International Journal of Smart Grid and Clean Energy

A study on small-scale municipal solid waste management

practices and its impact on carbon emission and mitigation
cost
Faisal Sajjada, Gurleen Singh Chhokera, Gokul Sidarth Thirunavukkarasua,
Elmira Jameib, Mehdi Seyedmahmoudiana, Ben Horanc, Alex Stojcevskia
a
School of Software and Electrical Engineering, Swinburne University of Technology, VIC 3122, Victoria, Australia
b
College of Engineering and Science, Victoria University, VIC 3011, Victoria, Australia
c
School of Engineering, Deakin University, VIC 3216, Victoria, Australia

Abstract
Municipal solid waste management (MSWM) is arguably one of the most vital and challenging municipal services
offered by the city councils around the world. Proper and efficient management of municipal solid waste (MSW) is
vital for achieving sustainable development as the dilemmas associated with energy management, greenhouse gas
(GHG) emission, waste-to-energy (WTE) cycle, climate change and economy are addressed. Ineffective waste
management technique leads to adverse impacts on the environment, public health and lifestyle of future generations.
Motivating governmental organizations across the world to take proactive measures to mitigate waste management
techniques with less environmental impact and high financial return. A comparison study of five different MSWM
techniques based on cost-benefit analysis and mitigation cost breakdown is presented in this paper to identify the
most effective and efficient small-scale MSWM systems. The mitigation analysis utilizes the data obtained from the
literature to calculate the greenhouse gas reductions, current net and the carbon mitigation cost of each method
considering basic landfill technique as the baseline reference. Hybrid techniques like mechanical biological treatment
(MBT) in combination with WTE outperforms the other techniques with lowest carbon mitigation cost ($27.3/metric
tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) without carbon emanation rate (CER) and $43.4/ MTCO2e with CER)
and reduced GHG emission. Whereas the conventional WTE is ranked second with mitigation costs of $26.5/
MTCO2e without CER and $42.5/ MTCO2e with CER but this technique also offers the largest reductions in terms
of greenhouse gases (1.06 million tons/tons of municipal solid waste) which make it stand out from others. Based on
the results obtained from the study the economic and environmental impact caused by the usage of WTE or the
hybrid MBT in small-scale MSWM system is proven to be highly beneficial and the introduction of carbon credit
schemes reduces the carbon mitigation cost of each technique to a greater extent.

Keywords: Municipal solid waste management(MSWM), greenhouse gas (GHG) emission, mechanical biological
treatment (MBT), waste-to-energy (WTE), carbon mitigation cost, mitigation cost analysis

1. Introduction

Factors like rapidly increasing population, urbanization and industrialization directly influence the rise
of total MSW generation. In general, MSW refers to all chunks of wastes that include organic, glass,
metal, paper, cardboard, etc., from residential (homes, apartments), public (schools, hospitals) and
industrial areas of the city. According to the study conducted by the world bank’s waste management
thematic group [1], the current generation of MSW is about 70 million tons per year in South Asian
countries. By 2025, this figure is expected to triple to an approximate number of 200 million tons per year.
Management of MSW has become and will be a major challenge for local authorities considering these

* Manuscript received March 26, 2018; revised July 14, 2019.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 420 683 100; E-mail address: 101478776@student.swin.edu.au.
doi: 10.12720/sgce.8.6.670-679
 Faisal Sajjad et al.: A Study on Small-Scale Municipal Solid Waste Management Practices and … 671

