Content uploaded by Hilmi S. Salem
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hilmi S. Salem on Nov 23, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Nature Science and Sustainable Technology ISSN: 1933-0324
Volume 15, Number 3 © 2021 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVES
OF WASTE-TO-ENERGY CONVERSION
Hilmi S. Salem1,
, Yohannes Yihdego2,
and Musa Yahaya Pudza3
1Sustainable Development Research Institute (SDRI),
Bethlehem, West Bank, Palestine
2Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation (SMEC),
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
3Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering,
University Putra Malaysia, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia
ABSTRACT
With the population’s growth, economic growth, urbanization, accelerated
development, and, thus, greater rates of consumption, the world has been witnessing
the generation of large amounts of waste. In the recent decades, waste production
has increased dramatically, worldwide and, apparently, there is no single sign of slowing
down. The world generates 2.01 billion metric tons of municipal solid waste annually,
with at least 33% of that not managed in an environmentally safe manner. Worldwide,
the average amount of waste generated is 0.74 kg/ca/d, while is ranging widely between
0.11 and 4.54 kg/ca/d. Though they account only for 16% of the world’s population,
high-income countries generate about 34% (i.e., 683 million tons) of the world’s waste.
By 2050, worldwide municipal solid waste (MSW) production is expected to increase by
approximately 70% (i.e., to 3.4 billion metric tons). Accordingly, the waste-to-energy
(WtE) approach should be considered as a key issue of a waste-management system. This
is due to the facts that the WtE approach and technologies contribute effectively to the
development of low-carbon societies, encourage recycling and stricter policies for waste
reduction, and, thus, protect the environment and public health, and also strengthen the
economy. This paper tickles some of the scientific and technical perspectives related to
solid waste management and the WtE approach and technologies.
Keywords: Resources’ Recovery; Wastes’ Recycling; Energy-to-Waste (EtW) Approach,
Technologies, Production, and Efficiency; Sustainability Assessment
Corresponding Author’s Email: hilmisalem@yahoo.com
Hilmi S. Salem, Yohannes Yihdego and Musa Yahaya Pudza
194
NOMENCLATURE
ABPC Air-Blown Partial Combustion
AA Anaerobic Absorption
BAHs Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
CH4 Methane
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand
FTR Fischer-Tropsch Reactor
FW Food Waste
GHGs Greenhouse Gases
GWP Global Warming Potential
GTs Gas Turbines
H2 Hydrogen
HCs Hydrocarbons
HRSG Heat Recovery Steam Generator
ICEs Internal Combustion Engines
ISWM Integrated Solid Waste Management
KSA Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
LCA Life Cycle Assessment
LFG Landfill Gas
LPD Line Programmed Display
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
OBPC Oxygen Blown Partial Combustion
OPT Occupied Palestinian Territories
PE Polyethylene
pH Potential of Hydrogen
PS Polystyrene
PVC Polyvinyl Chloride
PET Polyethylene Terephthalate
SRF Solid Recovered Fuel
SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats
TCT Thermo-Compound Treatment
USA United States of America
USD United States’ Dollar
VSadded Volatile Solid Added
WtE Waste-to-Energy
Btu/cft British Thermal Unit per Cubic Feet
MBtu/cft Million British Thermal Unit per Cubic Feet
℃ Celsius Degree
kg/ca/d Kg per Capita per Day
kWh/ca Kilo-Watt-Hour per Capita
kWh/t Kilo-Watt-Hour per Ton
MJ/ca Mega-Joule per Capita
MPaG Mega-Pascal per Gauge
MWh Mega-Watt-Hour
Scientific and Technical Perspectives of Waste-to-Energy Conversion
195
m3/kg Cubic Meter per Kilogram
ton/d Ton per Day
ton/yr Ton per Year
INTRODUCTION
In recent decades, waste production has increased dramatically, worldwide, and
apparently there are no signs of slowing down. The world produces 2.01 billion metric tons of
municipal solid waste (MSW) annually, with at least 33% of that not managed in an
environmentally safe manner (World Bank 2021). Worldwide, the average amount of waste
generated is 0.74 kg/ca/d (kg per capita per day), while it is generally ranging from 0.11 to
4.54 kg/c/d. However, high-income countries generate about 34% (or 683 million metric tons)
of the world’s waste, although they only represent 16% of the world’s population. On the
other hand, there is a positive correlation between waste generation and income level. This
means that by increasing the income per person, greater amounts of waste generated.
However, the high income countries have the highest rate of waste collection, while the low-
income countries have the lowest rate of waste collection (Figure 1–Left).
Source: World Bank 2021.
Figure 1. Left: Waste collection rates by income level (%); Right: Waste generation
and projected waste generation by region (millions of metric tons/yr) for the years 2016,
2030, and 2050.
By 2050, worldwide municipal solid waste production is expected to increase by
approximately 70%, i.e. to 3.4 billion metric tons (Tiseo 2020). For various regions of the
world, the increase in MSW will range from about 25% (for Europe and Central Asia) to
about 197% (for Sub-Saharan Africa), representing the differences between the projected
values of MSW in 2050 and the MSW’s values in 2016 (Figure 1–Right).
The worldwide dramatic increases of MSW can be attributed to a number of factors,
including growth of the world’s population, and increasing rates of urbanization and
economic growth, as well as consumers’ shopping habits. China, for instance, generated
15.5% of global MSW in 2018. However, when population is taken into account, the USA
creates the most waste, though it represents only 4% of the world’s population. The USA has
been responsible for 11.65% of global waste generation (Tiseo 2020). This was the same
quota generated by India – a country with a much larger population than the USA. This is
Hilmi S. Salem, Yohannes Yihdego and Musa Yahaya Pudza
196
with the consideration that the populations, as for 1 July 2018, were in these three countries:
China–1.428 billion; India–1.353 billion; and the USA–327.1 million (Wikipedia 2021).
Because of these huge amounts of MSW, worldwide, it is extremely important and
required to give the methods and experiences of recovery to convert waste into basic energy
sources, and to investigate the options available in marketing waste for different types of
energy. This is in line with the “Paris Agreement (FCCC/CP/2015/L9/Rev.1),” where
representatives from all member states and observer states of the United Nations, as well as
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) throughout the world met in Paris, France during the
period of 30 November–11 December 2015, with the aim of reducing the increasing Earth’s
surface temperature by 2℃ (UNCC 2015).
The idea of taking waste with the end-goal of transformation to energy is seen by
numerous observers as a hazard to the recycling idea. In spite of this well-known view, many
researches and governments across the world see that the transformation of waste to energy
(WtE) is one of the best tools to eliminate climate-change impacts, and through which waste
can be utilized in a good and efficient source of energy. As the qualities of created (or
produced) waste, such as MSW, are changed to a high calorific esteem, because of pressing
materials and with respect to move in the general public that is going for the utilization of
substantial waste warmth and less emanations of the greenhouse gases (GHGs), new age of
high-effective WtE innovation is required (Ham and Lee 2017; Habib et al. 2021).
The assessments of energy from waste change to industrial satisfaction of the energy
demands of different countries have been widely investigated, worldwide. Numerous
countries utilize waste in the production of electrical energy, including, for instance, the
following: Canada–4,915 MJ/ca; The Netherlands–3,367 MJ/ca; Japan–1,608 MJ/ca; the
United Kingdom–1,497 MJ/ca; and Sweden–1,278 MJ/ca (Thi et al. 2016). Likewise, a few
countries could get power from yearly Food Waste (FW) production and contribute a high
level of total national power demand. This applies on, for example, The Netherlands–2.9%
(164.4 kWh/ca); Canada–1.35% (240 kWh/ca); Japan–0.92% (78.5 kWh/ca); the United
Kingdom–1.31% (73.1 kWh/ca); and Ireland–1.23% (68 kWh/ca) (Thi et al. 2016).
In addition, investigations for ‘Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats’
(SWOT) were utilized to evaluate three types of FW bio-treatment forms, including fertilizing
the soil, anaerobic assimilation, maturation for bio-hythane gas, and, in this manner, outlining
future bearings in the improvement of FW to hydrogen and methane. SWOT investigations
show that the fermentative hydrogen and methane production was a promising choice for
commercializing FW into energy (Thi et al. 2016). All the more along these lines, it ends up
basic to receive reasonable and appropriate procedures that can improve this environmentally
inviting type of energy innovation. A theoretical and proficient model to build up an energy
production is especially expected to meet the energy needs of the developing mechanical
complex (Jebaraj and Iniyan 2006; Arafat and Jijakli 2013; Rajaeifar et al. 2015; Rajaeifar et
al. 2017; Subramanian et al. 2018).
Though fossil and nuclear energies are still the preferred decision in many countries
around the world, many countries are moving forward towards manufacturing and utilization
of renewable energy sources and technologies, including solar, wind, thermal, biological
(WtE), and so forth.
This paper aims to be a short survey to share and understand developments in the
business and a range of issues related to waste conversion to energy. It looks at how
innovation is created and how quantities of plants can be expanded to save nature and to use
Scientific and Technical Perspectives of Waste-to-Energy Conversion
197
energy sources efficiently. In addition, options regarding resource recovery from treated
waste are investigated in robust waste management.
