PROSPECT OF LANDFILL MINING IN INDONESIA FOR ENERGY RECOVERY 1
Prospect of Landfill Mining in Indonesia for Energy Recovery
Baskoro Lokahita, Fumitake Takahashi
Tokyo Institute of Technology
Author Note
The author acknowledges support by Indonesian Endowment Fund for Education
(LPDP). PROSPECT OF LANDFILL MINING IN INDONESIA FOR ENERGY RECOVERY 2
Abstract
Hundreds of landfills with the various operational system (open dumping, sanitary and controlled landfill) has been built across the country in the past decades. Landfills which already depleted its methane have an enormous amount of degradable organic carbon (DOC) left mixed with the various inert material. Landfill mining can be one of a method to extract those materials for energy production. The results show that the amount of accumulated DOC in the Bantargebang Landfill, Jakarta will be up to 1.2 teragrams in 2020. Incineration to produce 20MW electricity capacity is proposed for this study. Scenarios involving different tipping fee and carbon credit is used to understand the proper business model. The financial analysis shows that the project will be economically feasible if the government raise the tipping fee up to 70 USD if without income from carbon credit, or 60 USD if they can earn revenue from carbon credit. The low tipping fee in Indonesia makes it hard for this project to be owned by the private investor. Despite the availability of grants from government and government programs to accelerate this kind of project, municipal government should also consider rejection from people especially environmental NGO and scavenger. Keywords: landfill, waste-to-energy, thermochemical PROSPECT OF LANDFILL MINING IN INDONESIA FOR ENERGY RECOVERY 3
Prospect of Landfill Mining in Indonesia for Energy Recovery
The landfill has played a major role as a part municipal solid waste (MSW) management in urban societies since ancient times. As the civilization changes, the way of people disposing of their daily activity residue also changes. The landfill is not just an unmanageable pile of garbage, but people start to realize to take care of landfill in a safe and sound approach.
Despite the high development of alternatives disposal means, the landfill is still the most popular disposal methods in the form of open dumping and sanitary landfill. UNEP counted that in Asia, 51% of disposal process is open dumping while 31% is sanitary landfill.
Incineration and Recycling only take 5% and 8% of the total. In Africa, 47% is open dumping and 29% is sanitary landfill. On the other hand, in North America, sanitary landfill takes 91% of waste disposal method (UNEP, 2015). It shows that most of developing countries rely on landfill as disposal means for their MSW because it cost less than another method
(Tchobanoglous & Kreith, 2002). The operation of landfill site not only lead to decreasing the environmental quality of surrounding area from smells but also on a global scale. The methane released will bring worse effect than CO2 to global warming (Cherubini, Bargigli, &
Ulgiati, 2009), thus, a method to minimize the impact while bringing the benefit is necessary.
Methane produced in the landfill was coming from the decomposition of degradable organic content (DOC) of inputted waste material (Rees & Rees, 1980). Capturing the methane gas is one of the solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emission. The methane can be used for power generation by coupling with gas engine or steam engine. Once the methane is depleted, another method is needed to treat DOC left not decomposed and other inert material. Landfill mining was proposed as one of breakthrough to recycle the residue left
(Dickinson, 1995). Krook, et. al (2012) address that, despite the idea of landfill mining was started since the 1950s, the research about this topic increase rapidly in 1990s because of PROSPECT OF LANDFILL MINING IN INDONESIA FOR ENERGY RECOVERY 4 stricter new environmental regulation. The development of more sophisticated waste treatment and recycling programs in early 2000 drastically change the attention of this issue, until 2007 the idea about the extended concept of landfill mining arise in Europe (W.
Hogland, Hogland, & Marques, 2010).
A consortium in EU initiated Enhanced Landfill Mining (ELFM) studies to build integrated strategy for material and energy recovery. So-called Project Closing the Circle was launched to create a pilot project in Remo Landfill (W. Hogland et al., 2010). Hull et. Al
(2005) questioned the cost feasibility of landfill mining and argue that it will only work on certain condition such as; availability of special funds for remediation, availability of feedstock to make sure waste to energy plant running at its full capacity and the presence of cement company which will buy solid fuel from processed material. Recyclable recovered from landfill mining is low-quality material and the feasibility to utilize it is very low.
Various landfill in Europe acquires waste with a calorific value up to 20MJ/kg which means high feasibility to build a waste to energy plant for processing excavated waste (William
Hogland, Marques, & Nimmermark, 2004). While European countries have a constant value for its waste composition, developing countries such as Indonesia have gone to rapid change of development, resulting in dynamic change on waste composition and make it harder to predict the characteristic of its landfill waste (Enri Damanhuri & Padmi, 2016).