staggering number, novel and innovative solutions to address this issue is evolving with technological
development. However, countries like Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand and Sir Lanka experience a lack of
resources/revenue to equip expensive technologies for managing solid waste due to the low gross
domestic product (GDP) and high density of population. Introduction of appropriate MSWM techniques
would effectively address the issue of improper waste management schemes is essential. According to the
report published by united nations environment programme (UNEP) [2], the composition of organic
waste in MSW is greater in developing countries compared to developed countries indicating the need of
effective waste management strategies in developing nations. Low calorific property of organic waste
emphasis the need for waste separation technology, mechanical treatment and biological treatment plants
[3]. Identification of the most suited MSWM technique depends on many economic and environmental
factors. In this manuscript, evaluation of five different waste management techniques namely: sanitary
landfills, sanitary landfills with collection and gas flaring, landfills with electricity generation, WTE and
mechanical and biological treatment (MBT) in combination with WTE is carried out by undertaking cost-
benefit analysis and mitigation cost breakdown which helps us identify the most suited/feasible solution
for small-scale MSWM system.

2. Municipal Solid Waste Management

Many legislative policies were framed based on the financial sustainability and feasibility of several
aspects of MSWM, like generation, collection, elimination, etc., [2]. In addition to the conventional solid
waste management practices, waste management strategies that include energy recovery were more
environmentally friendly and cost-effective. Collection and usage of landfill gas or flare in sanitary
landfills for electricity production and waste to energy systems are few of the MSWM techniques that are
transforming the ideology of waste management into a new realm. The energy produced by using these
waste management techniques are supplied to the industrial or domestic use, reducing the impact of fossil
fuels on the environment. Furthermore, recycling energy from landfills reduces greenhouse gas emissions
from conventional energy generation techniques and consist of high economic impact. Considering all
these factors, the need for finding an optimum solution which addresses the financial, environmental and
adaptability concerns of SWM is highlighted.
The global increase in the amount of municipal solid waste generated annually is influenced by the
factors associated with the growth in the economy, industrialization, population and standard of living [4].
Fig. 1. represents the region-wise split up on the per-capita value of region wise MSW generation from
which we can infer that the OECD countries in which Australia is a part off have an appreciable share [1].
Australia and New Zealand, in particular, have high per capita of MSW generated annually emphasizing
the need for a fully functional and effective MSWM system [1].

Fig. 1. Region wise per-capita of MSW generation (Kg/capita/day).

Understanding the composition of MSW is highly beneficial as it helps decision makers to plan a most
suited MSWM approach for the specific region. Table 1. indicated the region-wise split up of the
672 International Journal of Smart Grid and Clean Energy, vol. 8, no. 6, November 2019

composition of the MSW and Fig. 2. denotes the composition of the OECD countries indicating that the
need for an effective MSWM technique.

Fig. 2. The composition of MSW in OECD countries.

Lack of effective and sustainable waste management strategies leads to a wider scope of challenges
that must be addressed, identification of such prominent parameters is obtained from the extensive review
of literature undertaken in this study. The main challenges are categorized into three parts: institutional or
financial challenges, technical challenges and education challenges [5]. Improper policies to promote
SWM measures, lack proper funding, the absence of formal procedures and regulations are integrated into
the category of institutional or financial challenges [6]. The effectiveness of MSWM system depends on
the preference and interest of the governmental policies focused on addressing the management of
excessive increase in municipal waste [7]. The efficient waste collection is considered as one prime part
of waste management systems, based on the geographical location and availability of disposable landfills
areas. The collected waste is recycled using methods like compositing considering the relationship to the
time and regional characteristics [8]. Besides, the technical and financial challenges educating the
inhabitants of the city to better understand the advantages of MSWM system considering its financial and
environmental impact is essential [9].
Table 1. Region wise MSW composition
Region Organics Paper Plastics Glass Metal Others
AFR 57% 9% 13% 4% 4% 13%
EAP 62% 10% 13% 3% 2% 10%
LCA 47% 14% 8% 7% 5% 19%
SAR 50% 4% 7% 1% 1% 37%
MENA 61% 14% 7% 4% 4% 10%
LAC 54% 16% 12% 4% 2% 12%
OECD 27% 32% 11% 7% 6% 17%
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Europe and Central Asia region
(ECA), Latin America and the Caribbean region (LAC), Middle East and North Africa region(MENA),
East Asia and Pacific region (EAP), Africa region (AFR), South Asia region (SAR)

