personnel

37

2.6.3

Other Processes New biological and chemical processes which are being developed for resource

recovery from MSW are: (a) Fluidised bed bio-reactors for cellulose production and ethanol production. (b) Hydrolysis processes to recover organic acids. (c) Chemical processes to recover oil, gas and cellulose. (d) Others. The economical viability of these processes is yet to be established.

38

2.7

WASTE TRANSFORMATION (WITHOUT RESOURCE RECOVERY) PRIOR TO DISPOSAL At the end of all sorting processes, biological processes and thermal processes,

the non-utilisable waste has to be disposed off on land. Prior to this disposal, waste may need to be subjected to transformation by mechanical treatment, thermal treatment or other methods to make it suitable for landfilling. 2.7.1 Mechanical Transformation Sorting of waste may be undertaken to remove bulky items from the waste. Shredding of waste may be undertaken for size reduction to enable better collection of waste. 2.7.2 Thermal Transformation In regions where land space is very scarce (e.g. islands), wage, with low Calorific value may be subjected to combustion without heat recovery to reduce the volume of waste requiring disposal on land. Combustion transformation processes are similar to those discussed in Section 2.6.2. 2.7.3 Other Methods To reduce toxicity of wastes e.g. hazardous wastes or biomedical wastes, special detoxification transformations may be undertaken. Some methods used are autoclaving, hydroclaving, microwaving, chemical fixation, encapsulation and solidification. These methods are usually not applied to MSW.

39

2.8.

DISPOSAL ON LAND

Waste is disposed off on land in units called landfills which are designed to minimise the impact of the waste on the environment by containment of the waste. Usually three types of landfills are adopted. Landfills in which municipal waste is placed are designated as "MSW Landfills" or "Sanitary Landfill. Landfills in which hazardous waste is placed are designated as "Hazardous Waste landfills". Landfills in which a single type of waste is placed (e.g. only construction waste) are designated as "Monofills

40

41

CHAPTER 3.

ANALYSIS OF EXISTING MODELS


42

43

Several sophisticated quantitative models have been developed to address different important aspects of SWM such as allocation of waste over disposal sites, routing of collection vehicles, waste estimation and prediction, rankings of disposal alternatives and location of SWM facilities such as transfer stations, processing plants and disposal sites. Planning for solid waste management requires an assessment of many complex interactions, e.g. among transportation systems, land use patterns, public health considerations, etc., and interdependencies in the system, e.g. disposal methods can influence collection and vice versa. Because of these interactions and interdependencies, attention has focused on systems analysis and mathematical modelling techniques. 3.1 MODELLING SERVES THREE PURPOSES. First, it is a means for ensuring an orderly interpretation of the data and a consistent representation of the system. Second, it may provide a quantitative indicator of the efficiency of resource use when these are limited. Third, models can be used to anticipate the response of a system when the context changes, including both autonomous changes such as demographic and economic growth, and changes bound to policy measures. As such, models may assist with assessing alternative policies, optimizing the total system costs, and in assessing operative actions in order to determine their impacts on the system. In the literature, many models have been developed, some of which are listed briefly below. An example is given by Chang et.al. (1997), who apply Time Series Intervention Modelling to evaluate recycling impacts on solid waste generation; they demonstrate the use of forecasting information for evaluating the capacity of incinerators in Taipei city, Taiwan. However, extrapolation of past data should be constrained to a limited time interval. Time series data analysis may help to identify trends embedded in SWM over time, but results are inaccurate when significant changes in determining variables occur in the future.

44

Trend analysis may be further improved by a material flow analysis such as Life Cycle Analysis or Substance Flow Analysis, and by Input-Output Modelling, to generate consistent relations between consumption, production, and flows of various materials in the economy. The approaches rely heavily on industry and trade statistics, which are usually available at national level. In a study by Iwai et.al. (1980), the analysis was used to calculate households materials consumption, which was assumed to equate to household waste generation and waste storage. Whereas in input-output modelling, relative flows are constant, a more advanced Multi-sector Equilibrium Model allows for several substitution possibilities. Bruvoll and Ibenholt (1997) use an economic model to forecast production and material input, and in a second stage use these to explain future waste generation in Norwegian manufacturing industry. The Multi-sector Equilibrium Model is used to estimate changes and determine total production growth by technological change, growth in real capital, labour and the supply of raw materials and natural resources. Compared to a straightforward input-output model, this is more sophisticated, but also depends more heavily on assumptions regarding technological progress and price mechanism of substitution in the production process. Linear programming is one of the most widely used decision making tools in quantitative analysis. It is used essentially to determine the most efficient allocation of scarce resources to obtain the optimum results. Many studies have investigated the problem of SWM transportation between supply regions and demand regions using linear programming. Some of these studies have investigated the problem of locating intermediate transfer stations between suppliers and demand regions. Balinski (1961) developed a method with which to approximate the optimal solution to the transportation problem when fixed charges were presented. Khan (1987) developed a method with which to optimise solid waste disposal costs by trading off transportation costs against the capital and the operating costs of introducing stations.

45

Shekdar et.al (1991) dealt with an application of a transportation model designed to minimise solid waste handling costs over several developmental plans of an urban area. An optimal mixed-integer linear model has been developed by Wang , to determine suitable sites as intermediate processing stations to minimise the cost of recovered paper transportation for the state of Iowa, USA. Transportation models can be used to evaluate relevant resource location-allocation decisions. For the optimal design of a municipal solid recycling system,

Diamadopoulous et.al. (1994) Developed an Integer Linear Programming Model. This takes into account all the costs related to the collection, transportation and promotion of recycled products, those related to the disposal of solid wastes at the landfill as well as those related to the closure and monitoring of the exhausted landfills, and opening of a new one. An important aspect of this model is the discrete element, which is necessary to take account of the high set up costs for infrastructure. The model was applied to the city of Chania, Greece, for the recycling of paper, glass, aluminium and organic residues. The results showed that recycling produces a significant reduction in the mean annual cost of SWM by 35%, as well as an increase in the life of the landfill by six years. The optimal recycling scheme depends on the characteristics of the areas of the city. The model may consider unfavourable market conditions, such as future reduction of recovered material prices or limited absorption of these materials in the market. Sundberg, Gipperth and Wene (1994) applied the existing model MIMES (a Model description and optimisation of Integrated Material flows and Energy Systems) to the solid waste sector. MIMES/WASTE is a one-time step model and is designed to find new solutions to future waste management systems that are cost effective and environmentally acceptable. It can be used for short term planning by focusing on variable costs only and long term planning by also incorporating fixed

46

costs. It can also be used to analyse the consequences of specific changes in the system environments that are for instance initiated by proposed waste management plans. A pilot study was undertaken for the region of Gtheborg and for the city of Bras in Sweden. Barata et al.(2002) applied an environmental input-output modelling approach in Portugal and considered generation and management of solid waste and their economic and environmental dimensions. An environmental input-output model for the Portuguese economy is presented to give an analytical representation of the interdependencies between the economic activities and the quantities of waste generated, the main specific sources of waste generation, the significance of hazardous substances present in the waste generated, and the overall dependence on landfill consumption of individual industries. With reference to the Portuguese economic structure, this modelling approach is tested on the study of the waste-economyenvironment interactions. Dalemo et al (1997) mentions a simulation tool for waste management is used for environmental systems analysis of waste management. It is a computer-based model for calculation of substance flows, environmental impacts, and costs of waste management. The model covers, despite the name, both organic and inorganic fractions in municipal waste. The model consists of a number of separate sub models, which describes a process in a real waste management system. ORWARE generates data on emissions, which are aggregated into different environmental impact categories, e.g. the greenhouse effect, acidification and eutrophication. Throughout the model all physical flows are described by the same variable vector, consisting of up to 50 substances. The extensive vector facilitates a thorough analysis of the results, but involves some difficulties in acquiring relevant data. Themelis et al (2002), calculated energy recovery from New York City municipal solid wastes. This work was part of a major study that examined the policy and technology implications of alternatives for managing the municipal solid wastes