Indonesia, with a population of 257million in 2015, shows exponential growth in their
GDP and also its waste generation. In 2012, Indonesia generated solid waste up to 151,921 tons per day (tpd), and 7,896 tpd of it was from Jakarta alone (Waste to Energy Guidebook,
2015). Many people attracted to move to the major cities to work because of low employment in the rural area. This urbanization phenomenon put the enormous burden of waste management since their landfill capacity is very limited (E Damanhuri, 2008). Since the enactment of Indonesian Law number 18/2008 on Waste Management, the amount of landfill PROSPECT OF LANDFILL MINING IN INDONESIA FOR ENERGY RECOVERY 5 site in Indonesia is increasing rapidly. In 2014 itself, Ministry of Public Works built 110 landfill site around Indonesia. Currently, local government in Indonesia operates 521 landfills with a total area of 2098 ha, most of them are open dumping landfill (Waste to Energy
Guidebook, 2015). Even though the basic design was sanitary landfill, low commitment from the government for consistent operation turn the landfill into open dumping or at least controlled landfill.
The number of waste generation is growing, the pollution from the landfill is getting worse, and the land area is limited. A strategy to solve landfill problem in Indonesia is needed. Employing energy recovery in landfill mining is proposed for the solution of this problem. Not only the land will be restored, but the energy generated from the process could also contribute to the countries energy mix, thus reducing the burden of fossil fuel. This study will explain the possibility of energy recovery from landfill mining operation in Indonesia.
The literature review of this studies deals with research papers from a various research database, a report from NGO and Indonesian government documentation. This study aim to assess the situation of the landfill as common disposal method in Indonesia for introducing of landfill mining to recover the energy in its extensive process. The common practice of MSW and condition of landfill in Indonesia is explained. Further analysis of regulation and financial scheme related to waste, landfill, and energy recovery will be described briefly.
Methodology
This method used in this study is consist of literature review related previous research and analysis of secondary data to explain the challenge and opportunity of energy recovery from landfill mining. The review and secondary data were obtained from research papers, book and government document. A review of regulation, general waste management, and possible waste to energy technology will be explained. The analysis of secondary data PROSPECT OF LANDFILL MINING IN INDONESIA FOR ENERGY RECOVERY 6 including waste simulation using data from Jakarta Province derived stored organic compound in landfill using IPCC formula and financial analysis. Since the historical data of
Jakarta Province waste is considered as a complete one, simulation of waste generation and composition will be made as the based to calculate non-decomposable DOC left in the landfill. Net Present Value (NPV), Interest Rate of Return (IRR) and Benefit Cost Ratio
(BCR) of the cash flows will be used for financial analysis.
Regulation Review
Regulation related to waste management and waste to energy in Indonesia is complex and should be analyzed carefully to avoid overlapping practice. Activity related to waste management is regulated by:
1. Law number 18/2008 about Waste Management
2. Government Regulation number 81/2012 about Household and Household-like
Waste Management
3. Home Affair Ministerial Regulation number 33/2010 about Guidelines for Waste
Management
4. Public Works Ministerial Regulation number 3/2013 about Procurement of
Municipal Solid Waste Utilities.
According to Law number 18/2008, each government level has their jurisdiction in waste management. Central Government is obligated to build the regulation, national strategy, and standard operational procedure. They also need to promote cooperation between each region regarding waste management. In regional sector, Governor will make the regulation and encourage collaboration between each city in provincial level. Each City
Government must obey the rules of procedure made by the central and provincial government. The Mayor is responsible for conducting the operational of waste management PROSPECT OF LANDFILL MINING IN INDONESIA FOR ENERGY RECOVERY 7 and evaluating the performance. The financing of waste management is derived from
National and Regional Budget.
Since the responsibility for operational of waste management fall to local government, they have an obligation to make sure the availability supply for waste to energy power plant.
Almost each municipality in Indonesia owns a landfill. Deposited waste in the landfill could be considered as the feed for electricity generation since it has high calorific value to a vast mass amount.
Related to electricity generation from MSW there are some regulation that should be considered such as;
1. Law number 30/2007 about Energy
2. Law number 30/2009 about Electricity
3. Government Regulation number 14/2012 about Electrification Business
4. Energy and Mineral Resources Ministerial Regulation number 44/2015 about PT.
PLN (national electricity company) Purchasing of Electricity Generated from
Municipal Solid Waste Power Plant.
The output of waste to energy project is electricity, thus, according to Law number
30/2009, PT. PLN as a national electric company in Indonesia is responsible for managing the development of MSW power plant. Electricity provision could be delivered by private businesses, in this case, local government could form City Owned Enterprise or using the third party to operate the power plant.
According to Energy and Mineral Resources Ministerial Regulation number 44/2015,
PT. PLN have an obligation to purchase electricity generated from MSW power plant. This regulation also mentioned the price for electricity purchasing as seen in Table 1.
Presidential Regulation number 18/2016 about Accelerating the Development of
Municipal Solid Waste Power Plant in Jakarta Province, Tangerang City, Bandung City, PROSPECT OF LANDFILL MINING IN INDONESIA FOR ENERGY RECOVERY 8
Semarang City, Surakarta City, Surabaya City, and Makassar City has been released in the first quarter of 2016 to accelerate to development of waste to energy power plant in several big cities in Indonesia. The regulation focuses on stimulating the development of thermal conversion of MSW using incineration, gasification, and pyrolysis process. Special Task
Force to help the acceleration of this project was formed after the enactment of the
Presidential Regulation. This regulation gives opportunities for the private company to invest their resources in mentioned cities.