Need for Waste-to-Energy (WtE) Technologies
Enthusiasm for spotless, reasonable energy, and preoccupation of unproductive landfills
conveys more enthusiasm for energy recuperation from MSW. As an energy raw material,
MSW is plentiful, and unproductive makers commonly pay tipping expenses for the transfer
of 260 million tons (1 ton = 1,000 kg) delivered every year in the USA alone (US EPA 2010a;
Pressley 2013). Most recently, facts on the ground indicate that 268 million tons of waste are
generated in the USA each year, including different kinds of waste, most of which can be
recycled, whereas more than half of it (around 140 million tons) ended in landfills (McDonald
2020) (Figure 2). Numerous energy recovery choices from waste include landfill gas-to-
energy, burning, anaerobic processing, and gasification.
Figure 2. A diagram showing that out of 268 million tons of waste generated annually
in the USA alone, approximately 140 million tons of waste ended in landfills
(after McDonald 2020).
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a standardized methodology for assessing potential
environmental impacts associated to a product, a process, or a system, along its life cycle,
namely, in the present case, from the extraction of raw material to the end of life. LCA can be
utilized to assess the relative energy and environmental execution of such choices from
control to extreme transfer, yielding experiences that illuminate open arrangement and
venture choices (e.g., Kaplan et al. 2009; Levis and Barlaz 2011; Pressley 2013; Sala et al.
2016). LCA has beforehand been utilized to portray the environmental execution of energy
recovery alternatives from MSW, by representing all procedures related to materials, energy,
and emissions, straight-forwardly and by implication. For instance, landfill gas-to-energy
examines incorporate emanations related with curbside gathering forms, outlaw methane,
power age, and substantial machine task (Levis and Barlaz 2011; Pressley 2013; Rajaeifar
et al. 2015; Islam 2021). On the other hand, waste-to-energy represents emanations related
with curbside accumulation forms, energy utilization, power age, and power management
(Pressley 2013; Fernández-González et al. 2017; USDE 2019).
Hilmi S. Salem, Yohannes Yihdego and Musa Yahaya Pudza
198
Thermo-artificially gasification changes over time from a strong feedstock into a
combination of various gases (i.e., syngas). Syngas, or synthesis gas, is a fuel gas mixture
consisting, primarily, of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and very often some carbon dioxide.
The name (syngas) comes from its use as intermediates in creating synthetic natural gas and
for producing ammonia or methanol (Lee et al. 2014). Syngas is used as an iron-based or
cobalt-based impetus in a Fischer-Tropsch Reactor (FTR) (Yao 2012).
The resultant engineered petroleum (i.e. syncrude), prepared in oil refineries, is translated
from power-ware into fluid conveying powers and compound co-items. The full-scale FTR
innovation at present is used to make fluid conveying powers from coal (Cao et al. 2008;
Saeidi et al. 2014). On the other hand, substances have sought after MSW gasification
throughout the most recent years (Pytlar 2010; Arena 2012; USDE 2019). The gasification of
a few MSW components have been exhibited tentatively (Gai and Dong 2012), yet never has
it been joined with FTR innovation for a business’ application. Despite the fact that
thoroughly gasification and FTR are restricted, numerous partial combustion styles reproduce
the substance responses inside gasifiers and FTR. Thermodynamic harmony styles can
foresee syngas yield and creation from gasifiers (Pressley 2013; Shabbar and Janajreh 2013;
Vera et al. 2013; Ayub et al. 2020; Marcantonio et al. 2020).
FOOD-WASTE CONVERSION TO HYDROGEN FUEL TECHNOLOGY
Food (nourishment) waste (FW) is a decent well-spring of hydrogen fuel, as it is a reach
in natural issues that disintegrate to create required fuel, which discovers applications in
enterprises in the regions of warming and bubbling. In a lab-scale reactor, it is said to produce
a high throughput of 4.9 mol H2/mol hexoseadded (Tawfik et. al. 2011). These energy yield
transformations from H2 production were surveyed to be 1,724 kWh/ton of FW. Be that as it
may, in a full-scale plant, H2 production fundamentally diminished to 0.5 mol H2/mol
hexoseadded (Kim et al. 2010) with an energy transformation efficiency of 2.3% for the FW to
H2, which brought about a total energy yield of 12.5 kWh/ton of FW. Some pilot-scale
considers the H2 yields being 0.29 m3/kg VSadded and 2.1 mol H2/g COD (Wang et al. 2010;
Thi et al. 2016).
Nonetheless, the cost of hydrogen yield amongst laboratory and constant reactors/pilot
scale will vary. The total energy transformation by maturing FW for H2 was additionally
anticipated at a low rate because of the vacillations in H2 production, filtration, storage,
conveyance, and change efficiency (Kiran et al. 2014). Moreover, some essential indicators
prompt streamline hydrogen yield, for example, biomolecule, water-driven maintenance time,
reactor compose, pH, and temperature. Furthermore, in handy utilizations of aging FW for H2,
some basic issues may be confronted, for example, substrate stacking stun, which may bring
about checked acido-beginning (Sen et al. 2016; Thi 2016).
The physical and substance attributes of FW, specialized arrangement, and the pre-
treatment forms are key factors of aging for production of methane gas (CH4) (Molino et al.
2013; Kondusamy and Kalamdhad 2014; Zhang et al. 2014). One-phase or one-stage process
for methane production is very much utilized than two-arranged in full-scale applications (Thi
et al. 2016). Two-organized frameworks contain a hyper-thermophilic reactor for hydrogen
and another mesophilic, thermophilic, or hyper-thermophilic reactor for methane. Be that as it
may, two-stage anaerobic processing is accounted for to accomplish higher general efficiency
Scientific and Technical Perspectives of Waste-to-Energy Conversion
199
and is more profitable than one-arranged framework in treating FW for bio-energy
(Elbeshbishy and Nakhla 2011; Thi et al. 2016).
NATURAL RESOURCES AND WASTE-CONVERSION TECHNOLOGY
Age of power from waste was spearheaded in Denmark and other Scandinavian countries
(Sweden, Norway, and Finland) for region warming, because of their chilly climate. For
instance, the consolidated warmth and energy plants in Denmark needed another sort of
heater for scale-up coherence. Hence the steam boundaries are regularly 40 bar, 400 ℃ as of
now since 2000 (Ham and Lee 2017; Edo 2021).
As per the report issued by the Ministry of the Environment of Japan in 2012, the
development regards the sheltered and resonance metropolitan unproductive cremation in
scale-up coherence control age is produced (MEJ 2012; Ham and Lee 2017). Previously,
they need component in positioning unproductive cremation plants, as being hostile to
contamination control, which brought about a huge redesigning of power offices from this
point of view in Japan. Be that as it may, in context of energy recovery, numerous plants
presently develop exceedingly productive power age offices with lengthy working being, as
required by GHGs emanations’ weight. Increasing the inversion and steam weight that
controls age, which brings about high efficiency, is required. While requesting high inversion
and high weight boilers, the higher energy age effectiveness can be accomplished.
Mechanical necessities for developments in waste-to-energy technologies are portrayed in
Table 1.
Table 1. Technological requisites and improvement effects
for high-efficiency power generation (after MEJ 2012; Ham and Lee 2017)
Objective
Technological Requisites
Improvement
Effects
Conditions for Improvement
Effects’ Calculation
Enhancement
on heat recovery
Lowered temperature
economizer
Lowered combustion air ratio
Lower temperature catalytic
desulfurization
High-efficient dry exhaust
gas scrubber
1%
0.5%
1%–1.5%
3%
Exhaust gas temperature at boiling
exist 250 ℃ →190 ℃
MSW 300 t/d
Combustion air ratio 1.4 → 1.8
Temperature at entrance
210 ℃ →180 ℃ (non-reheating)
High-efficient dry scrubber
Valid usage
of steam
No flue gas heating
Wastewater treatment
0.4%
1%
Conditions for flue gas heating
5 ℃, 60% → No restrain
Temperature at boiler exhaust
250 ℃ →190 ℃
Enhancement
of steam
High temperature, high
pressure boiler
Extraction turbine
1.5%–2.5%
0.5%
3 MPaG x 300 ℃ → 4 MPaG x 400 ℃
Main turbine → Extraction turbine
Hilmi S. Salem, Yohannes Yihdego and Musa Yahaya Pudza
200
Different innovative requirements are broadly connected to cremation office to expand
the power age efficiency (Tabata 2013; Ham and Lee 2017). Relies upon the goal of
modification, different necessities can be connected. These innovative options can, likewise,
be embraced to Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF) control plants for expanding the energy recovery
efficiency too. In light of this high-effective WtE knowledge, there is additionally the
development along Japan expanding the power recuperation. In 2009, around 80% of the total
produced MSW were dealt with by burning (US EPA 2010b). Among them, just 24.5% of
plants in Japan performed power recuperation and use for produced warm was additionally
scarcely executed. Since a large portion of the WtE plants introduced in Japan are small-scale
plants, they just go for MSW’s treatment. Along these lines, the thought processes in energy
recovery were feeble. Be that as it may, balancing on worldwide changes, concentrating on
energy recovery is the fundamental idea for the creating WtE technologies (Tabata 2013;
Ham and Lee 2017).