47

(MSW) of New York City. At this time, of the 4.1 million metric tons of MSW collected by the City annually, 16.6% are recycled, 12.4% are combusted in Waste-toEnergy (WTE) plants, and the remaining 71% are landfilled. Despite the heterogeneity of organic materials in MSW, the composite molecular structure can be approximated by the organic compound C6H10O4. A formula was derived that allows the prediction of the heating value of MSW as a function of moisture and glass/metal content and compares well with experimentally derived values. The performance of a leading Waste-to-Energy plant that utilizes suspension firing of shredded MSW, processes one million tons of MSW per year, and generates a net of 610 kWh/metric ton was examined. The results of this study showed that WTE processing of the MSW reduces fossil fuel consumption and is environmentally superior to landfilling. Decisional Model For Integrated Management Of Muncipal Solid Waste was applied by Antonio et al (2002) in Campania Regional Administration (Italy).He divided the region into two territorial areas. For each of these a decisional model is applied so as to define the composition and the amount of solid waste flows to be collected and diverted to the treatment plants. Six different scenarios are considered, corresponding to the successive phases of Regional Program implementation. An optimisation algorithm for the solution of the decisional model is used to spread the waste components among the envisaged plants with or without source-separated collection, while imposing four objectives for minimum material recovery. The obtained results are discussed and compared for the assumed cases in order to arrive at the best technical and economic solution of waste management, i.e. compatible with choices made by the Regional Program, for the different phases of the municipal solid waste management plan. Mass Balance And Heavy Metals Distribution In Municipal Solid Waste Incineration was done by Galeotti et al (1997). Incineration plants are recognized as a valid and efficient technology to treat Municipal Solid Wastes (MSW), particularly when they are part of integrated treatment plants. Waste incineration reduces the waste volume and weight, thus saving space on the landfill; also the end products are

48

hygienized by transforming organic matter into water and carbon dioxide (CO2 ); it is also possible to recover steam and/or energy. The main environmental impact in an incineration plant is due to the residues of the process (solid, liquid and gaseous emissions). Consequently waste incineration can gain public acceptance only if the concentration of low volatile organic compounds and the elution stability of heavy metals can be guaranteed. The characteristics of the residue depend on many factors such as composition of municipal solid wastes, properties of the individual metals, incineration technology and operating conditions of the incinerator. In the present work, the mass balance and the transfer of some heavy metals in a Danish full scale incineration plant (combined grate and rotary kiln furnace, boiler, filter bag) were tested. The elemental analysis and leaching test data of solid residues were also evaluated. The obtained results confirm the high efficiency of the examined incineration plant. That is confirmed by the heavy metals distribution, in relation to their lithophilic or volatile behavior. The results of the leaching test show the reduced associated environmental risk associated to the slags (about 87% by weight of the solid residues), while they confirm the necessity to dispose of fly ashes in a landfill with a high level of environmental protection. Chang and Li (1997) used A Computer Model To Generate Solid Waste Disposal Alternatives. It is a model utilizing a modeling-to-generate-alternatives (MGA) approach for generating solid waste management (SWM) alternatives is presented in this study. The goal of this study is to create a computer program for the preliminary design of SWM systems. The program can be used to determine the least cost treatment and disposal system for a given SWM problem, and generate a set of alternatives that are widely different with respect to treatment processes. Therefore, a wide range of technical alternatives and possible effects can be analyzed. A Bounded Implicit Enumeration (BIE) technique is first applied to produce a set of SWM systems within a specified cost constraint. The Pairwise Difference (PWD) approach is then used to rank the alternatives and screen out designs which employ similar treatment processes.

49

3.2

WHY

WESTERN

MODELS

ARE

NOT

APPLICABLE

IN

DEVELOPING COUNTRIES Although many sophisticated models are available but are of little use to developing countries like India since it does not take into account typical developing countries municipal solid waste characteristics such as high organic content, poor performance of formal sector, high activity of scavengers and waste pickers etc. So, there is a need to have a fresh look at parameters involved in the MSW management and developing a model from the third worlds perspective. A typical Indian city Amritsar has been taken as an example and its MSW characterstics has been discussed in detail. 3.2.1 A high organic content Solid waste may be defined as the organic and inorganic waste materials, produced by households, commercial, institutional and industrial activities, which have lost their value in the eyes of the first owner (Cointreau, 1982). Factors influencing g the quantities and composition include the average level of income, the sources, the population, social behaviour, climate, industrial production and the existence of markets for waste materials (Baldisimo 1988). Waste densities and moisture contents are much higher in developing countries, which require different technology and management systems (Cointreau et al. 1984). Amritsar generates around 500 tonnes of municipal solid waste (MSW) per day with 45% moisture content, 30% volatile matter ( Table 3.1 , fig 3.1 and fig 3.2 ) and calorific value of 1500 Kcal/kg ( Fig 3.3) Generally refuse from Indian cities contains a high organic and low combustible matter hence incineration is a less appropriate option compared to industrialized countries( table 3.2 and fig 3.4).

50

Table 3.1. MSW composition for different zones of Amritsar


DUMPING RESIDENCIAL INDUSTRIAL MIXED SITE METALS EARTHWARE GLASS FINE EARTH PAPER WOODEN MATTER RAGS RUBBER PLASTICS COMPOSTABLE MATTER 0.23 2.67 1.33 33.45 3.96 0.06 7 5.5 4.83 41 0.3 3.75 0.3 38.76 1.25 0.15 3.5 1.75 2.85 47.38 0.45 3.75 1 32.87 3.5 1 9 2.5 5.75 40 0.37 4.67 0.42 34.4 5 0.83 4.8 0.16 7.25 42

AVERAGE 0.34 3.7 0.76 34.8 3.43 0.51 6.08 2.4 5.1 42.6

Source: Municipal corporation of Amritsar

51

Table 3.2 Detailed physical analysis of MSW of Amritsar

RESIDENCIAL INDUSTRIAL MIXED AREA AREA AREA CALORIFIC VALUE(kcal/kg) VOLATILE MATTER (%) MOISTURE CONTENT (%) COMPOSTABLE MATTER (%) DENSITY (kg/cum) C/N pH 1898 38 54 40 450 4 7.8 1251 19 26 47 485 3 8.4 1398 27 53 40 425 4 7.8

DUMPING AVERAGE SITE 1644 33 56 42 400 4 7.7 1548 29 47 42 440 3.8 8

Source: Municipal corporation of Amritsar

52

Fig. 3.1. MSW composition for different zones of Amritsar

Source: Municipal corporation of Amritsar

53

Fig 3.2 Characterstics of MSW of Amritsar

0.34 3.7 0.76

METALS EARTHWARE 42.6 GLASS 34.8 FINE EARTH PAPER WOODEN MATTER RAGS RUBBER PLASTICS 3.43 5.1 2.4 6.08 0.51 COMPOSTABLE MATTER

Source : Municipal corporation of Amritsar

54

2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000

CALORIFIC VALUE(kcal/kg)

800 600 400 200 0 RESIDENCIAL MIXED AVERAGE

Fig. 3.3 Calorific value of MSW in different zones of Amritsar Source: Municipal corporation of Amritsar

55

3.2.2 Extensive informal activities In parallel to the formal system of waste management, there is an active informal network in Indian cities. This sector consists of waste pickers, Itinerant Waste Buyers (IWB s), waste dealers and wholesalers, and small recycling enterprises. Moreover, since the sector is labour intensive, it provides employment opportunities to a large group of people, accounting for an estimated 1-2% of the workforce in large cities (Furedy 1992). Sudhir et al. (1997) estimate the maximum number of waste pickers, IWBs and waste dealers in Madras at respectively 40,000, 3000 and 2700. Although the role of the informal sector in waste collection is quite significant, the problem of S WM still lies in the partial collection of waste and inability of municipalities to handle the problem efficiently (Ravindra 1993). 3.2.3 Poor performance of the formal sector It is broadly estimated that between 10 to 40 per cent of the total municipal budget is used for SWM (Bhide, 1990). However, despite this large share, it is argued that the Indian waste management system is starved of resources when account is taken of the increasing demands associated with growing urbanisation (Shekdar, et. al., 1992). Due to budgetary constraints, inadequate equipment and poor planning, house- to- house collection is very rare in India, particularly in certain low-income areas where waste is not collected at all (Baud and Schenk1994). The final destination of solid waste in India is disposal. Most urban solid waste in Indian cities and towns is land filled or dumped. Incineration of solid waste is generally limited to hospital waste. As already mentioned, because of its low calorific value, high moisture content, and high quantity of non-combustibles, Indian city refuse is generally not suitable for Incineration.

56

57

CHAPTER 4.

MATERIALS AND METHODS


58

59

4.1

PARAMETERS AFFECTING ENERGY RECOVERY

The two main factors, which determine the potential of Recovery of Energy from Wastes are quantity, and physico-chemical characteristics (quality). The actual production of energy also depends upon specific treatment process employed, the selection of which is also critically dependent upon, inter-alia, the above two factors. Accurate information on these factors, including variations thereof with time (daily/ seasonal) is, therefore, important. Some of the important physico-chemical parameters requiring consideration include: Size of constituents Moisture content % Volatile Solids Fixed Carbon / Inerts content Calorific Value Often, an analysis of waste to determine the proportion of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and sulfur (ultimate analysis) is done to make mass balance calculations, for both thermo -chemical and bio-chemical processes. In case of Anaerobic Digestion, the parameters C/N ratio (a measure of nutrient concentration available for bacterial growth) and Toxicity (representing the presence of heavy metals/ other toxic/ hazardous materials, which inhibit bacterial growth), also require consideration. In case of Anaerobic digestion, if the C/N ratio is less, high carbon content wastes (straw, paper etc.) may be added; if it is high, high nitrogen content wastes may be added, to bring the C/N ratio within the desirable range.