Overview of Municipal Solid Waste Management in Indonesia
After the Law on Waste Management had been issued in 2008, the responsibility for waste management belonged to the local government. In common, each local government has an agency especially handle the matters of cleanliness and beautification. The neighborhood association will hire persons to collect the waste and bring it to a collection point. Every given period, a truck from the agency will come to pick up the waste. Scavenger was found at collection point to gather recyclables. In the commercial area, the truck is a standby in designated place, and people will bring their waste by themselves. The agency also responsible for road sweeping. The waste from residence area, commercial area, and road sweeping will be transported to a landfill site. Some landfill site has intermediate treatment such as sorting area and composter. Lack of clear regulation about waste separation in the system makes it hard for recycling and recovery process of MSW (Chaerul, Tanaka, &
Shekdar, 2007; Enri Damanhuri & Padmi, 2016; Meidiana & Gamse, 2010). Burnable waste such as food waste, paper, and wood dominate the percentage of waste in 4 biggest cities in
Indonesia as sees on figure 1.
In the case of energy recovery, calorific value plays an important role since it describes the potential of the raw material. The high heating value (HHV) and low heating value (LHV) of Indonesian waste are listed in Table 2, including the proximate analysis. The PROSPECT OF LANDFILL MINING IN INDONESIA FOR ENERGY RECOVERY 9 effect of moisture content shows a significant effect in the HHV and LHV. As the largest percentage in composition, organic also has the highest moisture content, mostly from high humidity of Indonesian climate. Plastic and rubber have the highest calorific value which is suitable for power plant fuel. Pretreatment of MSW is necessary to reduce the moisture content, thus increase the calorific value. Transforming MSW into refuse derived fuel (RDF) is one of the ways to homogenized and increasing the calorific value (Novita, 2010; Zhou,
Fang, Xu, Cao, & Wang, 2014).
Informal Sector plays an important role in waste recycling. There are some important players in informal sector recycling in Indonesia such as scavengers, intermediates, brokers, and recyclers (Enri Damanhuri & Padmi, 2012; Sembiring & Nitivattananon, 2010). The
Recent development of waste bank makes the neighboring community to obtain economic benefit by submitting separated waste to the waste bank (Wijayanti & Suryani, 2015). Some studies described that recycled waste through the informal sector is ranged between 10 to 13 percent of total waste generation (Enri Damanhuri, Wahyu, Ramang, & Padmi, 2009;
Sembiring & Nitivattananon, 2010).
Discussion
Landfill Waste to Electricity
The landfill is the most popular means of disposal in Indonesia. In the beginning, input waste will undergo aerobic reaction. As the input waste is rising and the liner is applied, the anaerobic reaction will start. Most of the reaction happened due to the bacterial activity which consuming carbon compound and converts it to gasses and leachate. Some organic compound such as food waste or wood reacts faster than others because they consist of cellulose which is easily fermented to form CH4, CO2, H2 and ethanol, acetic, propionic, butyric, valeric and caproic acids. Another carbon compound such as plastic underwent slow degradation and dissolved in leachate (Anex, 1996; Rees & Rees, 1980; Zeiss, 1995). PROSPECT OF LANDFILL MINING IN INDONESIA FOR ENERGY RECOVERY 10
Because plastic degradation rate is slower compared to organic waste, it is possible to recover the plastic to be recycled. On the other hand, the cellulose fraction of organic waste is breakdown along the way of decomposition, leaving the simpler organic chain with a higher calorific value which is suitable for energy recovery. The amount of carbon stored in a landfill can be estimated using first-order decay model. Derived the first order decay model of decomposable degradable organic carbon (DDOC) to estimate the amount of decomposed
DDOC and the accumulated DDOC left not decomposed at the end of the year (2006 IPCC
Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, 2006).
−k DDOCmaT =DDOCmremT +( DDOCmaT −1× e ) (1)
−k DDOCm decompT=DDOCm decT +DDOCmaT −1× (1−e ) (2)
DDOCmaT = DDOCm accumulated in the landfill at the end of year T, Gg
DDOCm remT = DDOCm disposed of in year T which remains at the end of year T (Gg)
DDOCmaT-1 = DDOCm accumulated in the landfill at the end of year (T−1), Gg
DDOCm decompT = DDOCm decomposed in year T, Gg
DDOCm decT = DDOCm disposed in year T which has decomposed by the end of year T
(Gg)
The waste coming to landfill is different from waste generated in the source since the informal sector is recovering the recyclable along with the way. Using the assumption of generated waste in Jakarta (0.75kg/capita/day) and projected population, the amount of produced waste could be predicted (Enri Damanhuri & Padmi, 2016).