3. Methodology

Following the order of waste management hierarchy [10], five common waste management techniques
are considered for the mitigation study highlighted in the manuscript are explained in this section. The
most basic waste management method is the sanitary landfilling without any energy recovery which is
considered as the baseline reference and the other four techniques are used as the carbon mitigation
options in the study. Data used in the cost-benefit analysis and carbon mitigation breakdown are obtained
from inferences from previous studies from the literature. In the conventional landfilling technique, MSW
 Faisal Sajjad et al.: A Study on Small-Scale Municipal Solid Waste Management Practices and … 673

is generally disposed of in a standard sanitary landfilling area which has impacts like polluting the soil
and water resources, high GHG emission and wastage of huge areas occupied by wastage dumps. The
second technique, expressed in the study involves flaring and gas collection of sanitary landfilling. In this
method, the landfill gas will be collected and flared to reduce the direct GHG emissions. A more
advanced sanitary landfilling technique which includes energy recovery is considered as the third
technique. The landfill gas collected from the sanitary landfilling will be used to generate electricity.
Direct GHG emissions can be further reduced and sales of electricity generated to act as an income to the
system reducing the total operational cost. WTE is a technique which includes methodologies like moving
grate combustion chamber, air pollution control system, etc., After combustion of MSW, the metal
leftovers in the ash are recovered and recycled, whereas the rest ash goes to the sanitary landfilling.
Finally, the hybrid technique which uses an MBT plant along with a WTE system is considered as the
final mitigation option of the study. Mechanical treatment technologies in combination with biological
technologies are used to recycle a certain amount of materials. The slag from this process will go to a
WTE plant making it a prominent technique to be used which is also highlighted by the results obtained
from the study.

3.1. Cost-benefit analysis

The carbon mitigation cost of each technique expressed in this study is based on the cost of abatement
measures taken to ensure reduced GHG emission, operating costs and increased potential benefit. The
methodology used to calculate the overall cost of carbon mitigation is based on the principal idea
proposed by Ibrahim and Kennedy [11] for constructing marginal abatement cost curves of climatic
action. The cost of effectiveness of the mitigation measure is equal to the ratio of the net present cost and
avoided GHG emissions as expressed in equation 1 below.
(Dollars per MTCE reduction) = (Dollars per ton MSW) / (MTCE per ton MSW) (1)
The net present cost (NPC) is expressed as the difference between the mitigation measure and the
baseline value, where the value of the mitigation measure is calculated by estimating the difference of the
sum of the capital cost and the operating cost with the total revenue of the technique excluding the
discount rate in equation 2. GHG emissions avoided (CE) is expressed as the difference of the CE value
of the mitigation option and the baseline value.

NPC (Dollars per ton MSW) =

(Capital cost + Operating cost - Revenue) mitigation measure - baseline (2)

CE (MTCE per ton MSW) = CE mitigation measure - CE baseline (3)

3.1.1. Conventional sanitary landfilling: (baseline)

The actual amount of equivalent carbon dioxide emitted per ton of MSW landfilled is calculated based
on the assumptions obtained from previous studies of Themelis et al. [12]. The average composition of
combustible materials in MSW can be expressed as C6H10O4 (kmol wt=146kg). The anaerobic digestion
of MSW materials is expressed as a chemical reaction highlighted in equation 4.