Resource Recovery with Examples from Various Regions of the World
According to US EPA (2021), municipal solid waste’s landfills are the third largest
source of human-related emissions of methane in the USA, accounting for about 15.1% of
these emissions in 2019 (Figure 3). Methane emissions from MSW’s landfills in 2019 were
roughly equivalent to GHGs from more than 21.6 million passenger cars driven for one year,
or CO2 emissions from nearly 12 million homes from one-year energy use (US EPA 2021).
Accordingly, methane emissions from MSW’s landfills represent a missed opportunity to
capture and use, as a great and major energy source.
Source: US EPA 2021.
Figure 3. Sources and percentages of methane emissions in the USA for the year 2019.
Among various accessible MSW’s treatment alternatives are the WtE approach and
technologies that give favorable circumstances of productive management of waste, and of
creating power in environmentally and economically achievable manners (Rajendran et al.
Scientific and Technical Perspectives of Waste-to-Energy Conversion
201
2014; Rajaeifar et al. 2015; Malinauskaite et al. 2017; Rajaeifar et al. 2017). The WtE
approach and technologies ought to be actualized as a piece of a coordinated and efficient
waste management tool through the Integrated Solid Waste Management’s (ISWM)
framework, with a specific end-goal to accomplish an exhaustive reuse of the substance and
power. Such settings, landfill gas (LFG) recuperation, anaerobic absorption (AA), cremation,
gasification, and pyrolysis, have pulled in a lot of consideration. Since utilizing LFG recovery
is a settled innovation and is generally utilized worldwide, late examinations are for the most
part centered around enhancement of power age, surveying capability of utilizing LFG
recovery in current landfills, and additionally assessing the economic and environmental
impacts of this procedure in various waste-management frameworks (Chakraborty et al. 2013;
Ahmed et al. 2015; Aydi et al. 2015; Scarlat et al. 2015; Tan et al. 2015; Broun and Sattler
2016; Friedrich and Trois 2016; Islam 2016; Peerapong and Limmeechokchai 2016; US EPA
2021).
Various researchers think about having been directed on various parts of power age, e.g.
procedure effectiveness and advancement (Mao et al. 2015; Budzianowski 2016; Fernández-
González et al. 2017), surveying the capability of power age utilizing LFG (Dos Santos et al.
2016; Kelebe and Olorunnisola 2016; Kumaran et al. 2016; Moreda 2016; Rios and
Kaltschmitt 2016; Sowunmi et al. 2016), approach assessments (Binkley et al. 2013; Edwards
et al. 2015; Hjalmarsson 2015; Shane et al. 2016), economic and techno-economic
investigations (Rajendran et al. 2014; Zaman and Reynolds 2015; Budzianowski 2016; Shane
et al. 2016), environmental effectivity assessment (Adams et al. 2015; Arafat et al. 2015; Jin
et al. 2015; Rajaeifar et al. 2015; Woon et al. 2016), and feasibility and potential (Dos Santos
et al. 2016; Halder et al. 2016; Intharathirat and Salam 2016; Kelebe and Olorunnisola 2016;
Moreda 2016; Shane et al. 2016; Sowunmi et al. 2016).
As indicated by Yechiel and Shevah (2016), the commercial advantages of changing over
LFG to power were exhibited utilizing a Line Programmed Display (LPD). The outcomes
demonstrated at the execution of irregular energy management, which the LFG energy was
created and provided at crest stack hours, could offer fundamentally high profit returns that
are contrasted with constant energy age. Additionally, the likewise contended that the net
advantages of power age, utilizing LFG recuperation, can be additionally enhanced along
improvement approaches, for example, LPD. The Yechiel and Shevah’s (2016) study would
have been more indisputable in the event that they had utilized multi-target advancement
models for WtE enhancement, so as, at the same time, to focus on financial and
environmental issues. In addition, top-to-bottom correlation of environmental effects between
power age, utilizing LFG and methane recuperation courses (warming, hydrogen or methanol
manufacturing motive), would have, likewise, enhanced the unwavering quality of the
outcomes introduced by Yechiel and Shevah (2016).
Fazeli et al. (2016) investigated the present position of unproductive management in
Malaysia and dissected the livelihood of assurance WtE technologies. These features emerged
despite the fact that the Malaysian government has been striving to redesign the existing
landfills. However, additional efforts must be made, keeping in mind the ultimate goal of
implementing LFG recovery. This appears like a prudent system for other developing
countries, whose legislatures are additionally endeavoring to enhance landfills’ standards.
Fazeli et al. (2016) additionally contended that power age, utilizing LFG, would be of
extraordinary enthusiasm for Malaysia, because of less time and lower speculation needed in
burning, gasification, and pyrolysis. One noteworthy disadvantage of the Fazeli et al. (2016)
Hilmi S. Salem, Yohannes Yihdego and Musa Yahaya Pudza
202
achievements was the absence of a livelihood evaluation (environmental/economic/social)
and a careful correlation together with the suggested subsequently technologies in Malaysia.
In addition, the decisions should have been the best intrigue in the event that they had
clarified the potential of the energy age, using all the proposed technologies. Natural
partitioning, however, makes up an unusual portion of MSW and can be changed into
elements that include degradation (e.g., compost or biogas) along robust anaerobic bio-forms.
Biogas can provide more focal points, containing 50%–70% methane as a sustainable energy
source, especially for the energy age (Rajendran et al. 2014).
The amount of the MSW generated in the West Bank of the Occupied Palestinian
Territories (OPT) is estimated at around 1.4 million tons per year, or, in other words, it is 0.94
kg/ca/d (GIZ 2014). This means that a household, for example, of 5 members generates
around 1,000 kg per month, representing a large amount of waste, whereas less than 0.5% of
it is recycled and less than 0.5% of it is composted (GIZ 2014). The Hebron and Bethlehem
Governorates, which are home for more than one million people in the West Bank of OPT,
create around 500 tons of waste per day (World Bank 2013). Its vast majority is discarded in
unsanitary dumps, illicitly copied, or dumped outside. Disposal methods are mainly
landfilling and dumping (random or controlled), whereas it is estimated that about 30%–35%
of municipal waste is illegally dumped and 65%–70% is disposed in one of the six
operational landfills existing in the OPT (Thöni and Matar 2019).
These landfills in the OPT face the risk of over-capacity in the short term, due to land
restrictions, low primary separation, and increasing trend in waste quantities. The Joint
Services Council for Hebron and Bethlehem was set up to center around giving clean last
transfer administrations and raise open mindfulness. Ouda (2013) surveyed the potential
environmental and economic advantage of a WtE office in the Gaza Strip on the setting of
two situations: Mass Burn with Reprocess up to the year 2035. Ouda’s (2013) investigations
demonstrated a possibility to produce roughly 77.1 MWh of power in light of a Mass Burn
situation, and around 4.7 MWh of power in view of a Mass Burn with Recycling situation.
These qualities are around 10.3% and 0.63%, separately, of the anticipated pinnacle power
demand of 751 MWh in 2035.
Jordan, as another example on MSW, currently generates an estimated 2.7 million tons of
MSW per year. In 2034 it is estimated to reach 5.2 million tons, whereas organic waste (bio-
waste) represents the biggest share of MSW, which is about 60% (EC 2017). The MSW
delivered every year in Jordan can offer the most astounding biogas manufacture prospective
with an offer 35.18%, whereas contrasted and alternate biomass feedstock are considered i.e.,
horticultural deposits and creature fertilizers (Al-Hamamre et al. 2017). In addition, the offer
of MSW in power production (by coordinate burning of the created biogas) in Jordan was
evaluated at 40% (Al-Hamamre et al. 2017). Be that as it may, Al-Hamamre et al. (2017) did
not investigate the habitat or financial advantages of utilizing these feedstocks as well-spring
of power procedure, which is a basic imperative building up sustainable power source
situations.
Ouda et al. (2016) explored the worldwide status of WtE technologies with an
accentuation on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), a contextual analysis on the unwanted-
administration openings in the KSA, utilizing double situations, which are: 1) Incineration;
and 2) Recycle inferred fuel alongside bio-methanation for the period of 2012–2035. Ouda et
al. (2016) guaranteed that cremation innovation can offer inexhaustible power moderately
scale-up effectiveness and scale-down executional cost in the KSA. Be that as it may, there
Scientific and Technical Perspectives of Waste-to-Energy Conversion
203
are constraints on utilizing this innovation in the KSA, e.g., requirement for therapy of air-
borne and water-borne poisons, and additionally the need of fiery remains treatment. Ouda et
al. (2016) findings would have been more indisputable in the event that they had utilized
more exhaustive examinations, keeping in mind the end-goal to choose the best situation, i.e.,
LCA, financial and techno-economic examinations.