As shown in figure 2, waste generation was expected to slightly decrease from recycling activity, thus affecting waste fed to the landfill. The amount of degradable organic carbon accumulated in the landfill is increasing as the growth in a waste generation. The rate of waste generation is slightly higher than the rate of organic carbon decomposition. PROSPECT OF LANDFILL MINING IN INDONESIA FOR ENERGY RECOVERY 11
Bantargebang landfill is one of the largest landfills in Indonesia. It serves the disposal of waste from Indonesia’s capital, Jakarta. DOC going to Bantargebang was up to 76.7%, and the recyclable was up to 23.3% in 2005 (Enri Damanhuri & Padmi, 2016). Using IPCC formula, the residue from DOC decomposition process was up to 1.2 Gg in 2020.
Accumulated DOC consists of a cellulosic material (Rees & Rees, 1980). Demirbas,
(2004) mentioned that cellulose and hemicelluloses have an HHV of 18.60 kJ/g. Using this assumption, the amount of DOC needed to generate a certain watt of power can be calculated.
Energy and Mineral Resources Ministerial Regulation number 44/2015 divide the electricity generation using thermochemical process into three capacity, as seen in Table 1. Required feedstock for each power plant capacity is presented in Table 3. From the availability of raw material, a power plant with a capacity of 20 MW is preferable.
Waste to Energy Technology
Before the enactment of the Presidential Regulation number 18/2016, ministry of energy and mineral resources, and ministry of public works already release the regulation related to the conversion of municipal solid waste to energy. In that regulation, they include methane capture and anaerobic digestion technology.
Until now, there is no thermochemical MSW conversion plant running in Indonesia.
Most of the MSW power plant are utilizing methane from the landfill. According to Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, the capacity of MSW power plants currently running are still relatively small, about 14.5MW.
As mentioned before, Presidential Regulation number 18/2016 only limit the use of energy conversion using a thermochemical process such as; incineration, gasification, and pyrolysis. The thermochemical process has proved to be an important piece in MSW management (Porteous, 2005; Ruth, 1998). Further progress on thermochemical technologies will be explained below. PROSPECT OF LANDFILL MINING IN INDONESIA FOR ENERGY RECOVERY 12
Incineration
Incineration has become second most favorable disposal means around the world.
Besides its ability to reduce waste volume, energy and thermal recovery are also the viable outcome. Incineration utilizes above 800 C to completely combust the material and turn it to hot gasses, bottom ash and fly ash. The hot gas can be used to generate steam for a power plant or heating system (Cheremisinoff., 2003). Besides from those benefit, the environmental impact from incineration caused some rejection from a citizen (Buonanno &
Morawska, 2015; Wong, 2016).
Mixed MSW can be processed directly in incineration. In the case of Indonesian waste, which has high moisture content, pretreatment is necessary to reduce the moisture or else; the incinerator efficiency will be reduced. RDF production is one possible way for pretreatment (Caputo, Palumbo, & Scacchia, 2004).
Public Works Ministerial Regulation number 3/2013 mentioned that this technology has the highest process stability. It is also able to reduce the volume up to 90%. The capital cost for this technology is between 16,875 USD to 247,500 USD. The operation and maintenance cost is between 30 USD to 45 USD.
Gasification
Gasification is a process to convert solid waste or biomass to synthesis gasses by the partial oxidation reaction. The amount of oxidant used in this process is lower than requirement needed for stoichiometric combustion. The output from this process is valuable syngas consist of CO, H2, and CH4, and water vapor(Arena, Zaccariello, & Mastellone,
2010; Wang, Yoshikawa, Namioka, & Hashimoto, 2007). Gasification of MSW operate in temperature above 600C, depend on the waste characteristic. It has become very complex process because of the heterogeneity of the feed make hard to predict the physical and chemical interactions (Son, Yaoita, Namioka, & Yoshikawa, 2006). PROSPECT OF LANDFILL MINING IN INDONESIA FOR ENERGY RECOVERY 13
Various energy conversion device can convert syngas from gasification process to became electricity. Gas turbine shows high potential amongst other conversion devices. The cost is lower than a steam turbine, but the electrical efficiency is higher (up to 30%) and compatible for cogeneration plants (CHP) (Arena, 2012).
Public Works Ministerial Regulation number 3/2013 mentioned that this technology has lower stability compare to incineration. It is only able to reduce the volume up to 80%.
The capital cost for this technology is between 48,000 USD to 127,500 USD. The operation and maintenance cost are between 26,25 USD to 37,50 USD.
Pyrolysis
Pyrolysis is thermal degradation process in the absence of oxygen (ER=0) in temperature between 500-900. Pyrolysis process can be developed for MSW conversion to fuel such as char, gas or oil. The desired products are affected by the pyrolysis temperature, waste composition, heating rate and type of reactor. Most of the industrial scale facilities are connected with gasification or combustion (Chen, Yin, Wang, & He, 2015; Kabir,
Chowdhury, & Rasul, 2015). Cynar Plastic in the UK can convert 6.000 tpa plastic waste into
5.7 million of fuel per year using rotary kiln pyrolysis plant (Ricardo-AEA, 2013). Several works of research also mentioned that by adding a catalyst, the certain product could be optimized (Namioka et al., 2011; Tursunov, 2014).
Public Works Ministerial Regulation number 3/2013 mentioned that this technology also has lower stability compare to incineration. It is only able to reduce the volume up to
80%. The capital cost for this technology is between 12,000 USD to 97,500 USD. The operation and maintenance cost are between 22,50 USD to 30,00 USD.