C6H10O4 + 1.5 H2O = 3.25 CH4 + 2.75 CO2 (4)

Landfill gas is a by-product of the biodegradation of the waste in landfills, it generally contains
methane (CH4), carbon dioxide (CO2), and little portions of non-methane natural aggravates that contains
incorporate air contaminations and unstable natural mixes. If it is assumed that only 50% of the total
landfilled biomass of MSW emits methane, the generation of methane from landfill gas is about 1.56 tons
CO2eq/ton MSW. So, the total CO2eq emitted is 1.56 (from CH4) plus 50% of 0.346 (from CO2) resulting
in 1.73 tons of CO2eq per ton of MSW. Capital costs include site development and construction costs.
674 International Journal of Smart Grid and Clean Energy, vol. 8, no. 6, November 2019

Based on the estimated obtained from the study carried out by Eilrich et al. [13], a 78.9 - acre landfill site
with a total capacity of 13,64,000 tons will cost about 11.5 to 17.1 dollars per ton. The study also reveals
information’s regarding the operation and monitoring cost, closure cost, post-closure care cost. The O&M
cost per ton is assumed to range from 19.8 to 36.2 dollars. O&M cost increases with a decrease in the size
of the landfilling site. For conventional sanitary landfilling technique without energy recovery, the only
form of revenue is the gate fee. The landfill gate fee is assumed to be $45/ton. Table 2 below summarizes
the data used for calculating the carbon mitigation cost of conventional sanitary landfilling technique
which is considered the baseline of the mitigation study highlighted in this manuscript.
Table 2. Sanitary landfilling data summarization
Avoided GHG per ton of 0
material (MTCO2e)
Cost Highest Lowest Mean value Standard deviation
Capital cost ($/ton) 17.10 11.50 14.30 2.80
O & M cost ($/ton) 36.20 19.80 28.00 8.20
Revenue ($/ton) 45.00

3.1.2. Sanitary landfilling with gas collection and flaring: (mitigation option)
The CO2eq of methane emitted from sanitary landfilling with gas collection and flaring technique per
ton of MSW is about 1.56 tons. Assuming 50% of the landfilling gases (LFG) is tapped and utilized
effectively. Assumptions are not made for the total LFG emitted due to delays and leaks that exist in the
open landfilling system. The loss of methane is calculated to be 0.78 tons of CO2eq per ton of MSW. In
addition to this, the direct CO2 emissions are about 0.17 tons/ton of MSW, leading to the total 0.95 tons
CO2eq/ton of MSW emitted. Compared with the conventional sanitary landfilling technique (baseline), the
CO2eq emissions is reduced by 0.78 CO2eq tons/ton of MSW in sanitary landfilling with gas collection and
flaring technique. Capital costs include the fee of designing and engineering the plant, getting permits by
ensuring site readiness and establishing the basic utilities, hardware, start-up expenses. These expenses
can fluctuate depending upon a few outlined factors of the gas accumulation framework [14]. Assuming
the site has the same capacity as the baseline technique, the total capital cost for the LFG collection and
flare system would be over 10 million. Calculating the expense per ton the figures sum up to $1.48 per
ton of MSW, resulting in the total capital cost is about $13 to $18.6 per ton of MSW. Operation and
maintenance cost, in this case, includes damage to parts and material of the system, labour, utilities,
financing costs and taxes which accumulates to $0.26 per ton of MSW. Using the per ton base rule, the
total O&M cost is calculated to be about $20.1 to $36.8 per ton of MSW with reference to the baseline.
The landfill gate fee ranges from $24/ton to $91/ton, so in this study, an average value of $55/ton is
assumed to be the gate fee. According to the WTE guidebook, the value of credits per ton of avoided CER
is estimated to be US$16. As noted above, the CO2eq reduced per ton of MSW for sanitary landfilling with
LFG collection and flaring is about 0.78 CO2eq tons/ton of MSW. The conservative value of US$ 12.48
per ton of MSW was used for this technique. Table 3 below summarizes the data used for calculating the
carbon mitigation cost of sanitary landfilling with LFG collection and flaring.
Table 3. Sanitary landfilling with gas collection and flaring data summarization
Avoided GHG per ton of 0.78
material (MTCO2e)
Cost Highest Lowest Mean value Standard deviation
Capital cost ($/ton) 18.60 13.00 15.80 2.80
O & M cost ($/ton) 36.80 20.10 28.50 8.35
Revenue without CER($/ton) 55.00
Revenue with CER($/ton) 67.50
 Faisal Sajjad et al.: A Study on Small-Scale Municipal Solid Waste Management Practices and … 675