60

4.2

A SPECIFIC WASTE ASSESSMENT MODEL Resource crunch and technology obsoleteness has always been problem with

developing countries. Therefore, cost minimization models are best suited to their needs. Gerlagh et al, (1999) applied a cost minimization model to Banglore city that describes the activities of the waste management sector resulting from the demands in other parts of the economy for the processing of waste and for the production processes of output. In this section a specific model is discussed whose prime objective is to minimise the overall systems cost and to identify the low cost alternatives to manage the generated waste effectively. Although it is developed as a classical single objective model, within its single objective structure, it does incorporate other important social and environmental objectives associated with solid waste management. The model distinguishes between the waste management sectors, which consist of actors and commodities, and the rest of the economy.

61

4.3

MODEL SET UP: The model describes the activities of the waste management sector resulting

from the demands in other parts of the economy for the processing of waste and for the production processes of output. These activities require the supply of production factors such as labour and capital. In certain scenarios the supply of emission permits may also be considered a necessary production factor. An important subdivision in the model can be made between actors and commodities. Figure 4.1 gives an overview of the main categories of actors and commodities relevant in the model.
Fig 4.1 Schematic Overview Of Waste Sectors

Actors (households, hospitals, waste pickers, composting plants, etc.) are denoted by jH J={1,..,J}. One can follow the standard distinction of actors in a households sector, a public sector, and a business sector, but this distinction does not reflect the different functions of the actors in the model. What matters is the distinction between internal agents that only process waste, and external agents that also produce waste, buy recycled products, provide production factors, etc.. Many agents, such as households, are both internal and external, since they dispose of waste and offer labour for the processing, but they are also capable of separating their waste at the source. For convenience, one can denote the group of external actors by i H I={1,,I}, I H J, and explicitly state that the model also includes the waste processing of these external actors, e.g., treating the processing by households on equal footing

62

with processing by others. In other words, external actors also account for part of the processing. Goods are grouped as factors and intermediate inputs and waste-goods . Factors and, intermediate inputs are a necessary input for the processing, e.g., labour, capital, petrol, vehicles, and other inputs from other industries. These are denoted by kH K={1,,K}. The supply of production factors and intermediate inputs used in the process such as labour and capital is external to the model. Waste-goods consist of biodegradable waste, disposed waste, recycled products, etc.. Let there be H waste-goods, hH H={1,,H}. The first version of the model contains only a brief list of waste types. The model does not specify the material types such as paper, glass, plastics. This is a major shortcoming of the model should be improved. Nonetheless, the model explicitly recognises that the same wastegood will have a different price at different stages of its processing. A full characterisation of a waste-good therefore includes its point within the chain of transaction between original generation and final disposal. This is captured by including the actor that processes the waste-good, so that the characterisation consists of a pair: the waste-good type and the actor. In this way, the model can distinguish between mixed wastes before collection, say the pair (mixed waste, households), and after collection, say (mixed waste , small enterprises ). In formal notation, the waste-good characterisation is denoted by (j,h) H J H H. sometimes an apostrophe ' is used for the actor, j'to refer to the waste-good pair. ,

63

Fig 4.2 The first step in the composting process is household separation of mixed waste flow. This process requires some labour input, and generates three categories of waste: biodegradable, recyclable and low quality waste. The second step involves the collection and the transportation of the waste. In addition to labour, capital is used in the form of a truck and intermediate inputs are required in the form of fuel. The quality stays the same, but the biodegradable waste is now with a different actor, and it may have a different price. Finally, the biodegradable waste will be composted in the plant using the factors labour and capital. The final product of this sequence of activities is compost, which can be sold to consumers (external actors).

64

4.4 4.4.1

DIFFERENT VARIABLES INVOLVED Demand and scarcity : Let d


j h i

, (i,j,h) H I *J * H, denote demand of waste-good (j,h) by actor i,


j h i

e.g. demand for recycled products. As regards the supply of waste, the vector d

has negative sign and represents the waste generation at the source. The model includes household separation as a process, and if, say, the price paid by IWBs increases, this might induce households to undertake enhanced separation of their mixed waste to extract more metals, glass, etc..However, this does not affect the vector d
j h i,

which represents the source of mixed waste. Separation by households is

explicitly included in the model as a potential activity. Other waste-goods are demanded but substitutable with economic commodities from other sectors, e.g., recycled plastics, which can be substituted by primary plastics. Thus, the supply of these goods is of a variable nature. In our framework, lower and upper bounds represent this.

In the model, external prices, constraint margins and internal prices are represented. The internal prices, denoted by q sector. The external prices, denoted by p
j,h j,h

, (j,h) H J * H, are the most

important, since they reflect the value of the waste-goods for the actors in the waste , (j,h) HJ * H, describe the value of goods to external actors outside the waste sector, such as the value of recycled paper for printers. These prices are derived from market information and are fed into the model as exogenous values.It can be said that the external price reflects the value of the waste-goods at the boundary of the waste-sector. However, this may cause confusion. The model does not exclude the possibility that observed prices for waste-

65

good s within the waste-sector, say the price of bottles before recycling, enter the model via the parameter p. If the model is well calibrated, internal and external prices coincide, at least at theboundary of the waste sector. However, it is possible that certain data are not available, that data are inconsistent, or that different scenarios are run for which the original prices do not satisfy. In these cases, a constraint margin arises, denoted by s
j,h

, (j,h) H J * H, which describes the added value of goods for

internal actors within the waste sector taking into account its scarcity. These constraint margins are calculated within the model as shadow prices for the constraint that demand for waste management services has to be met by the waste management sector, and that the supply of intermediate waste-goods has to match its demand. Prices satisfy:

4.4.2

Factor and intermediate inputs supply and scarcity : External actors also supply the internal actors with required production factors

and intermediate inputs, denoted by production factors is defined by analogy to demand.

Aggregated supply of

As for goods, actors demand a price p k , k H K for the use of their endowments. This can be seen as the external price of endowments. Also, there is an constraint margin for endowments that reflects its scarcity as a result of bounded supply, denoted by Similar to the goods, the external prices and the for which

constraint margins are combined, giving the internal price oduction is optimised:

66

4.4.3 Environment and scarcity : Waste processing does not only require factors and intermediate inputs, but also the use of environmental resources. In principle, these enter the model in the same way as factor use. For land on which plants are building, this is an obvious handling of its use, but it can usefully be extended for other environmental externalities. For example, incineration uses a certain amount of the absorption capacity of the atmosphere. For this purpose specify environmental goods such as GHG emission units that enter the processes similar to production factors. Landfilling also requires land (sites) that can be said to be supplied by the government. It is assumed that the public sector is endowed with the initial emission permits, that is, revenues from emission taxes flow to the government. In this model three environmental goods are specified : global warming impact, human toxicity impact and land use. Although this list is far from complete consider this a relatively sound first attempt to represent the environmental impact of waste related processes. Prices for the environment are difficult to derive, especially when one consider the social price of using the environment, e.g., for disposal of solid waste, fluid and gaseous emissions. In this two ways of valuing the environment. In the monetary approach, fixed values on a per unit basis for the various categories of environmental impacts will be derived from existing literature. In the physical approach, the shadow prices for the environment impacts will be based on the upper levels of acceptable environmental pollution for a specific geographic system. These levels are used as a reference scenario. Now, it is possible to reduce the emission levels, that is, to constrain the available endowments of emission units, which will cause a positive constraint margin, and thus the internal costs of the environment, will increase. Applying both approaches and evaluating differences in the outcomes, will improve our understanding of the impact of the choice of these methods. Moreover, researchers and policy makers who are sceptical of one particular approach will be served by the other.