Financial Analysis
The business model for MSW power plant has been regulated in Presidential
Regulation number 18/2016. It mentions that the central government will give assistance to PROSPECT OF LANDFILL MINING IN INDONESIA FOR ENERGY RECOVERY 14 the selected seven municipalities referred to in the regulation. The operator of the power plant must be a business entity. Local government could form state-owned enterprise or appoint a private company to operate the power plant. The capital cost for the construction could be derived from National Budget, Municipalities Budget or private investment. In the case of foreign investment, the investor has limited ownership of; 49% if the power plant only produces 1 MW to 10 MW electricity, 95% to 100% if the power plant generates more than
10 MW, and up to 95% ownership for non-dangerous waste treatment.
The government from each municipality will receive financial aid from the central government and waste retribution from its residence for a tipping fee of waste management.
The operating cost for the power plant can be cover up from selling the electricity and tipping fee. The tipping fee is the cost of processing MSW that should be paid by the government.
Power Plant company can negotiate with PT. PLN for the final price the electricity. PT. PLN will distribute the electricity to the grid and receive payment from people. PT. PLN also receive a subsidy from the central government for this project.
The financial analysis will combine NPV, IRR, and BCR of the cash flow. NPV is the total present worth of positive and negative cash flow using a specified rate to handle the time value of money. In this simulation, fixed interest rate of 10% will be employed. IRR is rate when NPV is equal zero. NPV and IRR will show whether the project will break even, loss or bring earning. BCR is the ratio between the present value of positive and negative cash flow.
BCR can help to decide whether the project is economically satisfactory or not.
The average tipping fee of 10 USD is considered small compare to other countries, so, the analysis using different tipping fee is calculated. Since revenue from carbon credit was difficult to decide, results by including and excluding carbon credit are presented. Table 4 shows the specification of proposed plant. Table 5 shows the capital and operating cost for different thermochemical treatment. PROSPECT OF LANDFILL MINING IN INDONESIA FOR ENERGY RECOVERY 15
Carbon credit of 12 USD per ton is included in this calculation. The IRR, NPV, and
BCR value for tipping fees from 0 USD to 100 USD are shown in Figure 3, Figure 4 and
Figure 5. The horizontal axis describe the amount of tipping fee from 0 to 100 USD. The vertical axis describe the value of each analysis.
The result demonstrates that Incinerator shows favorable results compare to others alternative treatments. For 30 years of operating, Incinerator will be economically feasible if the tipping fee is above 60 USD since the NPV shows positive value, the IRR is higher than capital cost, and the BCR is more than 1. Pyrolysis could be the second option if the cleaner process is preferable. Although the stability is not as good as an incinerator, it will be economically feasible for tipping fee above 70 USD.
The current MSW treatment tipping fee is only around 10 USD, it will be hard to raise is up to 60 USD since Municipality Council approval is needed. It means that the project is only feasible if publicly owned with the consideration that the investment will not return until the lifetime of the power plant is over.
The economic feasibility is worse if there are no carbon credit included. Figure 6,
Figure 7 and Figure 8 shows the NPV, IRR, and BCR of the project. Incinerator still favorable even there is no carbon credit. It will bring revenue if the tipping fee is above 70
USD.
The government should decide whether to keep the tipping fee on 10 USD without investment return, to raise the tipping fee up to 60 USD in case there is income from carbon credits, or to raise it up to 70 USD in case there is no revenue from carbon credits.
Conclusion
The alternative solution for landfill problem in Indonesia is presented in this paper.
Indonesian Government encourages its municipality to build a power plant based on MSW.
To maintain the sustainability of the power plant, a constant supply of feedstock is needed. PROSPECT OF LANDFILL MINING IN INDONESIA FOR ENERGY RECOVERY 16
DOC accumulated in landfill has potential as a feedstock for electricity generation because it consists of cellulose and glucose. To generate 20 MW of electricity using incineration, 658.33 ton of feedstock is required every day. The amount rises to 1400.70 ton per day for the undirect combustion process.
Incineration requires the lowest capital cost, 235.26 million USD, compare to gasification and pyrolysis. The operating cost of incineration also the lowest amongst others process. It is because incinerator directly utilizes heat produced for heating steam engine, unlike gasification and pyrolysis which converts the feedstock into fuel before fed into a power generator.
From the financial analysis, the project requires current tipping more than or equal 60
USD if there is no income from carbon credit, or 70 USD if there is revenue from carbon credit. Thus, make it impossible for the privately owned company to operates the plant without a strong agreement with municipality government. Government owned operators should consider that the investment cannot be recovered until the payback period if they did not raise the tipping fee. There is a possibility of getting grants from central government or regional monetary fund to help with the project since they have programs for accelerating the development of this kind of facility. Before start building this project, the government also should deal with rejection from resident living surrounding landfill area and scavenger. PROSPECT OF LANDFILL MINING IN INDONESIA FOR ENERGY RECOVERY 17
References
2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. (2006). Hayama.