3.1.3. Sanitary landfilling with electricity generation (mitigation option)

Assuming 50% of the landfilling gas is collected and utilized for electricity generation, the total CO2eq
emitted in this technique is 0.95 tons/ton of MSW and the reduced CO2eq emissions compared with a
baseline which is about 0.78 CO2eq tons/ton of MSW similar to the previous technique. According to
USEPA landfill methane outreach program, capital costs of a 3-MW engine project without LFG
collection and the flaring system would be about $53,06,874. Including the costs for energy generation
equipment and the interconnection equipment resulting in an evaluated capital cost of about $16.9 to
$22.5 per ton of MSW [14]. O&M costs for a 3-MW engine project without LFG collection and the
flaring system is considered to be $566786 based on the values obtained from the previous study, so the
O&M cost is about $20.5 to $37.2 per ton of MSW. In this technique, the sales of electricity is another
important form of income to the system which has to be considered when estimating the revenue of the
system. The landfilling gas to energy value is about 0.05 to 0.1 MWh for per ton of MSW. If the market
electricity price to be $0.032 per kWh, the revenue of the generated electricity is about 1.6 to 3.2 dollars
per ton of MSW. For the mitigation study considered in this paper, the average number of $2.4/ton is used.
The landfill gate fee of sanitary landfills with electricity generation in the U.S. ranges from $24/ton to
$91/ton. We assume the average gate fee of $65/ton for calculations in this mitigation study. The
estimation of credits of CER per ton is assessed at US$16. As noted above, the CO2eq reduced per ton of
MSW for sanitary landfilling with LFG electricity generation is about 0.78 CO2eq tons/ton of MSW. So, in
this case, US$ 12.48 per ton of MSW was used for the mitigation study. Inferences obtained from the
literature prove that the use of non-conventional energy is considered as a major contribution towards the
leap to 100% sustainable energy [15]. Table 4 below summarizes the data used for calculating the carbon
mitigation cost of sanitary landfilling with electricity generation.
Table 4. Sanitary landfilling with electricity generation data summarization
Avoided GHG per ton of 0.78
material (MTCO2e)
Cost Highest Lowest Mean value Standard deviation
capital cost ($/ton) 22.50 16.90 19.70 2.80
O & M cost ($/ton) 37.20 20.5 28.85 8.35
Revenue without CER($/ton) 67.40
Revenue with CER ($/ton) 79.90

3.1.4. Conventional WTE: (mitigation option)

Assuming dry organics sum to be 60% of biomass results about the 417 kg (2.86 kmol) of C6H10O4/ton
of MSW for the calculation. The amount of CO2 emitted would be 17.16 kmol and 0.755 tons/ton MSW.
Thus, the directly reduced CO2 compared with the baseline is about 0.98 tons/ton of MSW. The total
avoided GHG for per ton of mixed metal is 1.741 MTCO2e compared with sanitary landfilling. So, the
GHG benefits from metal recovery is 0.045tons/ton of MSW * 1.741 MTCO2e /ton=0.078 MTCO2e /ton
of MSW. Adding them together, the total reduced CO2 compared to the baseline of 1.06 tons/ton of MSW.
A mid-go plant of 160,000 tons yearly limit may cost from US$80 million ($500 per ton of yearly limit)
to US$120 million ($750 per ton of annual capacity). Assuming WTE plant has a life period of WTE
plant to be twenty years, the estimated cost for per ton MSW processed would be $25 to $37.5 dollars.
O&M cost typically expanded with the diminishing of the WTE plant estimate, which is from the US
$32/ton of MSW to $47/ton of MSW [12]. Assuming that 0.55MWh of electricity is produced per ton of
MSW, adding up to about $17.6 per ton of MSW at the market electricity price of $32/MWh.