In an audit article, Edwards et al. (2015) similarly examined the impacts of administrative
strategies in advancing anaerobic absorption (AA) utilization and advancement in five
countries with the most elevated number of AA plants; i.e., Australia, Denmark, Germany,
the UK, and the USA. The examinations recognized are environmental alter, power, security,
provincial advancement, unproductive administration, energy recuperation approaches as the
main attribute for AA utilization and improvement (Edwards et al. 2015).
As a standout amongst the best methodologies for synchronous diminishment of the
number of unwanted (particularly cumbersome) and power recuperation unwanted cremation
would, likewise, help with the lessening of GHGs outflows (Tsai 2016). These principle
favorable circumstances of unwanted burning have prompted a broad execution of this
procedure around the globe, while its distinctive angles include: innovative advancements
(Fellner et al. 2015; Jensen et al. 2015; Martin et al. 2015; Funari et al. 2016; Goh et al.
2016), evaluating the capability of power age utilizing burning (Scarlat et al. 2015; Tan et al.
2015; Baran et al. 2016; Ouda and Cekirge (2014); Ouda et al. 2016; Rajaeifar et al. 2017),
economic and techno-economic investigations (Tan et al. 2015; Anderson et al. 2016), and
environmental effect assessment (Di Maria and Micale 2015; Tan et al. 2015; Jones and
Harrison 2016; Havukainen et al. 2017) have been widely explored.
Tsai (2016) explored the efficiency of intensity age in Taiwanese burning force plants.
The outcomes acquired featured that regardless of the income of USD 154 million achieved
by power age cremation plants, the power’s effectiveness in the plants are generally little,,
because of warmth release in the air (i.e., absence of effective warmth recuperation). In like
manner, the need to abuse warmth power delivered from MSW in the cremation plants by
methods for enhancing the boilers’ warmth trade effectively, by receiving locale warming and
cooling frameworks, and also by aggressive valuing the warm acquired from MSW burning
plants.
Substantially and efficient examination will, likewise, looking at the financial and
techno-economic parts of warming and chilling frameworks. Despite the fact that the quantity
of research thinks about on WtE burning has expanded relentlessly since 2009 (Wang et al.
2016), some countries have less commitment to these examinations, because of the absence
of or less accessibility of cremation foundations in these countries. Truth be told, the
utilization of WtE cremation technologies in these countries is for the most part looked
with numerous difficulties, e.g., mechanical and economic restrictions, the need of further
emanations’ medications (e.g., air outflows, cinder, and so forth), existing minimal effort
waste treatment’s alternatives, and absence of long haul strategies and genuine cutting
edge dreams. Consequently, much exertion is as yet required with a specific end-goal to
help universal joint efforts in WtE burning, e.g., innovation exchange, likewise, fundamental
to enhance arrangement more effort in the progress of these countries to long haul
introduction.
Notwithstanding the burning innovation, pyrolysis, and gasification are additionally the
other primary accessible thermo-synthetic change forms, which could be joined with alternate
medicines, e.g., liquefying, plasma, refining, and so forth (Luz et al. 2015; Panepinto et al.
Hilmi S. Salem, Yohannes Yihdego and Musa Yahaya Pudza
204
2015a; Panepinto et al. 2015b). Despite the fact that these technologies are settled in the
petro-synthetic and power businesses, and also fuel operation, for example, cooking gas for a
long time, its quantity is expensive, and pyrolysis plants are extremely restricted. In this
manner, examine endeavors are still on-going to additionally embrace these technologies with
MSW at business scale. These examinations are centered around the primary parts of
pyrolysis and gasification, e.g., mechanical improvements (Asadullah 2014; Shareefdeen et
al. 2015; Zhou et al. 2015), evaluating the capability of power age utilizing these procedures
(Das and Hoque 2014), economic and techno-economic assessments (Kivumbi et al. 2015;
Luz et al. 2015), and LCA (Evangelisti et al. 2015; Panepinto et al. 2015a; Panepinto et al.
2015b; Wang et al. 2016; Al-Fadhli 2016).
In an audit contemplate, Asadullah (2014) extensively talked about the coordination and
mechanical difficulties looked by business gasification control plants from feedstock
accumulation to power age. The closure worn denoted the gasification of raw materials and
gas cleaning phase as the difficult side in ordinary business gasification forms. In accordance
with, Asadullah (2014) presumed the advancement of up-order or down-order gasifies, and in
addition visible and reactant-division strategies business reasons for existing are key factors
to enhance the effectiveness of utilizing raw materials. Regarding the inventive commonsense
investigation, Zhou et al. (2015) explored the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons’ (BAHs)
development. However, the pyrolysis of nine diverse MSW divisions include xylan, cellulose,
lignin, gelatin, starch, polyethylene (PE), polystyrene (PS), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and
polyethylene terephthalate (PET). The sum and component of PAHs discharged through the
pyrolysis of various portions of MSW, and additionally the measure of the gas and strong
buildups created could be instrumental in choosing appropriate raw materials for the pyrolysis
forms.
Evangelisti et al. (2015) analyzed the habitat effects of three double-phase progressed
WtE knowledge combine with native MSW medicines, including: 1) Land-loading with LFG
recuperation; and 2) Incineration. Both are with power age. The three progressed MSW
medicines are: 1) Gasification with plasma gas cleanup; 2) Hasten pyrolysis and ignition; and
3) Gasification with syngas burning. Evangelisti et al. (2015) inferred that, notwithstanding
the voltaic effectiveness of energy plants, distinctions in the idea of the treatment included
(i.e., thermoschemical versus organic), and in addition the waste preparing discharged
double-phase knowledge (metal recuperation in the gasification with plasma gas cleanup
versus cremation) influenced the habitat weights thought about situations. By and large, No. 1
was chosen as a situation, focusing to be utilized a benchmark for growing high proficiency
WtE technologies later on (Evangelisti et al. 2015).
ADVANCES IN THERMAL TECHNOLOGIES
Advanced thermo-compound treatment (TCT) strategies, such as pyrolysis, have lately
gotten consideration, due to the various operational and environmental points of interest, as
worldwide power wants unsteady fuel advertise. Pyrolysis is characterized by a procedure of
warm corruption on dormant climates of lengthy chain natural substance, happening with the
nearness of an impetus (synergist pyrolysis) or without warm process (Al-Salem et al. 2017).
The biggest strong waste-to-energy frameworks in task today are immediate ignition
Scientific and Technical Perspectives of Waste-to-Energy Conversion
205
metropolitan waste’s (MSW) incinerators, with limits in the scope of 1,000–3,000 ton of
waste every day.
Rather than utilizing the warmth discharged to raise steam, in WtE by Advanced
Thermal Technologies frameworks, is first changed over into vaporous or fluid fills and, in
pyrolysis frameworks, somewhat to roast. The produced volatiles, gases, and vaporized
fluids can be utilized as a part of productive inside burning motors (or Internal Combustion
Engines – ICEs), ignition turbines or, later on, in energy components; none of which can
straightforwardly utilize strong fills. In the previous centuries, vehicles and ship
advancements have make ICEs and gas turbines (GTs) to abnormal amounts of proficiency.
Moreover, with the utilization of present-day high inversion GTs in natural gas-
fired combined cycle’s frameworks, the warmth of the fumes gases can be utilized with
warmth recuperating vigor generator (or Heat Recovery Steam Generator – HRSG) to
drive a steam turbine. On the other hand, the HRSG can give steam to warming structures
or modern utilizations of steam. These joined warmth and power frameworks as of now
make the most productive utilization of the first strong fuel energy (Green and Zimmerman
2013).
In the event that one considers the US’ overwhelming reliance on outside well-springs of
fluid and vaporous fills, the most difficult specialized issue confronting the US today ought to
be perceived as the improvement and execution of effective methods for changing over the
bounteous local strong powers into more helpful fluid and vaporous energizes. In perspective
of the assorted variety of feedstock spoke to in agrarian, city, and institutional waste, aside
from the minor constituents, (for example, sulfur and nitrogen), the cellulosic feed writes are
mind boggling blends of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, for example, ‘C6H10O5’ that may fill
in as the agent cellulosic monomer. Hydrocarbon (HC) plastics, for example, polyethylene
and polyolefins, are intensely spoken to in numerous strong waste streams. Hence, one may
utilize C2H4 as illustrative of the monomers in the plastic segment of MSW or cannot inferred
energizes. Polyethylene pyrolysis items are commanded by C2–C4 olefins, acetylenes, and
different HCs and at higher temperatures by H2 and in addition aromatics and polynuclear
aromatics. On a for each unit weight-premise, everything, except H2, has net warming
qualities in the range 18–23 MBtu/lb, like oil, while H2 has a gross warming estimation of 61
MBtu/lb. On a for every unit volume-premise, polyethylene pyrolysis items have net warming
quality, going from 1 to 5 MBtu/cft, while H2 is 0.325 MBtu/cft = 325 Btu/cft (Green and
Zimmerman 2013).