Energy and Mineral Resources Ministerial Regulation number 44/2015 about PT. PLN
(national electricity company) Purchasing of Electricity Generated from Municipal Solid
Waste Power Plant (2015). Indonesia.
Government Regulation number 14/2012 about Electrification Business (2012). Indonesia.
Government Regulation number 81/2012 about Household and Household-like Waste
Management (2012). Indonesia.
Home Affair Ministerial Regulation number 33/2010 about Guidelines for Waste
Management (2010). Indonesia.
Law number 30/2007 about Energy (2007). Indonesia.
Law number 18/2008 on Waste Management (2008). Indonesia.
Law number 30/2009 about Electricity (2009). Indonesia.
Presidential Regulation number 18/2016 about Accelerating the Development of Municipal
Solid Waste Power Plant in Jakarta Province, Tangerang City, Bandung City, Semarang
City, Surakarta City, Surabaya City, and Makassar (2016). Indonesia.
Public Works Ministerial Regulation number 3/2013 about Procurement of Municipal Solid
Waste Utilities (2013). Indonesia.
Anex, R. P. (1996). Optimal waste decomposition - Landfill as treatment process. Journal of
Environmental Engineering, 122(11), 964–974. http://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9372(1996)122:11(964)
Arena, U. (2012). Process and technological aspects of municipal solid waste gasification. A
review. Waste Management, 32(4), 625–639.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.09.025
Arena, U., Zaccariello, L., & Mastellone, M. L. (2010). Fluidized bed gasification of waste- PROSPECT OF LANDFILL MINING IN INDONESIA FOR ENERGY RECOVERY 18
derived fuels. Waste Management, 30(7), 1212–1219.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.01.038
Buonanno, G., & Morawska, L. (2015). Ultrafine particle emission of waste incinerators and
comparison to the exposure of urban citizens. Waste Management, 37, 75–81.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.03.008
Caputo, A. C., Palumbo, M., & Scacchia, F. (2004). Perspectives of RDF use in decentralized
areas: Comparing power and co-generation solutions. Applied Thermal Engineering,
24(14–15), 2171–2187. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2004.01.006
Chaerul, M., Tanaka, M., & Shekdar, A. V. (2007). Municipal Solid Waste Management in
Indonesia : Status and the Strategic Actions. Journal of the Faculty Environmnetal
Science and Technology, Okayama University, 12(I), 41–49.
Chen, D., Yin, L., Wang, H., & He, P. (2015). Reprint of: Pyrolysis technologies for
municipal solid waste: A review. Waste Management, 37, 116–136.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.01.022
Cheremisinoff., N. P. (2003). Handbook of solid waste management and waste minimization
technologies. Elsevier Science (USA).
Damanhuri, E. (2008). A Future prospect of municipal solid waste management in Indonesia.
Keynote Lecture in the 5th Asian-Pacific Landfill …, 22. Retrieved from
http://kuliah.ftsl.itb.ac.id/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/aplas2008-enri-241008.pdf
Damanhuri, E., & Padmi, T. (2012). The Role of Informal Collectors of Recyclable Waste
and Used Goods in Indonesia, Post-Consumer Waste Recycling and Optimal Production.
In P. E. Damanhuri (Ed.), Post-Consumer Waste Recycling and Optimal Production.
Damanhuri, E., & Padmi, T. (2016). Pengelolaan Sampah Terpadu (1st ed.). Penerbit ITB.
Damanhuri, E., Wahyu, I. M., Ramang, R., & Padmi, T. (2009). Evaluation of municipal solid
waste flow in the Bandung metropolitan area, Indonesia. Journal of Material Cycles and PROSPECT OF LANDFILL MINING IN INDONESIA FOR ENERGY RECOVERY 19
Waste Management, 11(3), 270–276. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-009-0241-9
Demirbas, A. (2004). Combustion characteristics of different biomass fuels. Progress in
Energy and Combustion Science, 30(2), 219–230.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2003.10.004
Dickinson, W. (1995). Landfill mining comes of age. Solid Waste Technologies, 9, 42–47.
Hogland, W., Hogland, M., & Marques, M. (2010). Enhanced landfill mining: material
recovery, energy utilisation and economics in the EU (Directive) perspective. ELFM
Symposium-Enhanced Landfill Mining and the Transition to Sustainable Materials
Management. Retrieved from http://www.elfm.eu/Uploads/ELFM/FILE_79F81D49-
34DC-4B5B-9BFC-5E5101CE7520.PDF
Hogland, W., Marques, M., & Nimmermark, S. (2004). Landfill mining and waste
characterization: a strategy for remediation of contaminated areas. Journal of Material
Cycles and Waste Management, 6(2), 119–124. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-003-0110-
x
Hull, R. M., Krogmann, U., & Strom, P. F. (2005). Composition and characteristics of
excavated materials from a New Jersey landfill. Journal of Environmental Engineering,
131(3), 478–490. http://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9372(2005)131:3(478)
Kabir, M. J., Chowdhury, A. A., & Rasul, M. G. (2015). Pyrolysis of municipal green waste:
A modelling, simulation and experimental analysis. Energies, 8(8), 7522–7541.