C6H10O4 + 6.5 O2 = 5 H2O + 6 CO2 (5)

The WTE gate fee is assumed to be $25/ton to $98/ton. The average number of $61.5 is used for the
mitigation study discussed in this manuscript. The anticipated lessening in ozone-depleting substance
676 International Journal of Smart Grid and Clean Energy, vol. 8, no. 6, November 2019

emissions due to the WTE task would be 1.06 tons of carbon dioxide per ton of MSW, in contrast with
sterile landfilling. As indicated by the WTE Guidebook, the estimation of credits of carbon outflows per
ton CER is evaluated to be at US$17. Roughly 45 kilograms of metal could be recycled from this
technique resulting in an additional revenue from sales of metals recovered from the ash. Utilizing an
expected cost of US$500 per ton of scrap metals, the WTE system would have an income of US$22.5 per
ton of MSW combusted. Table 5 below summarizes the data used for calculating the carbon mitigation
cost of WTE plant.
Table 5. Waste to energy data summarization
Avoided GHG per ton of 1.06
material (MTCO2e)
Cost Highest Lowest Mean value Standard deviation
capital cost ($/ton) 37.50 25.00 31.25 6.25
O & M cost ($/ton) 47.00 32.00 39.50 7.50
Revenue without CER($/ton) 101.60
Revenue with CER ($/ton) 118.60

3.1.5. MBT plus WTE: (mitigation option)

The total avoided GHG for per ton of MSW that was recycled and composted in the MBT plant is
about 0.25 MTCO2e. When one ton of MSW goes into the MBT, on an average 0.55 tons residues go to
WTE. Since one-ton MSW in WTE will save 1.06 MTCO2e compared with sanitary landfilling, the GHG
from WTE part would be 0.55tons * 1.06 MTCO2e /ton of MSW = 0.58 tons of MTCO2e. Adding up
two parts GHG scheme of this technique, the total savings would be about 0.83 MTCO2e /ton of MSW in
MBT plus, WTE facility. The capital cost for the MBT ($400 per ton of MSW) plus WTE ($600) option
should be around $400 + $600 * 55% = $730 per ton. Assuming lifetime of 20 years, the total site
capacity for the whole life of MBT plus WTE plant, the cost for each ton MSW processed is about 36.5
dollars. The O&M cost of this facility ranges from $36.66 to $51.66 per ton MSW. Recyclables and
decomposable constitute 27.3% of the total MSW in MBT plant. According to the percentage of different
recyclables and the secondary market price per ton MSW goes to the integrated system, the revenue is
$96.42/ton MSW. An MBT plant will have the gate fee from $50-55 per ton MSW [16]. Also using 61.5
dollars per ton MSW as the gate fee for WTE, 55% MSW will go to WTE after MBT, for one-ton MSW,
the estimated gate fee would be about $86.3 per ton of MSW. Matero facilities typically provide 0.39
MWh/ton electricity although WTE plant of this capacity (500 metric tons/day) typically provides to the
grid 0.55 MWh per metric ton. Also, assuming the electricity price is $0.032/kWh, the revenue should be
about 390 kWh/ton of MSW * $0.032/kWh = $12.48/ton. Carbon credits resulting in the estimation of
credits per ton of maintained a strategic distance from CER is evaluated at US$16. So, for this technique,
the moderate estimation of US$13.28 per ton of MSW was used for the mitigation study. Table 6 below
summarizes the data used for calculating the carbon mitigation cost of MBT plus WTE plant.
Table 6. MBT plus WTE data summarization
Avoided GHG per ton of 0.83
material (MTCO2e)
Cost Highest Lowest Mean value Standard deviation
capital cost ($/ton) 36.50 36.50 36.50 0.00
O & M cost ($/ton) 51.70 36.70 44.20 7.50
Revenue without CER($/ton) 106.10
Revenue with CER ($/ton) 119.40
 Faisal Sajjad et al.: A Study on Small-Scale Municipal Solid Waste Management Practices and … 677