Since flammable gas is ordinarily around 1 MBtu/cft, it can be normal that the
pyrogas from polyethylene to have a gross warming worth tantamount or more prominent
than that of petroleum gas, and considerably more noteworthy than that of cellulosic
pyrogas. In outline, since cellulosic feedstock is as of now oxygenated contrasted and
unadulterated HC plastics, its pyrogas, syngas, and maker gas will all have impressively
bring down warming qualities than the relating gases from HC raw materials. From the
perspective of expanding the higher heating values of determined gas, the pyro-gasification
scores superior to anything oxygen blown partial combustion’s (OBPC) gasification, and
both of which score much superior to anything air blown partial combustion’s (ABPC)
gasification. Additionally, pyrolysis leaves a greater amount of strong buildups in singe fiery
remains frame than ABPC’s gasification or OBPC’s gasification (Green and Zimmerman
2013).
Hilmi S. Salem, Yohannes Yihdego and Musa Yahaya Pudza
206
DISCUSSION
This paper is gone for exhaustively looking into and surveying power age possibilities
from municipal solid waste (MSW), utilizing an incorporated waste management’s
framework, combined with three unique technologies: anaerobic absorption, cremation, and
pyrolysis-gasification. The power age from MSW could be a promising methodology,
particularly in decreasing the Earth-wide temperature boost commitment of fossil–arranged
power age. Expelling plastics from MSW, by means of a reuse strategy, will expand
habitat advantages of Fischer-Tropsch Reactor (FTR) energizes to the detriment of fuel yield.
Since reuse filaments will deliver good or bad net global warming potential (GWP),
contingent upon Life Cycle Assessment’s (LCA) framework limits that specific production
process, alter in strands’ reuse charge can bring about an expansion or abatement in GWP.
Parametric affectability investigation into air pressure and energy prerequisite, carbon force
of power, CO responding rate, amounts of FTR was utilized to measure their impacts on
GWP.
Since syngas pressure represents 68% of entire power utilization, if more pressure is
needed to get the fractional weights of CO and H2 into satisfactory extents, power is necessity
increment. The expanding pattern in the utilization of different items, and also different
practices engaged with the store network of these materials has brought about an assortment
of environmental contaminations, particularly greenhouse gases (GHGs) outflows. To
expand the pattern in utilization of materials has, likewise, prompted a tremendous i
ncrement in conclusive waste streams, particularly as municipal solid waste (MSW)
that made MSW’s management a critical habitat issue for governments and arrangement
creators.
Treating the soil of degradable natural material lessens waste materials transfer, while
delivering a valuable item and, thus, anaerobic assimilation is a promising course of methane
fuel. Waste usage to energy forms (WtE) is required in future in waste handling procedures.
Plastics and filaments are the pre-predominant refuse-inferred fuel’s parts, so varieties in each
of them are important. Plastics were discovered to have found higher syngas yields, in both
the ASPEN Plus and the spreadsheet display, and prompted scale-up FTR fuel yields than
filaments. ASPEN Plus is a software package designed to allow a user to build a process
model and then simulate the model without tedious calculations. Be that as it may, plastics
have a global warming potential (GWP) equal to traditional oil-based goods given their
inception as ordinary oil (Pressley 2013). More plastics’ substance brings more GWP, in light
of the fact that the higher burning emanations exceed the bigger balances got with more fuel
yields.
Investigations are needed to evaluate the impacts of MSW arrangements, particularly
plastics, on GWP. However, expelling plastics from MSW, by means of a reuse approach,
will expand the habitats advantages of FTR powers to the detriment of fuel yield. Since reuse
methods create good or bad results on GWP, which are contingent upon LCA framework
limits on a specific production procedure, changes in recycling rates can bring about an
expansion or diminishing in GWP.
Parametric affectability investigation of the air pressure energy prerequisite, carbon force
of power, CO responding rate, and number of FTR reactors need to be utilized, in order to
measure their impacts on GWP. The FTR yield is most influenced by the part of CO
Scientific and Technical Perspectives of Waste-to-Energy Conversion
207
responding, as well as by the quantity of FTR in the arrangement of a model. In any case,
when a part of CO responding per FTR is low, expanding the quantity of reactors will be
utilized to build all division of CO responding. Once a FTR framework is completely
running, modifying quantity of the reactors might be lower than changing the parts of the
FTR framework, in order to expand FTR fuel yield.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This paper investigates some scientific and technical perspectives of the municipal solid
waste (MSW), as it forms a tremendous burden on societies, economies, cultures, climates,
and the environment, keeping in mind that we have, worldwide, only one environment but
different societies, economies, cultures, and climates. At this point, the German proverb “Die
Natur braucht uns nicht – aber wir brauchen die Natur” (Nature does not need us – but we
need nature) may serve the goal of this paper in the best way possible.
The large amounts of MSW that are annually generated across the world, if not dealt
with properly at the global scale, will be a great risk to the nations of the world,
individually and collectively. As the consumption of foods and other peoples’ needs has
dramatically increased worldwide, some important approaches are discussed and
recommended in this paper, in order to protect public health, natural resources, climate, and
the environment.
One of the most effective and efficient techniques that this paper dealt with and
recommended is the approach of the waste-to-energy, by utilizing the MSW, using various
methods and technologies, which are, by the way, very expensive and have also side effects.
However, the most practical and easiest way to deal with MSW is still the change of the
peoples’ consumption habits around the world; primarily by reducing consumption which
will, automatically, lead to much lesser amounts of MSW. Otherwise, the cost for generating
huge amounts of MSW will be extremely high, financially, economically, socially,
environmentally, technically, and climate-wise, considering the fact that MSW and its
treatment tend to increase the Earth’s temperature.
DECLARATION
The authors declare the following: 1) Ethics approval: This paper was not published
before and is not considered for publication anywhere. 2) Consent to participate: No
individual participants or materials were involved in this study and, therefore, there is no need
to obtain informed consent; 3) Consent to Publish: All researched material presented herein
does not need consent to publish; 4) Authors’ contributions: the authors have fully
contributed to this research paper, with their full capacity, knowledge, experience, time, and
efforts; 5) Funding: The research presented in this paper did not receive any funding from any
individuals or organizations; 6) Conflict of interest: There is no potential conflict of interest
of any kind (financial or otherwise); 7) Availability of data and materials: All data and
materials used for the purpose of the paper are provided within; and 8) Ethical Standards
Compliance: The research presented in this paper does not include human and/or animal
participants.
Hilmi S. Salem, Yohannes Yihdego and Musa Yahaya Pudza
208
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors sincerely thank their friends and colleagues for their critical review of the
paper.
REFERENCES
Adams, P., Mezzullo, W., and McManus, M. (2015). Biomass sustainability criteria:
greenhouse gas accounting issues for biogas and biomethane facilities. Energy Policy, 87,
95–109.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421515300756.
Ahmed, S. I., Johari, A., Hashim, H., Lim, J. S., Jusoh, M., and Mat, R. (2015). Economic
and environmental evaluation of landfill gas utilisation: a multi-period optimisation
approach for low carbon regions. International Journal of Biodeterioration and
Biodegradation, 102, 191–201. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964
830515001250.
Al-Fadhli, A. A. (2016). Assessment of environmental burdens of the current disposal method
of municipal solid waste in Kuwait vs. waste-to-energy using life cycle assessment
(LCA). International Journal of Environmental Science and Development, 7(5), 389–
394. http://www.ijesd.org/vol7/806-CD0222.pdf.
Al-Hamamre, Z., Saidan, M., Hararah, M., Rawajfeh, K., Alkhasawneh, H. E., and Al-
Shannag, M. (2017). Wastes and biomass materials as sustainable-renewable energy
resources for Jordan. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 67, 295–314.
https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/20173019811.
Al-Salem, S. M., Antelava, A., Constantinou, A., Manos, G., and Dutta, A. (2017). A review
on thermal and catalytic pyrolysis of plastic solid waste (PSW). Journal of
Environmental Management, 197 (July), 177–198. https://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S0301479717302992?via%3Dihub.
Anderson, E., Addy, M., Ma, H., Chen, P., and Ruan, R. (2016). Economic screening of
renewable energy technologies: incineration, anaerobic digestion, and biodiesel as
applied to waste water scum. Bioresource Technology, 222, 202–209. https://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960852416313438
Arafat, H. A., and Jijakli, K. (2013). Modeling and comparative assessment of municipal
solid waste gasification for energy production. Waste Management, 33, 1704–1713.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X13002006?via%3Dihub
Arafat, H. A., Jijakli, K., and Ahsan, A. (2015). Environmental performance and energy
recovery potential of five processes for municipal solid waste treatment. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 105, 233–240. https://www.infona.pl/resource/bwmeta1.element.
elsevier-f542e827-512f-3faa-9090-dd0cce8f6433.
Arena, U. (2012). Process and technological aspects of municipal solid waste gasification. A
review. Waste Management, 32, 625–639. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
pii/S0956053X11004314.
Asadullah, M. (2014). Barriers of commercial power generation using biomass gasification
gas: a review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 29, 201–215. https://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136403211300614X .