67

4.4.4

Internal actors and activity levels : On the production side, y


j,h j,

(j,j,h) H J * J * H, denotes supply of good

(j,h) by internal actor j. Note that external actors can also be part of the production process, e.g., in the case of waste separation by households, such that the set of external actors is considered a subset of the set of internal actors. Production is distinguished in different processes, m H M. As for the goods, it is the pair of an internal actor and a process together that specifies the activity. For example, (j,m) = ( final waste management , dumping site ) refers to dumping whereas (j,m) = ( final waste management , incineration ) refers to the incineration process. Every internal actor-process pair has fixed input/output ratios for goods and factors, denoted by and respectively (where the subscripts denote the process, and the

superscripts denote the goods/factors), implying that only the activity level, say the total throughput of an activity, is variable, denoted by x j,m , (j,m) H J * M. Therefore, production of goods is equal to the activity level times the fixed production vector whereas factor, intermediate inputs, and environmental resource use is equal to the activity level times the fixed resource vector given in Table 4.3. A simplified example of this linear relation is

68

Table 4.3

69

4.5

GOOD BALANCES AND COST MINIMISATION PROGRAMME

70

The objective of the model is to minimise costs, c. Positive prices denote valuable goods, and positive flow variables denote output, so that the

value of output, which is subtracted from the costs. Tildes denote variables on an aggregate level. The hat denotes auxiliary shadow-prices. Despite the single objective function, the model can address multiple objectives, e.g. employment or recycling rates. Some of these objectives enter the cost function, while others can be specified as variable constraints. A brief discussion of this issue is given in above (factor and intermediate inputs). The second line of the program describes all variables and their domain. The lower and upper bounds for the demand (1) are included in this part of the program. Dual variables for the constraints are given in brackets, and they are used to derive and interpret the internal prices q and l used for production optimisation. Note that the last aggregation identity, summing factor use, is reverted with no other reason than to ensure a positive dual Lagrange variable. Taking the Lagrange derivatives, one finds the Lagrange variables for the aggregation identities to be equal to the associated Lagrange variables for the commodity balances and production identities:

71

The Lagrange dual variables for the commodity balances can be interpreted as the shadow variables for resource constraints. Taking the Lagrange derivatives for the production variables, one finds that production is optimised with respect to the internal prices q and l, which satisfy 3 and 5. Because of the linear production structure, at these prices, q and l, firms make neither excess profits nor losses, treating the rents for capital as a cost of a production factor.

The

symbol denotes that either the left or right constraint is binding. In

other words, there are no activities generating profits (if x>0, then the left side is equal to zero), and only activities with no losses are executed (if the left side is strict lower than zero, the right side is binding, x=0). If the constraint margins for physical constraints are fully incorporated in the external prices, exogenous prices p (for both factors and goods) and internal prices q (goods), l (factors) coincide. So in brief it can be said following equation was the basis of the above model:
~ k j , h j , h

min

c =

k K

h H

j J

or min cost involved = Input cost Output cost

72

4.6

FUNDAMENTAL MATHEMATICAL EQUATIONS INVOLVED IN THE

COMPUTER MODEL But beside this very general economic equation Gerlagh et al.(1999) model does not specify any details or mathematical equations that were required for calculations. Different set of equations were required to calculate energy production and organic manure recovery from MSW. Moreover equations differed with technologies e.g. incineration, biomethanation , landfilling ,composting etc. Although our computer model did follow this basic economic equation but with major modifications and other technical details that are specified in computer model . Fundamental mathematical equations involved in the computer model are discussed below : min c = Input Output Input = variable cost +interest on capital cost + cost of marketing Output = recovery by sale of electricity or organic manure or both. Recovery by heat recovery (incineration technology) : Total waste quantity : W tons Net Calorific Value : NCV kcal/kg. Energy recovery potential (kWh) = NCV x W x 1000/860 = 1.16 x NCV x W Power generation potential (kW) = 1.16 x NCV x W/ 24 = 0.048 x NCV x W Typical Waste-to-Wire Conversion Efficiency = 25% Net power generation potential (kW) = 0.012 x NCV x W If NCV = 1200 kcal/kg., then Net power generation potential (kW) = 14.4 x W Output = 14.4 X W X cost of power per unit Recovery by gas production (biomethanation and landfilling) In bio-chemical conversion, only the biodegradable fraction of the organic matter can contribute to the energy output : Total waste quantity : W (tonnes)

73

Total Organic / Volatile Solids : VS = 50%, say Organic bio-degradable fraction : approx. 66% of VS = 0.33 x W Typical digestion efficiency = 60% Typical bio-gas yield: B (m3 ) = 0.80 m3/kg. of VS destroyed = 0.80 x 0.60 x 0.33 x W x1000 = 158.4 x W Calorific Value of bio-gas = 5000 kcal/m3 (typical) Energy recovery potential (kWh) = B x 5000/860 =921 x W Power generation potential (kW) = 921 x W/ 24 = 38.4 x W Typical Conversion Efficiency= 30% Net power generation potential (kW) = 11.5 x W Output = 11.5 X W X cost of power per unit Recovery by sale of organic manure (composting) Total waste quantity : W (tonnes) Moisture content : 50% Dry mass = 0.5 X W Compostable matter = 50%, Production of organic manure = 0.5 X 0.5 X W Out put = 0.25 X W X cost of manure per unit mass In general, 100 tonnes of raw MSW with 50-60% organic matter can generate about 1- 1.5 MW power, depending upon the waste characterstics. A rough assessment of the potential of recovery of energy from MSW through different treatment methods can be made from a knowledge of its calorific value and organic fraction, as under. In thermo-chemical conversion all of the organic matter, biodegradable as well as nonbiodegradable , contributes to the energy output. So, the above mentioned equations were a refinement and modification of the Rever s model. It was on these basis the computer model as developed.

74

75

CHAPTER 5.

PROGRAM FOR ENERGY ESTIMATION


76

It is a programming model developed in computer language C++. Although the software model developed as a single objective model, it integrates other important social and environmental objectives associated with solid waste management. Without this characteristic the model would be considerably less valuable for policy makers. The waste sector is one in which issues such as employment (i.e. waste pickers, itinerant waste buyers) and environment (i.e. air pollution, scarcity of natural resources), play an important role. The software model is flexible in the sense that it allows for analysis from multiple perspectives. Although the overall costs are minimised at an aggregate level, it is possible, through shadow prices and wages, to evaluate the consequences for various stakeholders in different scenarios. For example, promoting waste separation at the household level generates a higher demand for composting plants but waste pickers would be left with a minor to zero shadow wage and thus discontinue operations. The program is run for a Indian city like Amritsar. Typical waste characterstics of Amritsar city have already been discussd. The values are given in the program as default values i.e. why only numerical 0 is typed for each input variable. The results obtained are first shown in C language format and then in a tabular form.

77

// COMPUTER MODEL FOR INTEGRATED MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT #include<stdio.h> #include<iostream.h> #include<math.h> #include<conio.h> // DEFAULT FUNCTION void input(double &a, double defaultvalue, char * str) { cout<<"\n-- Enter the value of "<<str; cout<<"\n--Enter 0 for default value of ("<<defaultvalue<<") :--\t\t"; cin>>a; if(a==0.0) a= defaultvalue; } void main() { clrscr(); cout<<"\n\t\t\tTREATMENT OPTIONS "; cout<<"\n\t\t\t-------------------\n\n"; cout<<"\n\n\t\t cout<<"\n\n\t\t cout<<"\n\n\t\t cout<<"\n\n\t\t cout<<"\n\n\t\t int t; cin>>t; cout<<"\n\n\n\n\n\t Note : All calculations are done on yearly basis"; getch(); 78 For biomethanation For incineration For composting For landfilling To return type 1"; type 2 "; type 3"; type 4"; type 5";

cout<<"\n\n\n\n\t\t

TERATMENT OPTED FOR :";

clrscr(); if(t==5) { } if(t==1) { cout<<"\n\t\tBIOMETHANATION TECHNOLOGY"; cout<<"\n\t\t-------------------------\n\n"; double qtywaste,moist,vmatter,vsdestroyed,bgp,permethane,hv,te,em e,ecp,omm; input(qtywaste,100,"Quantity of waste (tonne/day) :"); input(moist,48," Moisture content(%) :"); input(vmatter,30,"Volatile matter(%) :"); input(vsdestroyed,50,"Volatile solids destroyed(%) :"); input(bgp,0.30,"Biogas prod. in cum per kg of voltile solids destroyed :"); input(permethane,45,"% of methane in biogas :"); clrscr(); cout<<"\n\t\tBIOMETHANATION TECHNOLOGY"; cout<<"\n\t\t-------------------------\n\n"; input(hv,380000,"Heating value of methane KJ per cum :"); input(te,25,"Thermal efficiency of gas engine (%):"); input(eme,70,"Electrical mechanical efficiency of generator (%):"); input(ecp,40,"Energy consumption by plant per tonne (KWH):"); input(omm,30,"Organic manure moisture (%):"); 79

// MATHEMATICAL EQUATIONS GOVERNING BIOMETHANATION MODEL clrscr(); cout<<"\n\t\tResults for given input values"; cout<<"\n\t\t------------------------------"; double qtydm,qtyvs,volumebp,thv,eep,tec,ne,remaino,qtyom,tom,tnep ; qtydm=(1-moist/100)*qtywaste; qtyvs=(vmatter*qtydm)/100; volumebp=(qtyvs*(bgp*vsdestroyed)/100)*1000; cout<<"\n\n Volume of biogas produced :\t\t"<<volumebp<<" cum"; thv=((hv*permethane)/100)*volumebp*1000; eep=thv*(te*eme)/10000/1000/3600; tec=ecp*qtywaste; ne=eep-tec; cout<<"\n\n Net energy production per ton:\t\t "<<ne/qtywaste<<" kWH"; tnep=ne*365; cout<<"\n\n Annual net energy production :\t\t "<<tnep<<" kWH"; remaino=((100-vsdestroyed)/100)*qtyvs; qtyom=(remaino/(1-omm/100))/qtywaste; cout<<"\n\n Quantiy o.manure per tonne of MSW :\t "<<qtyom<<" tonne"; tom=qtyom*365*qtywaste; cout<<"\n\n Total o.maunre per annum :\t\t "<<tom<<" tonne"; getch();