4. Results and Discussions

In this study, two kinds of total revenue were evaluated: with and without CER is considered when
breaking down the mitigation cost. As illustrated in the above section, all the last four mitigation options
have corresponding carbon reductions cost comparing the baseline value. The revenue without CER can
represent more common situations, however it more valuable to see what happens for carbon mitigation
cost if CER is included. The overall summarization of the mitigation and cost benefits analysis for five
scenarios are illustrated in Table 7 below.
Table 7. Summary of cost and price assumptions for different waste management technologies
Waste management Capital Cost O&M Cost Revenue Revenue with GHG reduced
methods ($/ ton) ($/ton) without CER ($/ton) (MTCO2e /ton)
CER ($/ton)

Sanitary landfilling 14.30 28.00 45.00 45.00 0.00

(baseline)
Sanitary landfilling 15.80 28.50 55.00 67.50 0.78
with LFG collection
and flaring

Sanitary landfilling 19.70 28.85 67.40 79.90 0.78

with electricity
generation
Waste to energy 31.25 39.50 101.60 118.60 1.06

MBT plus WTE 36.50 44.20 106.10 119.40 0.83

4.1. GHG emissions of five scenarios

Fig. 3. represents the visualization of GHG reductions for five techniques. WTE has the highest GHG
reduction overall. The second highest GHG reductions are from MBT plus WTE technique, followed by
two kinds of landfilling with energy recovery has the least GHG reductions. Surprisingly, the GHG
reduction of MBT plus WTE plants is lower than WTE plant, reasons for this could be only 7.3% of
MSW recycled in MBT, and there are certain parts of MSW being composted that would also emit
methane to the atmosphere.

Fig. 3. Graphical representation of GHG reduction.

4.2. Cost benefits analysis of different waste management options

Considering the net profits of each technique, as shown in Figure 4, all of them have a positive net
profit, which means their revenues exceed the costs. WTE has the highest profits, MBT plus WTE ranks
the second highest, then three kinds of landfilling have relatively lower profits.
678 International Journal of Smart Grid and Clean Energy, vol. 8, no. 6, November 2019

Fig. 4. Net Profits Comparison Among Five Waste Management Techniques.

4.3. Carbon mitigation cost analysis

Both the GHG benefits and economics of waste mitigation options are considered for the study, figure
5 is the representation of similar relief measures that show the financial aspects and in addition the
specialized benefits of reducing GHG outflows. This chart is built by demonstrating the GHG reduction
cost of waste division alternatives (vertical line) as a component of their GHG diminished (even line) and
putting in moderation measures in rising request of cost-adequacy. This graph reflects the economic
position when their environmental benefits are considered at the same time. This information is more vital
for decision-makers to decide on which is the most effective and efficient method for small-scale MSWM
technique.

Fig. 5. Carbon mitigation cost (with and without CER) of four waste management techniques compared with baseline.

Different carbon mitigation measures have varied economical influences based on the GHG emission
impact. MBT plus WTE has the highest profits, which is 27.34 dollars for reducing one metric ton of
carbon dioxide equivalent without considering CER. WTE is the second most effective one which not
only takes out the natural effects of landfill waste and mitigates an earth-wide temperature boost but also
has the highest profits from the energy recovery. Since not 100% of landfills are equipping sanitary
landfill with gas collection and electricity generation systems, the most environmentally friendly and
economical profitably of WTE is encouraged for the future setups. Overall, the performance of carbon
mitigation costs for waste management options discussed in this study obeys the waste management
hierarchy sequence indicating the significance of the study highlighted in the manuscript.