Scientific and Technical Perspectives of Waste-to-Energy Conversion
209
Aydi, A., Abichou, T., Zairi, M., and Sdiri, A. (2015). Assessment of electrical generation
potential and viability of gas collection from fugitive emissions in a Tunisian landfill.
Energy Strategy Reviews, 8, 8–14. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S22
11467X15000280.
Ayub, H. M. U., Park, S. J., and Binns, M. (2020). Biomass to syngas: Modified
stoichiometric thermodynamic models for downdraft biomass gasification. Energies, 13,
5383, doi:10.3390/en13205383. https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/20/5383.
Baran, B., Mamis, M. S., and Alagoz, B. B. (2016). Utilization of energy from waste potential
in Turkey as distributed secondary renewable energy source. Renewable Energy, 90,
493–500. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148115305723.
Binkley, D., Harsh, S., Wolf, C. A., Safferman, S., and Kirk, D. (2013). Electricity purchase
agreements and distributed energy policies for anaerobic digesters. Energy Policy, 53,
341–52. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421512009500.
Broun, R., and Sattler, M. (2016). A comparison of greenhouse gas emissions and potential
electricity recovery from conventional and bioreactor landfills. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 112, 2664–2673. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S09596
52615013918.
Budzianowski, W. M. (2016). A review of potential innovations for production, conditioning
and utilization of biogas with multiple-criteria assessment. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 54, 1148–1171. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136
4032115011338.
Cao, Y., Gao, Z., Jin, J., Zhou, H., Cohron, M., Zhao, H., Liu, H., and Pan, W. (2008).
Synthesis gas production with an adjustable H2/CO ratio through the coal gasification
process: Effects of coal ranks and methane addition. Energy & Fuels, 22, 1720–1730.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef7005707.
Chakraborty, M., Sharma, C., Pandey, J., and Gupta, P. K. (2013). Assessment of energy
generation potentials of MSW in Delhi under different technological options. Energy
Conversion and Management, 75, 249–255. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S0196890413003397.
Das, B. K., and Hoque, S. (2014). Assessment of the potential of biomass gasification for
electricity generation in Bangladesh. Journal of Renewable Energy, 1–10. https://www.
hindawi.com/journals/jre/2014/429518/
Di Maria, F., and Micale., C. (2015). Life cycle analysis of incineration compared to
anaerobic digestion followed by composting for managing organic waste: the influence of
system components for an Italian district. The International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment, 20, 377–388. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11367-014-0833-z.
Dos Santos, I. F. S., Barros, R. M., and Tiago Filho, G. L. (2016). Electricity generation from
biogas of anaerobic wastewater treatment plants in Brazil: An assessment of feasibility
and potential. Journal of Cleaner Production, 126, 504–514. https://www.sciencedirect
.com/science/article/pii/S0959652616301408.
EC (European Commission). (2017). Initial Action Document for the Support to the
implementation of the National Solid Waste Management Strategy (NSWMS). ANNEX
1 of the Commission Decision on the Annual Action Programme 2016 (part 2) and
2017 (part 1) in favour of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. https://ec.europa.eu/
neighbourhood-
Hilmi S. Salem, Yohannes Yihdego and Musa Yahaya Pudza
210
enlargement/sites/default/files/c_2016_6629_jordan_aap_2016_part_2_aap_2017_part_1
_annex_1.pdf.
Edo, M. (2021). Waste-to-Energy and Social Acceptance: Copenhill Waste-to-Energy plant in
Copenhagen. IEA Bioenergy: Task 36, March 2021. IEA Bioenergy. Technology
Collaboration Programme, Material and Energy Valorisation of Waste in a Circular
Economy, Copenhagen, Denmark. https://www.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/
2021/03/T36_WtE-and-Social-Acceptance_Copnehhill-WtE-plant-in-Copenhagen.pdf.
Edwards, J., Othman, M., and Burn, S. (2015). A review of policy drivers and barriers for the
use of anaerobic digestion in Europe, the United States and Australia. Reneweable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 52, 815–828. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
pii/S1364032115007595.
Elbeshbishy, E., and Nakhla, G. (2011). Comparative study of the effect of ultrasonication on
the anaerobic biodegradability of food waste in single and two-stage systems.
Bioresource Technology, 102, 6449–6457. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
pii/S0960852411004391.
Evangelisti, S., Tagliaferri, C., Clift, R., Lettieri, P., Taylor, R., and Chapman, C. (2015). Life
cycle assessment of conventional and two-stage advanced energy-from-waste
technologies for municipal solid waste treatment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 100,
212–223. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652615002930.
Fazeli, A., Bakhtvar, A. F., Jahanshaloo, L., Sidik, N. A. C., and Bayat, A. E. (2016).
Malaysia’s stand on municipal solid waste conversion to energy: A review. Reneweable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 58, 1007–1016. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S1364032115016536
Fellner, J., Lederer, J., Purgar, A., Winterstetter, A., Rechberger, H., and Winter, F. (2015).
Evaluation of resource recovery from waste incineration residues – The case of zinc.
Waste Management, 37, 95–103. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S09
56053X14004942.
Fernández-González, J. M., Grindlay, A. L., Serrano-Bernardo, F., Rodríguez-Rojas, M. I.,
and Zamorano, M. (2017). Economic and environmental review of Waste-to-Energy
systems for municipal solid waste management in medium and small municipalities.
Journal of Waste Management, 67, 360–374. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S0956053X17303057.
Friedrich, E., and Trois, C. (2016). Current and future greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from
the management of municipal solid waste in the eThekwini municipality – South Africa.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 112(Part C), 4071–4083. https://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S0959652615006976.
Funari, V., Mäkinen, J., Salminen, J., Braga, R., Dinelli, E., and Revitzer, H. (2016). Metal
removal from municipal solid waste incineration fly ash: A comparison between
chemical leaching and bioleaching. Waste Management, 60, 456–945. https://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X16303713.
Gai, C., and Dong, Y. (2012). Experimental study on non-woody biomass gasification in
a downdraft gasifier. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 37, 4935–4944.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319911026838.
GIZ (German Cooperation – Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit).
(2014). Country report on the solid waste management in Occupied Palestinian
Scientific and Technical Perspectives of Waste-to-Energy Conversion
211
Territories. http://www.environment.pna.ps/ar/files/Country%20report%20on%20the%20
solid%20waste%20management.pdf.
Goh, C., Valavan, S., Low, T., and Tang, L. (2016). Effects of different surface modification
and contents on municipal solid waste incineration fly ash/epoxy composites. Waste
Management, 58, 309–315. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X
16302598?via%3Dihub.
Green, A. E. S., and Zimmerman, A. R. (2013). Solid Waste to Energy by Advanced Thermal
Technology in Encyclopedia of Environmental Management. New York: Taylor and
Francis. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9781466506749/chapters/10.1081%2FE-
EEE2-120052074.
Habib, Md. A., Ahmed, M. M., Aziz, M., Beg, M. R. A., and Hoque, Md. E. (2021).
Municipal solid waste management and waste-to-energy potential from Rajshahi City
Corporation in Bangladesh. Applied Sciences, 11, 3744. https://doi.org/10.3390/
app11093744 and https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/9/3744/
Halder, P., Paul, N., Joardder, M., and Khan, M. (2016). Feasibility analysis of implementing
anaerobic digestion as a potential energy source in Bangladesh. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 65, 124–134. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
pii/S1364032116303276/
Ham, G. Y., and Lee, G. H. (2017). Consideration of high-efficient Waste-to-Energy with
district energy for sustainable solid waste management in Korea. Energy Procedia, 116,
518–526. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610217323068/
Havukainen, J., Zhan, M., Dong, J., Liikanen, M., Deviatkin, I., Li, X., and Horttanainen, M.
(2017). Environmental impact assessment of municipal solid waste management
incorporating mechanical treatment of waste and incineration in Hangzhou, China.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 141, 453–461. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S0959652616314871/
Hjalmarsson, L. (2015). Biogas as a boundary object for policy integration – the case of
Stockholm. Journal of Cleaner Production, 98, 185–193. https://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S0959652614010841/
Intharathirat, R., and Salam, P. A. (2016). Valorization of MSW-to-energy in Thailand:
status, challenges and prospects. Waste Biomass-Valorization, 7(1), 31–57 https://link.
springer.com/article/10.1007/s12649-015-9422-z/
Islam, K. M. N. (2016). Municipal solid waste to energy generation in Bangladesh: possible
scenarios to generate renewable electricity in Dhaka and Chittagong City. Journal of
Reneweable Energy, Article ID 1712370, 16 pages. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/
jre/2016/1712370/
Islam, R. (2021). A landfill in Bangladesh is leaking huge quantities of methane. Build Back
Ever Better, May 5, 2021. Retrieved: September 19, 2021. https://www.bbeb.com/
post/102gx6e/a-landfill-in-bangladesh-is-leaking-huge-quantities-of-methane.
Jebaraj, S., and Iniyan, S. (2006). A review of energy models. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 10(4-August): 281–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2004.09.004 and
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364032104001261?via%3Dihub.