80

// ECONOMIC VIABILTY clrscr(); cout<<"\tECONOMIC VIABILITY OF BIOMETHANATION TECHNOLOGY"; cout<<"\n\t----------------------------------------------\n\n"; double land,cpower,cmanure,tsp,tsom,tr,pcap,cost,vcost,intrst,tin trst; double wrkday,ccost,cmark; input(cpower,2.25,"Sale of power @Rs./kWH :"); input(cmanure,800,"Sale of organic matter @Rs/tonne :"); input(wrkday,365," No. of working days :"); input(ccost,2500," Capital cost in Rs per tonne of msw per annum :"); input(vcost,400," Variable cost in Rs per tonne of msw per annum :"); input(intrst,0.75," Interest rate on capital cost in % :"); input(cmark,50," Cost of marketing in Rs per tonne of Organic manure:"); tsp=cpower*tnep; clrscr(); cout<<"\tECONOMIC VIABILITY OF BIOMETHANATION TECHNOLOGY"; cout<<"\n\t----------------------------------------------\n\n"; cout<<"\n\n Annual recovery from sale of power is Rs lacs:\t "<<tsp/100000; 81

tsom=cmanure*tom; cout<<"\n\n Annual recovery from sale of o.manure(Rs lacs): "<<tsom/100000; tr=tsp+tsom; cout<<"\n\n Total annual recovery is Rs. lacs :\t\t "<<tr/100000; pcap=qtywaste*wrkday; double toc,tcc,tcost,tprofit,profit,tmark; toc = vcost *pcap/100000; tintrst= intrst/100*ccost*pcap/100000; tmark=cmark*tom/100000; tcost=toc+tintrst+tmark; cout<<"\n\n Total cost involved in Rs.lacs:\t\t "<<tcost; tprofit=tr/100000-tcost; cout<<"\n\n Total profit per annum in Rs.lacs:\t\t "<<tprofit; cout<<"\n\n Profit per tonne of MSW :\t\t\t "<<tprofit*100000/pcap; getch(); }

82

if(t==2) { cout<<"\t\tINCINERATION TECHNOLOGY"; cout<<"\n\t\t-----------------------"; double cvwaste,hyd,qtyplastic,cvplastic,qtyaux,cvaux,qtywaste,res idue; double shresidue,tin,tout,rad,hvmoist,moist; input(qtywaste,100," Quantity of waste to be treated in tonne"); input(cvwaste,1548," Calorific value of waste (kcal/kg)"); input(hyd,1," Hydrogen content (%) "); input(qtyplastic,5," plastic(kcal/kg)"); input(qtyaux,5," Auxiliary fuel added (l/ton)"); input(cvaux,9600," Calorific value of aux. fuel (kcal/l)"); input(residue,20," % Residue"); clrscr(); cout<<"\t\tINCINERATION TECHNOLOGY"; cout<<"\n\t\t-----------------------"; input(shresidue,0.25," Specific heat of residue (kcal/kg/degree kelvin"); input(tin,303," Inlet temp of waste in degree kelvin"); input(tout,698," Outlet temp of waste in grates in degree kelvin"); input(rad,20," Radiation losses (%)"); input(hvmoist,588.3," Heating value of moisture(kcal/kg):"); input(moist,48," Moisture content (%)"); 83 %of plastic in waste: "); input(cvplastic,8000," Calorific value of

// MATHEMATICAL EQUATIONS GOVERNING INCINERATION MODEL double tcv,drywaste,hgen,thl,nhg,nhgcal,eei,annrec; tcv=cvwaste+cvplastic*qtyplastic/100+cvaux*qtyaux/1000; drywaste=qtywaste*(1-moist/100)*1000; hgen=tcv*drywaste*1000; thl=moist/100*qtywaste*hvmoist*1000*1000+drywaste*hvmoist* 1000*hyd/100*(18/2)+ rad/100*hgen+(touttin)*shresidue*1000*residue/100*qtywaste*1000; nhg=hgen-thl; nhgcal=nhg*4.11; double efftme,effmee,ee,fe,teeo,teei,nee,neew; input(efftme,25," %Effective thermal to mechanical energy"); input(effmee,70," %Effective mechanical to electrcal energy"); input(eei,35," Electric energy used by plant(KWH/TONNE)"); clrscr(); fe=efftme*effmee/100; teeo=fe/100*nhgcal/3600000; teei=eei*qtywaste; nee=teeo-teei; neew=nee/(24*1000); annrec=365*nee*2.25; clrscr(); cout<<"\t TECHNOLOGY"; cout<<"\n\t----------------------------------------------\n\n"; ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF INCINERATION

84

double land,cpower,cmanure,tsp,tsom,tr,pcap,cost,vcost,intrst,tin trst; double wrkday,ccost,cmark; input(cpower,2.25,"Sale of power @Rs./KWH :"); input(wrkday,300," No. of working days :"); input(ccost,2000," Capital cost in Rs per tonne of msw per annum :"); input(vcost,433," Variable cost in Rs per tonne of msw per annum :"); input(intrst,0.75," Interest rate on capital cost in % :"); tsp=cpower*nee; clrscr(); cout<<"\t ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF INCINERATION TECHNOLOGY"; cout<<"\n\t----------------------------------------------\n\n"; cout<<"\n\nNet energy available :\t\t\t\t"<<nee<<" kwh"; cout<<"\n\nAnnual recovery in Rs.Lacs: \t\t\t\t"<<annrec/100000; pcap=qtywaste*wrkday; double toc,tcc,tcost,tprofit,profit,tmark; toc = vcost *pcap/100000; tintrst= intrst/100*ccost*pcap/100000; tcost=toc+tintrst; cout<<"\n\nTotal cost involved in lacs: \t\t\t"<<tcost; tprofit=annrec/100000-tcost; cout<<"\n\n Total profit per annum in lacs:\t\t"<<tprofit; cout<<"\n\n Profit in Rs. per tonne of MSW :\t\t"<<tprofit*100000/pcap; 85

getch(); } if(t==3) { cout<<"\t\t COMPOSTING OPTION"; cout<<"\n\t\t-----------------\n"; double qtywaste,moist,; double comp,wrkday,ccost,vcost,intrst,mcost,rom; input(qtywaste,100,"Quantity of waste (tonne/day) :"); input(moist,48," Moisture content(%) :"); input(comp,45," Compostable matter (%) :"); input(ccost,1," Capital cost (lakh/tonne/yr) :"); input(vcost,0.5," Variable cost (lakh/tonne/yr) :"); clrscr(); cout<<"\t\t COMPOSTING OPTION"; cout<<"\n\t\t-----------------\n"; input(mcost,50," Cost of marketing (Rs/tonne) :\t\t"); input(intrst,0.75," Interest on capital cost (%):\t\t"); input(rom,800," Rate of organic manure (Rs/tonne):\t\t"); input(wrkday,300," No. of working days:\t\t");

86

// MATHEMATICAL EQUATIONS GOVERNING COMPOSTING MODEL clrscr(); cout<<"\t TECHNOLOGY"; cout<<"\n\t----------------------------------------------\n\n"; double pcap,omanure,tex,sale,cmark,tvcost,tcintrst,profit; pcap=qtywaste*wrkday; omanure=pcap*(1-(moist/100))*comp/100; sale=rom*omanure/100000; cmark=mcost*omanure/100000; tvcost=vcost*qtywaste; tcintrst=(intrst/100)*ccost*qtywaste; tex=cmark+tcintrst+tvcost; profit=sale-tex; cout<<"\n\n Total o.manure recovered(tonne):\t"<<omanure; cout<<"\n\n Total exp (lacs) :\t\t\t"<<tex; cout<<"\n\n Total recovery (lacs) :\t\t"<<sale; cout<<"\n\n Net profit (lacs) :\t\t\t"<<profit; cout<<"\n\n Net profit per tonne (Rs) :\t\t"<<(profit/pcap)*100000; getch(); } ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF COMPOSTING