http://doi.org/10.3390/en8087522
Krook, J., Svensson, N., & Eklund, M. (2012). Landfill mining: A critical review of two
decades of research. Waste Management, 32(3), 513–520.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.10.015
Meidiana, C., & Gamse, T. (2010). Development of Waste Management Practices in
Indonesia. European Journal of Scientific Research, 40(2), 199–210. PROSPECT OF LANDFILL MINING IN INDONESIA FOR ENERGY RECOVERY 20
Münster, M., & Lund, H. (2010). Comparing Waste-to-Energy technologies by applying
energy system analysis. Waste Management, 30(7), 1251–1263.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2009.07.001
Namioka, T., Saito, A., Inoue, Y., Park, Y., Min, T. J., Roh, S. A., & Yoshikawa, K. (2011).
Hydrogen-rich gas production from waste plastics by pyrolysis and low-temperature
steam reforming over a ruthenium catalyst. Applied Energy, 88(6), 2019–2026.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.12.053
Novita, D. M. (2010). Perhitungan Nilai Kalor Berdasarkan Komposisi dan Karakteristik
Sampah Perkotaan di Indonesia Dalam Konsep Waste to Energy. Institute Teknologi
Bandung.
Porteous, A. (2005). Why energy from waste incineration is an essential component of
environmentally responsible waste management. Waste Management, 25(4 SPEC. ISS.),
451–459. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2005.02.008
Rees, J. F., & Rees, J. F. (1980). The fate of carbon compounds in the landfill disposal of
organic matter. Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology, 30(1), 161–175.
http://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.503300121
Ricardo-AEA. (2013). Case Study 3 Cynar Plastics to Diesel, (1). Retrieved from
http://www.zerowaste.sa.gov.au/upload/resource-centre/publications/waste-to-energy/
case study 3 cynar plastics to fuel final.pdf
Ruth, L. a. (1998). Energy from municipal solid waste: A comparison with coal combustion
technology. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 24(6), 545–564. http://doi.org/
10.1016/S0360-1285(98)00011-2
Sembiring, E., & Nitivattananon, V. (2010). Sustainable solid waste management toward an
inclusive society: Integration of the informal sector. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, 54(11), 802–809. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.12.010 PROSPECT OF LANDFILL MINING IN INDONESIA FOR ENERGY RECOVERY 21
Son, Y., Yaoita, D., Namioka, T., & Yoshikawa, K. (2006). A Study on Small-scale
Gasification and Power Generation from Municipal Solid Wastes and Biomass Fuels.
Transactions of the Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers Series B, 72(722), 2367–
2374. Retrieved from http://scholar.google.com/scholar?
hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:A+study+on+small-
scale+gasification+and+power+generation+from+municipal+solid+wastes+and+biomas
s+fuels#0
Tchobanoglous, G., & Kreith, F. (2002). Handbook of Solid Waste Management, Second
Edition (Second Edi). McGRAW-HILL: New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Lisbon,
London, Madrid, Mexico City, Milan, New Delhi, San Juan, Seoul, Singapore, Sydney,
Toronto. http://doi.org/10.1036/0071356231
Tursunov, O. (2014). A comparison of catalysts zeolite and calcined dolomite for gas
production from pyrolysis of municipal solid waste (MSW). Ecological Engineering, 69,
237–243. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.04.004
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). (2015). Global Waste Management
Outlook.
Wang, Y., Yoshikawa, K., Namioka, T., & Hashimoto, Y. (2007). Performance optimization of
two-staged gasification system for woody biomass. Fuel Processing Technology, 88(3),
243–250. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2006.10.002
Waste to Energy Guidebook. (2015). Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources of Republic
Indonesia.
Wijayanti, D. R., & Suryani, S. (2015). Waste Bank as Community-based Environmental
Governance: A Lesson Learned from Surabaya. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 184, 171–179. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.05.077
Wong, N. W. M. (2016). The road to environmental participatory governance in Taiwan : PROSPECT OF LANDFILL MINING IN INDONESIA FOR ENERGY RECOVERY 22
collaboration and challenges in incineration and municipal waste management,
568(December). http://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2016.1251400
Zeiss, D. K. W. and C. (1995). Municipal Landfill Biodegradation, 121(3), 214–224.
Zhou, C., Fang, W., Xu, W., Cao, A., & Wang, R. (2014). Characteristics and the recovery
potential of plastic wastes obtained from landfill mining. Journal of Cleaner Production,
80, 80–86. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.083 PROSPECT OF LANDFILL MINING IN INDONESIA FOR ENERGY RECOVERY 23
Tables
Table 1
Electricity Pricing from MSW Power Plant.