Jensen, P. E., Kirkelund, G. M., Pedersen, K. B., Dias-Ferreira, C., and Ottosen, L. M.
(2015). Electrodialytic upgrading of three different municipal solid waste incineration
residue types with focus on Cr, Pb, Zn, Mn, Mo, Sb, Se, V, Cl and SO4. Electrochem
Hilmi S. Salem, Yohannes Yihdego and Musa Yahaya Pudza
212
Acta, 181, 167–178. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013468615013
699.
Jin, Y., Chen, T., Chen, X., and Yu, Z. (2015). Life-cycle assessment of energy consumption
and environmental impact of an integrated food waste-based biogas plant. Applied
Energy, 151, 227–236. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261915
005206.
Jones, A. M., and Harrison, R. M. (2016). Emission of ultrafine particles from the
incineration of municipal solid waste: A review. Atmospheric Environment, 140, 519–
528. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231016304368.
Kaplan, P. O., DeCarolis, J., and Thorneloe, S. (2009). Is it better to burn or bury waste for
clean electricity generation? Environmental Science and Technology, 43, 1711–1717.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es802395e.
Kelebe, H. E., and Olorunnisola, A. (2016). Biogas as an alternative energy source and a
waste management strategy in Northern Ethiopia. Biofuels, 7(5): 479–487. https://www.
tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17597269.2016.1163211.
Kim, D. H., Kim, S. H., Kim, K. Y., and Shin, H. S. (2010). Experience of a pilot-scale
hydrogen producing anaerobic sequencing batch reactor (ASBR) treating food waste.
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 35(4), 1590–1594. https://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S0360319909019697.
Kiran, E. U., Trzcinski, A. P., Ng, W. J., and Liu, Y. (2014). Bioconversion of food waste to
energy. Fuel, 134, 389–399. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016236
114005365.
Kivumbi, B., K., Olwa, J., Martin, A., and Menya, E. (2015). Techno-economic assessment of
municipal solid waste gasification for electricity generation: a case study of Kampala
City, Uganda. Agricultural Engineering International: CIGR Journal, 17, 141–55.
http://www.cigrjournal.org/index.php/Ejounral/article/view/3363.
Kondusamy, D., and Kalamdhad, A. S. (2014). Pre-treatment and anaerobic digestion of food
waste for high rate methane production – A review. Journal of Environmental Chemical
Engineering, 2(3-September): 1821–1830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2014.07.024 and
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2213343714001663?via%3Dihub
Kumaran, P., Hephzibah, D., Sivasankari, R., Saifuddin, N., and Shamsuddin, A. H. (2016).
A review on industrial scale anaerobic digestion systems deployment in Malaysia:
opportunities and challenges. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 56, 929–940.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032115013362.
Lee, S., Speight, J. G., and Loyalka, S. K. (2014). Handbook of Alternative Fuel
Technologies. 2nd Ed., Boca Raton: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis. https://www.crcpress.
com/Handbook-of-Alternative-Fuel-Technologies/Lee-Speight-Loyalka/p/book/9781466
594562.
Levis, J. W., and Barlaz, M. A. (2011). Is biodegradability a desirable attribute for discarded
solid waste? Perspectives from a national landfill greenhouse gas inventory model.
Environmental Science and Technology, 45, 5470–5476. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/
10.1021/es200721s.
Luz, F. C, Rocha, M. H., Lora, E. E. S., Venturini, O. J., Andrade., R. V., Leme, M. M. V.,
and de Olmo, O. A. (2015). Techno-economic analysis of municipal solid waste
gasification for electricity generation in Brazil. Energy Conversion and Management,
103, 321–337. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196890415006226.
Scientific and Technical Perspectives of Waste-to-Energy Conversion
213
Malinauskaite, J., Jouhara, H., Czajczynska, D., Stanchev, P. Katsou, E., Rostkowski, P.,
Thorne, R. J., Colon, J., Ponsa, S., Al-Mansour, F., Anguilano, L., Krzyzynska, R.,
Lopez, J. C., Vlasopoulos, A., and Spencer, N. (2017). Municipal solid waste
management and waste-to-energy in the context of a circular economy and energy
recycling in Europe. Energy, 141(15-December): 2013–2044. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.energy.2017.11.128 and
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544217319862?via%3Dihub.
Mao, C., Feng, Y., Wang, X., and Ren, G. (2015). Review on research achievements of
biogas from anaerobic digestion. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 45, 540–
455. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032115001203.
Marcantonio, V., Ferrario, A. M., Carlo, A. D., Zotto, L. D., Monarca, D., and Bocci, E.
(2020). Biomass steam gasification: a comparison of syngas composition between a 1-D
MATLAB Kinetic Model and a 0-D Aspen Plus Quasi-Equilibrium Model. Computation,
8, 86; doi:10.3390/computation8040086. https://www.mdpi.com/2079-3197/8/4/86.
Martin, J. J. E., Koralewska, R., and Wohlleben, A. (2015). Advanced solutions in
combustion-based WtE technologies. Waste Management, 37, 147–156. https://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X1400381X.
McDonald, J. (2020). Curbing America’s Trash Production: Statistics and Solutions.
Dumpsters.Com Blog. Last updated: April 21, 2020. Retrieved: September 19, 2021.
https://www.dumpsters.com/blog/us-trash-production.
MEJ (Ministry of the Environment of Japan) (2012). Solid Waste Management Recycling
Technology of Japan. – Toward A Sustainable Society – Ministry of the Environment,
Tokyo, Japan. https://www.env.go.jp/en/recycle/smcs/attach/swmrt.pdf.
Molino, A., Nanna, F., Ding, Y., Bikson, B., and Braccio, G. (2013). Biomethane production
by anaerobic digestion of organic waste. Fuel, 103, 1003–1009. https://www.science
direct.com/science/article/pii/S001623611200631X
Moreda, I. L. (2016). The potential of biogas production in Uruguay. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 54, 1580–1591. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S1364032115011788
Ouda, O. K. M. (2013). Assessment of the environmental values of waste-to-energy in the
Gaza Strip. Current World Environment, 8(3), 355–364. http://www.cwejournal.org/
vol8no3/assessment-of-the-environmental-values-of-waste-to-energy-in-the-gaza-strip/
Ouda, O. K. M., and Cekirge, H. K. (2014). Potential environmental values of waste-to-
energy facilities in Saudi Arabia. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 39(11),
7525–7533. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13369-014-1311-4
Ouda, O. K. M., Raza, S. A., Nizami, A. S., Rehan, M., Al-Waked, R., and Korres, N. E.
(2016). Waste to energy potential: a case study of Saudi Arabia. Reneweable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 61, 328–340. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
pii/S1364032116300223
Panepinto, D., Blengini, G. A., and Genon, G. (2015a). Economic and environmental
comparison between two scenarios of waste management: MBT vs thermal treatment.
Resources, Conservation, and Recycling, 97, 16–23. https://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S0921344915000130.
Panepinto, D., Tedesco, V., Brizio, E., and Genon, G. (2015b). Environmental performances
and energy efficiency for MSW gasification treatment. Waste Biomass Valorization 6(1),
123–35. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12649-014-9322-7.
Hilmi S. Salem, Yohannes Yihdego and Musa Yahaya Pudza
214
Peerapong, P., and Limmeechokchai, B. (2016). Waste to electricity generation in Thailand:
technology, policy, generation cost, and incentives of investment. Engineering Journal,
20, 171–177. http://engj.org/index.php/ej/article/view/1112.
Pressley, P. N. (2013). Fuel Production from Municipal Solid Waste: A Life-Cycle
Assessment. A Master Thesis, Environmental Engineering, Graduate Faculty of North
Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA. https://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/
bitstream/handle/1840.16/8681/etd.pdf;sequence=2.
Pytlar, T. S. (2010). Status of existing biomass gasification and pyrolysis facilities in North
America. The 18th Annual North American Waste-to-Energy Conference. Orlando, FL,
USA, May 11–13, 2010. http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/proceeding
.aspx?articleid=1607042.
Rajaeifar, M. A., Tabatabaei, M., Ghanavati, H., Khoshnevisan, B., and Rafiee, S. (2015).
Comparative life cycle assessment of different municipal solid waste management
scenarios in Iran. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Review, 51, 886–898. https://www
.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032115006097
Rajaeifar, M. A., Hossein, G., Behrouz, B. D., Reinout, H., Mortaza, A., and Meisam, T.
(2017). Electricity generation and GHG emission reduction potentials through different
municipal solid waste management technologies: A comparative review. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 79, 414–439. https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/rensus/v79y2017
icp414-439.html.
Rajendran, K., Kankanala, H. R., Martinsson, R., and Taherzadeh., M. J. (2014). Uncertainty
over techno-economic potentials of biogas from municipal solid waste (MSW): A case
study on an industrial process. Applied Energy, 125, 84–92. https://www.sciencedirect
.com/science/article/pii/S0306261914002724.
Rios, M., and Kaltschmitt, M. (2016). Electricity generation potential from biogas produced
from organic waste in Mexico. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 54, 384–
395. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032115011120.