87

if(t==4) { cout<<"\t\tLANDFILLING OPTION"; cout<<"\n\t\t-------------------\n\n"; double qtywaste, wrkday,gasext,ccost,vcost,profit,sale,cgas,moist,vmatter; double vsdestroyed,bgp,permethane,ecp; input(qtywaste,100,"Quantity of waste (tonne/day) :"); input(wrkday,365," No. of working days :"); input(vcost,400," Operational cost in Rs.per tonne of MSW"); input(moist,48," Moisture content(%) :"); input(vmatter,30,"Volatile matter(%) :"); input(vsdestroyed,50,"Volatile solids destroyed(%) :"); clrscr(); cout<<"\t\tLANDFILLING OPTION"; cout<<"\n\t\t-------------------\n\n"; double hv,te,eme,cpower; input(bgp,0.30,"Biogas prod. in cum per kg of voltile solids destroyed :"); input(permethane,45,"% of methane in biogas :"); input(hv,380000,"Heating value of methane KJ per cum :"); input(te,25,"Thermal efficiency of gas engine (%):"); input(eme,70,"Electrical mechanical efficiency of generator (%):"); input(ecp,15,"Energy consumption by plant per tonne (KWH):"); input(cpower,2.25,"Sale of power @Rs./kWH :");

88

// MATHEMATICAL EQUATIONS GOVERNING LANDFILLING MODEL clrscr(); cout<<"\t TECHNOLOGY"; cout<<"\n\t----------------------------------------------\n\n"; double lcapacity,tgas,tvcost,tsale,nprofit,qtydm,volumebp,thv,eep ,tec; double tnep,tsp,qtyvs; qtydm=(1-moist/100)*qtywaste; cout<<"\n Quantity dry mass :\t\t\t\t"<<qtydm<<" tonne"; qtyvs=(vmatter*qtydm)/100; cout<<"\n\n Quantity of volatile matter :\t\t\t"<<qtyvs<<" tonne"; volumebp=(qtyvs*(bgp*vsdestroyed)/100)*1000; cout<<"\n\n Volume of biogas produced :\t\t\t"<<volumebp<<" cum"; thv=((hv*permethane)/100)*volumebp*1000; cout<<"\n\n Total heating value :\t\t\t\t "<<thv<<" J"; eep=thv*(te*eme)/10000/1000/3600; cout<<"\n\n Electric energy produced :\t\t\t kWH"; tec=eep-ecp*qtywaste; cout<<"\n\n Net energy production :\t\t\t "<<tec<<" kWH"; tnep=tec*365; cout<<"\n\n Annual net energy production :\t\t\t "<<tnep<<" kWH"; tsp=(cpower*tnep); 89 "<<eep<<" ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF LANDFILLING

cout<<"\n\n Annual recovery from sale of power is Rs lacs:\t "<<tsp/100000; tvcost=(vcost*qtywaste*wrkday)/100000; profit= tsp/100000-tvcost; nprofit=profit*100000/(qtywaste*wrkday); cout<<" \n\n Total variable cost in lacs :\t\t\t "<<tvcost; cout<<"\n\n Net profit in lacs :\t\t\t\t"<<profit; cout<<"\n\n Net profit in Rs.per tonne of MSW :\t\t "<<nprofit; getch(); } cout<<"\n\n\t Note : All calculations are done on yearly basis"; getch(); }

90

CHAPTER 6.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS


91

92

The objective of the computer model is calculate how much energy can be extracted from a municipal waste. Although presently it concentrates on municipal solid waste but it can be further extended to other waste too. Now, there are different options available for extracting energy from waste. e .g. bio-methanation, landfilling, composting etc. Here the program concentrates how much energy can be obtained through biomethanation or anaerobic digestion. The computer program follows two distinct path in it s working. The program demands various inputs from the user e.g. moisture content, volatile contents, plastics content, biogas production per unit mass etc. in this approach program takes into account various variables involved in the calculation of biomethanation process. This makes the program complex and wide in approach. This problem is taken care in the second path that it follows. Municipal solid waste in India show more or less same characterstics i.e. around 45% moisture content and 30% volatile matter. It is possible at a particular time and place , data may not be available for all characteristics of waste and process involved. It can be because of scarcity of money or inadequate technologies. software model takes these limitations into account and provides a solution to this by providing a default value. The program do ask for different variables but in case of no response takes a given default value displayed on screen. e.g. it may not be possible for every user to calculate bio gas production per unit mass of municipal solid waste. In this case the program will automatically take a default value. A typical Indian city like Amritsar was taken as a representative city. This was mainly because of extensive and accurate data available with Municipal corporation of Amritsar. The city has a population of around 1million (2001 census) with an area of 135 sq. km. Amritsar has been divided into four zones. First is residential zone that includes purely residential areas without commercial or industrial activity. Second is industrial zone mainly including the focal point area. Third is mixed zone that includes mainly commercial complexes. Fourth is open zone of agriculture area that does not

93

contribute to MSW. Amritsar as a whole generates around 500 tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) per day with 45% moisture content, 30% volatile matter and calorific value of 1500 Kcal/kg. Results were shown in Table-6.1-6.4 and finally a comparative analysis of all the technologies was done through a bar graph Fig 6.1. Based on preliminary calculations, the economic viability of various technological options shows that by adopting: Land fill gas technology, there would be a profit of Rs. 6.4/ton of MSW. Composting, there would be a profit of Rs.9 per ton of MSW. Biomethanation, there would be a profit of Rs. 11.4/ ton of MSW. And Incineration, there would be a loss of Rs. 296.00 per ton of MSW.

The above results were for average MSW of Amritsar. However, model showed different results for different zones of the city. As composting is best for industrial and mixed zone , biomethanation is better for residential zone whereas incineration should not be preferred for any of the zones.

94

6.1.

ANAEROBIC DIGESTION

For high moisture and organic content of Indian wastes, the anaerobic digestion is another suitable option. However, there are no ready technologies available for process-in heterogeneous material such as urban solid wastes. The existing methods are suited to homogeneous materials. The costs of cleaning and separating mixed heterogeneous wastes are likely to be high. A good way to avoid these problems is to intercept suitable wastes at the point of generation before it is mixed with other wastes. Kitchen and vegetable market wastes are largely suited for this purpose. These wastes can be collected and treated at source, if space permits. The resulting biogas can be used for captive energy use such as lighting and cooking etc (Fig 6.1). Few Biogas systems are currently available to treat wastes of fruit and vegetable origin though currently unfeasible as a large-scale option; Biogas systems can effectively handle localised and specific wastes and contributes to environment friendly disposal of wastes. It is one of the most innovative techniques for treating MSW in which resource recovery is in the form of biogas and organic manure. The biogas can be used for heating or poser generation whereas the sludge from treatment plant is used as organic manure. Economic recovery in the form of biogas and organic manure provides good prospects for self-sustainability of the treatment plant (Table 6.1). The process takes place in close reactors and thus reduces environmental pollution. High organic content in the waste form Amritsar favors use of this technology.

95

MSW Weighing Storage Feeding Hand Picking Air Classification Size Reduction Screening
Slurry Preparation
Anaerobic Digestion Recyclable

Filter Press
Organic Manures
Bio Gas Power

Fig 6.1 Process flow diagram for biomethanation

96

PRELIMINARY DESIGN CALCULATIONS FOR BIOMETHANATION : Recovery of Energy and Organic Manure: Gas production and energy recovery from 100 tonnes of MSW are expected to be as below, Quantity of dry mass of MSW with moisture content 47.62% = (1 - 0.4762) x l00 = 52.38 tonnes Quantity of volatile solids with volatile matter 29.68% Assuming that 50% of volatile solids are destroyed, Taking biogas produced @ 0.30 m3 per kg of volatile solids destroyed, Volume of biogas produced Assuming that the biogas contains 45% CH, Heating value of methane gas @ 380130 KJ per cum. Heating value of methane gas produced = (0.45 x 2332.5 x 380130 KJ) =399 x 109 Joules Taking the thermal efficiency of the gas engine is 25%, Electrical-rnechanical efficiency of the generator is 70% Electric energy produced = (399 x 109 x 0.25 x 0.70) = 69.825 x 106 watts = 19395 KWH Taking energy consumption by the plant @ 40 KWH / tonne Of waste, the energy consumption in the plant Net energy available per 100 tonnes per day Energy available from 500 tonne of MSW = (-) 4000 KWH = 15395 KWH = (15395 x 5.0 x 365) = 28.1 0 x 106 KWH =2332.50 m3 = (29.68 x 52.38)/100 = 15.55 tonnes

97

The remaining quantity of organic (dry weight basis)

= 50% of volatile solids = 0.50 x 15.55= 7.78 tonnes

Considering that the organic manure contains about 30% moisture, Quantity of organic manure per tonne of MSW (on weight basis) = {7.78 / (1-0.3)}/ 100 = 0.111 tonnes Production of organic manure per annum = 0.111 x 500 x 365 = 20200 tonne