Voltage Price (cent USD/kWh) Methane Thermal Process Recovery Capacity up to Capacity up Capacity from 20 Capacity more 20 MW to 20 MW MW to 50 MW than 50 MW High 16.55 18.77 15.90 13.14 Mid - - Low 20.16 22.43 - - PROSPECT OF LANDFILL MINING IN INDONESIA FOR ENERGY RECOVERY 24
Table 2
HHV, LHV and Proximate Analysis of Indonesia MSW (Novita, 2010)
Items Moisture (%) Volatile (% Fixed Carbon Ash (% HHV LHV dry) (% dry) dry) (MJ/kg) (MJ/kg) Organic 55.90 84.73 1.39 10.49 23.93 8.23 Paper 6.60 76.94 5.07 11.69 15.21 14.19 Plastic 1.80 97.87 0.61 1.66 40.00 39.70 Wood 67.75 64.80 1.95 12.70 17.95 6.33 Rubber 1.80 60.56 18.96 20.49 21.77 21.37 Fabric 4.75 97.98 0.19 1.83 18.89 18.01 PROSPECT OF LANDFILL MINING IN INDONESIA FOR ENERGY RECOVERY 25
Table 3
Required Feedstock for Each Capacity
Type Capacity Required Feedstock Required Feedstock (MW) ton/day (Gg)/year
Incinerator (Direct 50 1645.82 600.72 Combustion) 35 1152.07 420.51
20 658.33 240.30
Gasification (Undirect 50 3501.74 1278.14 Combustion) 35 2451.22 894.70
20 1400.70 511.25
Pyrolysis (Undirect 50 3501.74 1278.14 Combustion) 35 2451.22 894.70
20 1400.70 511.25
Note: For undirect combustion process it is assumed that the process require 53% percent more feedstock compare to direct combustion (Chen et al., 2015; Münster & Lund, 2010) PROSPECT OF LANDFILL MINING IN INDONESIA FOR ENERGY RECOVERY 26
Table 4
Specification of proposed plant
Item Amount Unit Capacity 20 MW Annual Electricity 175.20 GWh Production Daily Feedstock 658.33 Ton/day Lifetime 30 years PROSPECT OF LANDFILL MINING IN INDONESIA FOR ENERGY RECOVERY 27
Table 5
Capital and Operating Cost
Waste Treatment Capital Cost (million USD) Operating Cost (million USD/year) Incinerator 235.26 18.40 Gasification 289.15 25.68 Pyrolysis 242.93 22.81 PROSPECT OF LANDFILL MINING IN INDONESIA FOR ENERGY RECOVERY 28
Figures
Balikpapan
Medan
Bandung
Jakarta
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Organic Paper Plastic Wood Metal Glass Rubber Fabric Other
Figure 1 Waste fraction from 4 biggest cities in Indonesia (Arjuna, 2012; Enri Damanhuri & Padmi, 2016; Enri Damanhuri, Wahyu, Ramang, & Padmi, 2009; Purwaningrum, Pratama, & Handoko, 2014). PROSPECT OF LANDFILL MINING IN INDONESIA FOR ENERGY RECOVERY 29
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Waste Generation per year (Gg) DDOCmaT (Gg) DDOCm decompT (Gg)
Figure 2Waste Generation, Accumulated DDOC and Decomposed DDOC from Jakarta Waste PROSPECT OF LANDFILL MINING IN INDONESIA FOR ENERGY RECOVERY 30
1500 1000 500 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 -500 -1000 a) -1500
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 -500 -1000 -1500 -2000 b) -2500
1000 500 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 -500 -1000 -1500 c) -2000
Figure 3 NPV of each thermochemical process including carbon credit of 12 USD (a. Incinerator, b. Gasification, c. Pyrolysis) PROSPECT OF LANDFILL MINING IN INDONESIA FOR ENERGY RECOVERY 31
20%
15%
10%
5%
0% a) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
15% 10% 5% 0% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 -5% -10% b) -15%
20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 -5% c) -10%
Figure 4 IRR of each thermochemical process including carbon credit of 12 USD (a. Incinerator, b. Gasification, c. Pyrolysis) PROSPECT OF LANDFILL MINING IN INDONESIA FOR ENERGY RECOVERY 32
3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 a) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 b) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 c) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Figure 5 BCR of each thermochemical process including carbon credit of 12 USD (a. Incinerator, b. Gasification, c. Pyrolysis) PROSPECT OF LANDFILL MINING IN INDONESIA FOR ENERGY RECOVERY 33
1000 500 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 -500 -1000 a) -1500
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 -500 -1000 -1500 -2000 -2500 b) -3000
1000 500 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 -500 -1000 -1500 c) -2000
Figure 6 NPV of each thermochemical process excluding carbon credit (a. Incinerator, b. Gasification, c. Pyrolysis) PROSPECT OF LANDFILL MINING IN INDONESIA FOR ENERGY RECOVERY 34
20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 a) -5%
10%
5%
0% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 -5%
b) -10%
15% 10% 5% 0% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 -5% c) -10%
Figure 7 IRR of each thermochemical process excluding carbon credit (a. Incinerator, b. Gasification, c. Pyrolysis) PROSPECT OF LANDFILL MINING IN INDONESIA FOR ENERGY RECOVERY 35
2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 a) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 b) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
2
1.5
1
0.5
0 c) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Figure 8 BCR of each thermochemical process excluding carbon credit (a. Incinerator, b. Gasification, c. Pyrolysis)