Saeidi, S., Amiri, M. T., Amin, N. A. S., and Rahimpour, M. R. (2014). Progress in reactors
for high-temperature Fischer–Tropsch Process: Determination place of intensifier reactor
perspective. International Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering, 12(1): 639–664.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/207359331.pdf .
Sala, S., Reale, F., Cristobal-Garcia, J., Marelli, L., and Pant, R. (2016). Life cycle
assessment for the impact assessment of policies. Life thinking and assessment in the
European policies and for evaluating policy options. JRC Technical Reports, European
Commission. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Serenella-Sala/publication/312384681
_Life_cycle_assessment_for_the_impact_assessment_of_policies/links/587cf57908aed38
26aefffd4/Life-cycle-assessment-for-the-impact-assessment-of-policies.pdf.
Scarlat, N., Motola, V., Dallemand, J., Monforti-Ferrario, F., and Mofor, L. (2015).
Evaluation of energy potential of municipal solid waste from African urban areas.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 50, 1269–1286. https://www.sciencedirect
.com/science/article/pii/S1364032115005389.
Sen, B., Aravind, J., Kanmani, K., and Lay, C. H. (2016). State of the art and future concept
of food waste fermentation to bioenergy. Reneable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 53,
547–557. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032115009296.
Scientific and Technical Perspectives of Waste-to-Energy Conversion
215
Shabbar, S., and Janajreh, I. (2013). Thermodynamic equilibrium analysis of coal gasification
using Gibbs energy minimization method. Energy Converssion and Management 65,
755–763. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196890412001501.
Shane, A., Gheewala, S. H., and Kafwembe, Y. (2016). Urban commercial biogas power
plant model for Zambian towns. Renewable Energy, 103, 1–14. https://www.science
direct.com/science/article/pii/S0960148116309806.
Shareefdeen, Z., Elkamel, A., and Tse, S. (2015). Review of current technologies used
in municipal solid waste-to-energy facilities in Canada. Clean Technologies and
Environmental Policy, 17(7), 1837–1846. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10
098-015-0904-2.
Sowunmi, A., Mamone, R. M., Bastidas-Oyanedel, J.-R., and Schmidt, J. E. (2016). Biogas
potential for electricity generation in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi. Biomass Conversion and
Biorefinary, 6(1), 39–47. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13399-015-0182-6.
Subramanian, A. S. R., Gundersen, T., and Adams, T. A. (2018). Modeling and Simulation of
Energy Systems: A Review. Processes, Processes, 6, 238; doi:10.3390/pr6120238.
https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9717/6/12/238.
Tabata, T. (2013). Waste-to-energy incineration plants as greenhouse gas reducers: A case
study of seven Japanese metropolises. Waste Management & Research, 31(11), 1110–
1117. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0734242X13502385.
Tan, S. T., Ho, W. S., Hashim, H., Lee, C. T., Taib, M. R., and Ho, C. S. (2015). Energy,
economic and environmental (3E) analysis of waste-to-energy (WTE) strategies for
municipal solid waste (MSW) management in Malaysia. Energy Conversion and
Management, 102, 111–120. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S01968
90415001156.
Tawfik, A., Salem, A., and El-Qelish, M. (2011). Two stage anaerobic baffled reactor for bio-
hydrogen production from municipal food waste. Bioresource Technology, 102(18),
8723–8726. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960852411003701.
Thi, N. B. D., Lin, C. Y., and Komar, G. (2016). Waste-to-wealth for valorization of food
waste to hydrogen and methane towards creating a sustainable ideal source of bioenergy.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 122, 29–41. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S0959652616001797.
Thöni, V., and Matar, S. K. H. (2019). Solid Waste Management in the Occupied Palestinian
Territory: West Bank including East Jerusalem & Gaza Strip. Overview Report, CESVI.
September 2019. https://www.cesvi.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/SWM-in-Palestine-
report-Thoni-and-Matar-2019_compressed-1.pdf
Tiseo, I. (2020). Global Waste Generation - Statistics & Facts. Statista, November 26, 2020.
Retrieved: September 19, 2021. https://www.statista.com/topics/4983/waste-generation-
worldwide/.
Tsai, W-T. (2016). Analysis of municipal solid waste incineration plants for promoting power
generation efficiency in Taiwan. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management,
18(1), 393–398. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10163-014-0345-8.
UNCC (United Nations Climate Change). (2015). Adoption of the Paris Agreement. Proposal
by the President. Symbol: FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1. Paris Climate Change Conference
– November 2015, Session: COP 2, Versions: Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian,
Spanish. Date of Publication: December 12, 2015. Retrieved: September 19, 2021.
https://unfccc.int/documents/9064.
Hilmi S. Salem, Yohannes Yihdego and Musa Yahaya Pudza
216
USDE (United States Department of Energy). (2019). Waste-to-Energy from Municipal Solid
Waste. Report. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Washington, USA.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/08/f66/BETO--Waste-to-Energy-Report-
August--2019.pdf.
US EPA (United States’ Environmental Protection Agency). (2010a). Available and
Emerging Technologies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Industrual,
Commercial, and Institutional Boilers. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-12/documents/iciboilers.pdf.
US EPA (United States’ Environmental Protection Agency). (2010b). Municipal Solid Waste
in the United States: 2009 Facts and Figures. United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Solid Waste (5306P), EPA530-R-10-012. December 2010. https://
archive.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/web/pdf/msw2009rpt.pdf.
US EPA (United States’ Environmental Protection Agency). (2021). Landfill Methane
Outreach Program (LMOP): Basic Information about Landfill Gas. Last updated: April
16, 2021. Retrieved: September 19, 2021. https://www.epa.gov/lmop/basic-information-
about-landfill-gas.
Vera, D., de Mena, B., Jurado, F., and Schories, G. (2013). Study of a downdraft gasifier and
gas engine fueled with olive oil industry wastes. Applied Thermal Engineering, 51, 119–
129. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359431112006242.
Wang, Y. H., Li, S. L., Chen, I. C., Tseng, I. C., and Cheng, S. S. (2010). A study of the
process control and hydrolytic characteristics in a thermophilic hydrogen fermentor fed
with starch-rich kitchen waste by using molecular-biological methods and amylase assay.
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 35(23), 13004–13012. https://www.science
direct.com/science/article/pii/S0360319910007615.
Wang, Y., Lai, N., Zuo, J., Chen, G., and Du, H. (2016). Characteristics and trends
of research on waste-to-energy incineration: A bibliometric analysis, 1999–2015.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 66, 95–104. https://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S1364032116303343.
Wikipedia (2021). List of countries by population (United Nations) (as for 1 July 2018). Last
edited on May 16, 2021. Retrieved: September 19, 2021. https://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_(United_Nations).
Woon, K. S., Lo, I. M. C., Chiu, S. L. H., and Yan, D. Y. S. (2016). Environmental
assessment of food waste valorization in producing biogas for various types of energy use
based on LCA approach. Waste Management, 50, 290–299. https://www.sciencedirect
.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X16300691 .
World Bank (2013). West Bank & Gaza: Solid Waste Management. Public-Private
Partnerships Briefs. World Bank Group. 96940. http://documents.worldbank.org/
curated/en/558191467999717075/West-Bank-and-Gaza-solid-waste-management
World Bank (2021). What A Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to
2050. The World Bank Group, Washington, DC, USA. https://datatopics.worldbank
.org/what-a-waste/trends_in_solid_waste_management.html.
Yao, Y. (2012). Fischer-Tropsch synthesis using CO2-containing syngas mixture over cobalt
and iron based catalysts. Wired Space, February 13, 2012, Retrieved: September 19,
2021. Based on the PhD Dissertation in Engineering and the Built Environment,
University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, 2011, 244 p. http://
hdl.handle.net/10539/11292 and http://wiredspace.wits.ac.za/handle/10539/11292 and
Scientific and Technical Perspectives of Waste-to-Energy Conversion
217
http://wiredspace.wits.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10539/11292/Thesis_Yali%20Yao.pdf?
sequence=2&isAllowed=y
Yechiel, A., and Shevah, Y. (2016). Optimization of energy generation using landfill biogas.
Journal of Energy Storage, 7, 93–98. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
pii/S2352152X16300603.
Zaman, A., and Reynolds, C. (2015). The economic and bio-energy production potential of
South Australian food waste using anaerobic digestion. Unmaking Waste 2015
Conference Proceedings, 22–24 May. Adelaide, South Australia. http://search.ror.unisa.
edu.au/media/researcharchive/open/9915968806601831/53113748590001831.
Zhang, C., Su, H., Baeyens, J., and Tan, T. (2014). Reviewing the anaerobic digestion of food
waste for biogas production. Reneweable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 38, 383–392.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032114003633.
Zhou, H., Wu, C., Onwudili, J. A, Meng, A., Zhang, Y., and Williams P. T. (2015).
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) formation from the pyrolysis of different
municipal solid waste fractions. Waste Management, 36, 136–146. https://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X1400436X.