98

Table 6.1 Economic viability of biomethanation technology

(A) General features Plant capacity (500 x 365 tonnes 1 year) Production of organic manure (tonnes per annum) Capital cost (Rs lacs) Operating cost (Rs. 1 tonne) (B) Annual Expenditure (lacs) Operating cost Interest on capital cost @ 0.75% per annum (soft loan) Cost of marketing @ Rs 50/ per tonne of organic manure Sub Total ( Lacs Rupees) (C) Annual Recovery From sale of power @ Rs. 2.25 / KWH From sale of organic manure (@ Rs. 800 per tonne) Sub. Total ( Lacs Rupees) (D) Yearly Profit margin ( Lacs Rupees) (E) Profit Margin per Tonne of Waste (Rs.) 162 792 19 10.40 630.00 10.13 773.60 729.79 33.75 182500 20258 4500 400

99

6.2

INCINERATION Incineration is not a total solution for solid wastes. The inert remains still have

to be landfilled or used otherwise. This acts as a volume reduction step. In India, it has not found much use as the garbage tends to be low in calorific value and volumes are generally low for a central facility (Fig 6.2). The technology for incineration is not available indigenously and import options are highly capital intensive. During 1980 s an incineration plant was set up at N. Delhi at a cost of Rs. 220 million or US$ 6.9 million (May 94). This 300 TPD plant was set up using Danish technology with assistance from Danida. It was also expected to generate power for local grid. The operational experience was not satisfactory. The desired calorific value garbage did not reach the facility as a result of prior segregation due to market mechanisms and scavengers (Table 6.2). Despite apparent failure of this attempt, incineration will remain an option for future and experience gained in this venture will be useful. In the meanwhile, incineration on smaller scale with or without energy recovery will continue to be a viable option in a number of location and waste specific cases such as hospital wastes.

100

MSW
Weighing

Storage

Feeding Air
Auxiliary Fuel

Primary combustion Gas Secondary combustion Steam Generator Steam Power Generator

Residue Quenching

Waste Water Treatment Plant

Wate r Wate Wet Scrubbing r Harmful Gas stripping Stack

Steam Condensation

Ash Land Filling

Fig 6.2 Process flow diagram for MSW Incineration

101

PRELIMINARY DESIGN CALCULATIONS FOR INCINERATION Heat Balance Calorific value of waste (excluding plastics & rubber) 1548 kcal/ kg (on dry basis) Hydrogen content = 1.07% (on dry basis)

Since plastics will also be added to the waste during incineration, its calorific value would increase as: Quaintly of plastics per kg of MSW : 5.17% of total waste Assuming that out of the total 5.17% of plastic waste only 5% (of total waste) reaches the incineration facility. Increase in calorific value of waste due to incineration of plastics@ 8000 K cal/ kg. =0.05*8000 = 400kcal/kg. Auxiliary fuel would be required to start incineration. Using 5 litre/ tonne furnace oil (9600 kcal/litre) the Increase in calorific value due auxiliary fuel = 0.005*96000 = 48 kcal/kg. Hence the total calorific value of the waste to be burnt would be = 1548+400+48 = 1996 kcal/kg. Taking 100 tonne of waste as discarded and assuming that Combustion is 100% Inorganic does not take part in the combustion

Specific heat of residue is 0.25 kcal/kg/ degree Kelvin 425 0C

Temperature of waste entering the furnace is 30 0C and that of grate residue is Radiation losses are 20% of total heat generation. Heat value due to moisture = 588.3 Kcal/kg

102

Heat Balance: Dry mass of the waste from 100 tonne of MSW = 100*0.5238*103 = 52380 kg. The calculation of heat recovery has been worked out as below Item (A) Heat Generation (B) Heat losses Loss due to contained moisture in the waste Heat loss due to evaporation of water formed during combustion Heat loss due to radiation Heat loss use in grate residue Sub Total (B) Net Heat Generation(A-B) Heat available for power generation = = Power Generation Assuming: Efficiency of thermal to mechanical energy system as 25% Efficiency of mechanical to electrical energy as 70% The overall efficiency of the system would be 17.5% 50877*4.11*106 joule 209.10* 109 joule 52380*(18/2)* (0.010*588.3) (0.20*104550*106) {0.20*105*0.25 *(698-303)} 53673 50877 20910 1975 2773 (47620*588.31) 28015 Calculation (52380*1996) Heat (106 Calories) 104550

Electrical energy output:0.175*209.10*109 joule= 10164 KWH Total energy input for the plant@ 35 @ KWH /tonne of waste = 3500 KWH Net Energy available (KWH/ 100 tonne of waste) = 10164-3500 = 6664 KWH

103

Table 6.2 Economic viability of incineration technology

(A) General features Plant capacity (tones/ year) Land Required (hectares) Capital cost (Lacs Rupees) Operating cost (Rs. / tonne) (B) Annual Expenditure (lacs) Operating cost Interest on capital cost @ 0.75 per annum (soft loan) Sub-total (C) Annual Recovery From sale of power (84.67*60,000KWH@ Rs. 2.25 / KWH) (D) Yearly Profit Margin (Lacs Rupees) (E) Loss Margin (Rupees per Tonne of MSW) (-) 178.84 298.00 89.96 (-) 259.80 (-) 9 268.80 60,000 2 1200 433

* Computer model results shown in tabular form

104

6.3

COMPOSTING Composting is a highly suitable option for urban solid wastes in India. High

organic content and moisture make it particularly attractive. Conceptually, the idea of composting is appealing as it helps to recycle the nutrients back to land. The process, however, requires segregation of inert material; which is achieved easily due to recycling by Kabaris and scavengers (Fig 6.3). This option, hence, appeared ideal in mid-seventies when a number of compost plants were set up in various cities. Mechanised aerobic composting offered hope for big towns starved of landfill space The plants were commissioned during 1977-80 and were operated either by State Agro-Industries Corporations or by Municipal Corporations. These plants were expected to provide much awaited answer to growing problem of urban solid wastes but t operational and other problems began to appear. Due to low skill/managerial inputs the operating efficiencies were low resulting in high cost of production. The problem was further compounded due to large distances between compost production centres and the compost utilisation centres, namely the farmlands. The resulting cost of transportation made marketing even more uneconomical (Table 6.3). Farmers also reported problems with broken glass pieces in the compost. The composting, however, still remains a strong option for small and medium towns. Semi-mechanised aerobic composting is ideally suited to waste volumes in these towns. It demands less in terms of operational and management skills. The product off-take can be good due to close proximity of agricultural areas to almost all such towns in India. The problem of broken glass can be taken care of by suitable local legislation to ensure segregation at source.

105

MSW Weighing Pre-Fermentation Recyclable Hand picking Air-classification Power Screening Maturation Screening
Coarse
Coarse Size

Sale

Land filling Waste Material

reduction

Blending

additives

Packing & Storage

Sale

Fig 6.3 Process flow diagram of proposed composting plant

106

Table 6.3 Economic viability of composting technology

(A) General features Plant Capacity (200*300 tonners/year) Capital Cost (lacs) Production of organic manure (tones/year) @ 45% of compost able matter (60000*0.52*0.45) (B) Annual Expenditure (lacs) Variable cost of production Interest on capital cost @ 0.75% per annum (soft loan) Cost of marketing @ Rs 50/ tonne of manure Total Expenditure (C) Annual Recovery (lacs) Sale of organic manure@ Rs. 800/tonne (D) Yearly profit margin (lacs) (E) Profit margin per tonne of waste (Rs.) 116.64 5.46 9.10 102.38 1.51 7.29 111.18 60.000 201 14,040

* Computer model results shown in tabular form

107

6.4

LAND FILLING Like other Asian countries, in India too most of the waste is landfilled. The

methods followed are not in keeping with modern practices of sanitary landfilling. The wastes are largely dumped (Fig 6.4). This dumping is normally carried out in lowlying areas, which are prone to flooding. During rainy season, possibility of surface water contamination increases due to flooding of these low lying areas. The ground water pollution though largely unassisted is another threat posed by dumping of wastes. The daily cover techniques are poor leading to vector problems. The birds foraging on garbage dumps are known to cause substantial problems for aircrafts operating in the urban areas. The bird strikes have resulted in a great deal of loss to aviation sector. This state of affairs results from lack of knowledge and skills on part of local authorities. Diversion of large part of money to collection and transportation of wastes results in non-availability of funds for disposal activities. This forces local authorities to curtail even known precautions and practices and use short cut approach.