5. Conclusion

The main objective of the study presented in the manuscript is to perform cost-benefit analysis and
mitigation cost breakdown of the different waste management techniques to identify the optimum
technique suited for small-scale MSWM systems. From the results obtained from the case study and
mitigation analysis, it is clear that the hybrid MBT plus WTE approach appears to be the best option
 Faisal Sajjad et al.: A Study on Small-Scale Municipal Solid Waste Management Practices and … 679

considering the five techniques considered in the study, although conventional WTE has a higher impact
on GHG reduction than the MBT plus WTE. Few highlights of the observations obtained from the study
are; 1) MBT plus WTE or WTE would be the best suited for a small-scale MSWM setup considering its
impact on the total revenue and carbon mitigation cost. 2) Landfilling with energy recovery has a better
environment and economic performance than landfilling without any energy recovery. 3) Reduced GHG
emission and cost of energy sales from LFG with electricity generation make it more impact full than
LFG collection and flaring. 4) Carbon mitigation cost ranks the techniques in the same level as indicated
in the waste management hierarchy no matter considers CER or not. These observations obtained from
the study are useful and essential for decision makers and planning authorities to set up small-scale
(MSWM) waste management plants which indicates the significance of the study presented.

References

[1] Hoornweg D and Bhada-Tata P. What a waste: a global review of solid waste management, 2012.
[2] Wilson DC et al., Global waste management outlook. UNEP, 2015.
[3] Morrison GL. Managed composition of waste-derived fuel, ed: Google Patents, 1999.
[4] Kothari R, Kumar V, Panwar N, and Tyagi V. Municipal solid-waste management strategies for renewable energy options.
Sustainable Bioenergy Production. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, vol. 267, 2014.
[5] Mohee R, Mauthoor S, Bundhoo ZM, Somaroo G, Soobhany N, and Gunasee S. Current status of solid waste management in
small island developing states: a review. Waste Management, 2015; 43: 539-549.
[6] Squires CO. Public participation in solid waste management in small island developing states, Caribbean Development Bank,
Barbados, 2006.
[7] Morrison R. and Munro A. Waste management in the small island developing states of the South Pacific: an overview.
Australian Journal of Environmental Management, 1999; 6(4): 232-246.
[8] Mohee R and Mudhoo A. Energy from biomass in Mauritius: overview of research and applications. in Waste to Energy:
Springer, 2012, pp. 297-321.
[9] Pariatamby A and Tanaka M. Municipal solid waste management in Asia and the Pacific Islands. Environmental Science,
Springer, Singapore, 2014.
[10] Kaufman SM and Themelis NJ. Using a direct method to characterize and measure flows of municipal solid waste in the
United States. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 2009; 59(12): 1386-1390.
[11] Ibrahim N. and Kennedy C. A methodology for constructing marginal abatement cost curves for climate action in cities.
Energies, 2016; 9(4): 227.
[12] Themelis NJ, Kim YH, Brady MH. Energy recovery from New York City municipal solid wastes. Waste Management &
Research, 2002; 20(3): 223-233.
[13] Eilrich FC, Doeksen GA, and Van Fleet H. An economic analysis of landfill costs to demonstrate the economies of size and
determine the feasibility of a community owned landfill in rural Oklahoma. in Proc. of the Southern Agricultural Economics
Association Annual Meeting, Alabama, 2003, pp. 1-5: Citeseer.
[14] Wilson DC, Rodic L, Scheinberg A, Velis CA, and Alabaster G. Comparative analysis of solid waste management in 20 cities.
Waste Management & Research, 2012; 30(3): 237-254.
[15] Tareen W, Anjum Z, Yasin N, Siddiqui L, Farhat I, Malik S, Mekhilef S, Seyedmahmoudian M, Horan B, Darwish M., and
Aamir M. The prospective non-conventional alternate and renewable energy sources in Pakistan—A focus on biomass energy
for power generation, transportation, and industrial fuel. Energies, 2018; 11(9): 2431.
[16] Adewuyi AO and Awodumi OB. Biomass energy consumption, economic growth and carbon emissions: Fresh evidence from
West Africa using a simultaneous equation model. Energy, 2017; 119: 453-471.