108

Table 6.4. Economic viability of landfill gas technology

(A) General features Plant Capacity (500*300 tonners/year) Capital Cost (lacs) Gas Extraction (Kg/ ton of MSW) (B) Annual Expenditure (lacs) Variable cost of production (C) Annual Recovery (lacs) Sale of GAS@ Rs. 2/kg (D) Yearly profit margin (lacs) (E) Profit margin per ton of waste (Rs.) * Computer model results shown in tabular form 114 11 6.00 103 1,82,500 72 32

109

FIG 6.4 Comparison of different treatment options for different zones of Amritsar city

75 Profit/Loss (Rs. per ton of MSW) 12 RESIDENCIAL INDUSTRIAL MIXED

9 10 AVERAGE

COMPOSTING
-269

BIOMETHANATION
-161 -369 -298

INCINERATION

-27 -39 -79 -31

110

Validation of the model was done by it s application on the refuse incineration cum power generation station at Timarpur. It was designed and built by a Danish operator M/s Volund Miljotecknik A/S, Brondby, Denmark on a turnkey basis. It was designed to incinerate 300 tons of Garbage / Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) of Delhi city per day and generate 3.775 MW of electric power. The minimum waste quality (composition and calorific value) specified by M/s Volund for the rated power output of 3.775 MW at the time of the supply of the plant were as mentioned in Table 6.5. Then model was applied on the same given values and results are shown in Table 6.6. In case of Timarpur plant, model shows 3.5 kW of power recovery with calorific value (CV) of 1500 kcal/kg. So, it comes quite close to the design value calculated by the Danish operator. The generic set up of the model enables the incorporation of a large variety of waste types, number of stakeholders, and processing activities. The possibility to finetune the model to a local situation is it s strength, but it also have some shortcomings. First, it requires an extensive set of data. This is especially difficult in developing countries, where the quality of the data varies significantly. But default value option solves the problem to a great extent. Second, the software, which has been used for modelling, is comprehensive but relatively user-unfriendly at the same time. To operate or modify the model, a basic level of understanding on C Language and economic principles is only required. Nevertheless, this model may be considered a valuable first step in evaluating integrated SWM in developing countries. Since it is a computer model ,it allows different permutations and combination at virtually zero cost.

111

Table 6.5 Timarpur incineration plant designed by M/s Volund Miljotecknik

Sl No 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. kg 6.

Parameter Quantity of MSW Combustibles Moisture Content / Humidity Inerts Net Calorific Value

Value 300 ton/day 40.16 % 30.00 % 29.84 % 1462.5 kcal /

Power generation estimation (by M/s Volund Miljotecknik A/S, Brondby, Denmark)

3.775 MW

Source: www.mnes.nic.in/tender_notice/information.pdf

Table 6.6 Application of model in case of Timarpur incineration plant


2.48*1011 calories 85029.2 kwh 3.54 MW 207.9 231.0

Net heat generated: Net energy available: Net power available in MW : Total profit per annum in lacs : Profit in Rs. per ton of MSW :

112

CHAPTER 7.

CONLUSIONS
113

114

Based on preliminary calculations, the economic viability of various technological options shows that by adopting : Land fill gas technology, there would be a profit of Rs. 6.4/ton of MSW. Composting, there would be a profit of Rs.9 per ton of MSW. Biomethanation, there would be a profit of Rs. 10.4/ ton of MSW. And Incineration, there would be a loss of Rs. 296.00 per ton of MSW. The generic set up of the model enables the incorporation of a large variety of waste types, number of stakeholders, and processing activities. The possibility to finetune the model to a local situation is strength, but also a weakness. First, it requires an extensive set of data. This is especially difficult in developing countries, were the quality of the data varies significantly. Moreover, some types of data will be very difficult to generate such as information on the environment and on the informal sector. Second, the software, which ha s been used for modelling, is comprehensive but relatively user-unfriendly at the same time. To operate or modify the model, a basic level of understanding on linear programming and economic principles is required. Therefore, it is unlikely that policy makers may operate this model without the support of economic researchers, or a user support system. To demonstrate its applicability, the model was applied to the Indian city Amritsar and a range of scenario runs were presented. This empirical exercise not only reveals the model s strengths such as highlighting important interdependencies in the waste management sector, but also its weaknesses such as its great demand for high quality data. Nevertheless, this model may be considered a valuable first step in evaluating integrated SWM in developing countries. This computer program is just one step in estimating energy production from municipal waste. Presently, only biomethanation technology has been taken into account. But similar program can be

115

prepared for other technologies. Finally a cost comparison can made for different technologies applied to similar solid waste. After taking other economic and environment factors into consideration the best technologies can be followed. Since it is a computer model ,it allows different permutations and combination at virtually zero cost.

116

References : Baldisimo, J.M. (ed). 1988. Scavenging of municipal solid waste in Bangkok, Jakarta, and Manila. Environmental Sanitation Reviews December no.26. Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok. Baud, I. and Schenk, H. (eds). 1994. Solid Waste Management: Modes, Assessments, Appraisals and Linkages in Bangalore. Manohar Publications, New Delhi. Balinski, M.L. 1961 Fixed-cost transportation problems. Naval Res. Logistics Q.,8(1): 41-45. Binner S. Galeotti L,Lombardi F, Mogensen E, Sirini P 1997 Mass Balance And Heavy Metals Distribution In Municipal Solid Waste Incineration Vol. 24, No.1, February 1997. Journal of solid waste technology and management Bhide , A.D., and Sudershan, B.B(1987), Solid Waste Management in Devolping Countries. INDSOC , New Delhi. Bruvoll, A. and Ibenholt, K. 1997. "Future waste generation forecasts on the basis of a macroeconomic model. Resource, Conservation and Recycling 19: 137-149. Chang, Ni-Bin, Lin, Y.T. 1997. "An analysis of recycling impacts on solid waste generation by time series intervention modelling." Resources, Conservation and Recycling 19: 165-186. Cointreau, Sandra J., Gunnerson, C.G., Huls, J.M. and Seldman, N.N. 1984. Recycling from Municipal Refuse: A State of the Art Review and Annotated

117

Bibliography. World Bank Technical Paper No. 30. The World Bank, Washington, DC. Cointreau, S.J. 1982. Environmental Management of Urban Solid Wastes in Developing Countries. Urban Development Technical Paper no.5. The World Bank, Washington, DC. CPCB (Central Pollution Control Board). 2000 Management of Municipal Solid Waste Delhi: Central Pollution Control Board Dalemo, M., Frostell, B., Jnsson, H., Mingarini, K., Nybrant, T., Sonesson, U., Sundqvist, J.-O., Thyselius, L. 1997. ORWARE - A simulation model for organic waste handling systems. Part 1: Model description, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 21, 17-37. Diamadopoulous, E., Koutsantonakis, Y. and Zaglara, V. 1995. Optimal design of municipal solid waste recycling systems. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 14: 21-34. Eduardo J. G. Barata. 69 March 2002. Solid waste generation and management in Portugal Paper for the 7th Biennial Conference of the International Society for Ecological Economics, Environment and Development: Globalisation & the Challenges for Local & International Governance, Sousse Tunisia,. Furedy, C. 1992. "Garbage: exploring non-conventional options in Asian cities." Environment & Urbanisation 4(2) (Oct.): 43-60.

118

G. dAntonio, M. Fabbricino, F. Pirozzi 2002 Decisional Model For Integrated Management Of Muncipal Solid Waste Vol. 28, No. 1, February 2002 Journal of solid waste technology and management Iwal, S. 1990. The producing mechanism, separation and fuel characteristics of municipal refuse. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 3: 249-358. Khan, A.M. 1987. Solid waste disposal with intermediate transfer stations: An application of the fixed-charge location problem. Journal of Operation Res. Soc. 18(1): 31-37. Nickolas J. Themelis, Young Hwan Kim, Mark H. Brady. 2002. Energy recovery from New York City municipal solid wastes ISWA journal: Waste Management and Research, 2002:20, 223-233 Ravindra, H. 1993. Bangalore: an environmental profile. In K. C. Sivaram Krishnan (ed). Managing Urban Environment in India: Towards an Agenda for Action. Times Research Foundation, Calcutta. Reyer Gerlagh, Pieter van Beukering, Madhu Verma, P.P. Yadav and Preety Pandey March 1999. Integrated Modelling of Solid Waste in India Working Paper No 26, 11-27 Shekdar, A.V., Bhide, A.D., Tikekar, V.G. and Krishnaswamy, K.N. 1991. "Longterm Planning for Solid Waste Management in India." Waste Management & Research. 9: 511-523.

119

Shekdar, A.V., Bhide, A.D., Tikekar, V.G. and Krishnaswamy, K.N. 1992. "Indian urban solid waste management systems: jaded systems in need of resource augmentation." Waste Management 12: 379- 387. Shoou-Yuh Chang and Zhi Li A Computer Model To Generate Solid Waste Disposal Alternatives Vol. 24, No.1, February 1997. Journal of solid waste technology and management Sudhir, V, Muraleedharan, V.R. and Srinivasan, G. 1996. "Integrated Solid Waste Management in Urban India: A Critical Operational Research Framework." Socio-Econ. Plann. Sci. 30 (3): 163-181.

120