Technological Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste Management System in Indonesia

Technological Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste Management System in Indonesia

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect Energy Procedia 105 (2017) 263 – 269 The 8th International Conference on Applied Energy – IC...

361KB Sizes 0 Downloads 3 Views

Recommend Documents

No documents
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect Energy Procedia 105 (2017) 263 – 269

The 8th International Conference on Applied Energy – ICAE2016

Technological Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste Management System in Indonesia Hanifrahmawan Sudibyo a,c, Akmal Irfan Majidb,c, Yano Surya Pradanaa,c, Wiratni Budhijanto a,c, Deendarlianto b,c, Arief Budimana,c,* b

a Chemical Engineering Department, Gadjah Mada University, Jalan Grafika No. 2 Yogyakarta 55281, Indonesia Mechanical Engineering Department, Gadjah Mada University, Jalan Grafika No. 2 Yogyakarta 55281, Indonesia c Center for Energy Studies, Gadjah Mada University, Jalan Sekip UGM K-1A Yogyakarta 55281, Indonesia

Abstract As developing countries, Indonesia had their municipal solid waste (M SW) production increase due to population growth and its production reached 190,000 metric ton/day in 2014. Selection of appropriate technology is necessary to reduce the waste volume primarily and to utilize waste as the energy source because of the calorific value inside. Three thermal based technologies are available for waste to energy (WtE) which are incineration, conventional air gasification, and plasma gasification. Their feasibility was evaluated environmentally and economically. None of them was environmentally feasible due to greater CO 2 emission than the CO 2 emission standard of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). However, two of which, conventional air gasification and plasma gasification, were economically feasible. © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). responsibility of of ICAE Selection and/or peer-reviewofunder Peer-review under responsibility the scientific committee the 8th International Conference on Applied Energy.

Keywords: Municipal solid waste; incineration; gasification; capital investment; CO 2 emission; feasibility study

1. Introducti on Municipal solid waste (MSW) is a term usually applied to a heterogeneous collection of wastes produced in urban areas. Generally, urban wastes can be subdivided into two major co mponents: organic and inorganic. The characteristics and quantity of the solid waste generated in a region is a function of the standard of living in the city or country. Wastes generated in developing countries have a large proportion of organic waste, while the wastes in developed countries are more diversified with relatively larger shares of plastics and paper [1]. For instance, USA, as a developed country produce 24 % organic waste, while EU and Japan, respectively, produces 34% and 40 % organic wastes. As developing country,

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +628164262111 E-mail address: [email protected]; [email protected]

1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 8th International Conference on Applied Energy. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.312

264

Hanifrahmawan Sudibyo et al. / Energy Procedia 105 (2017) 263 – 269

Indonesia produces 60-70 % o rganic waste [2]. However, the different composition of waste influences the choice of technology and waste management infrastructure. In order to contribute generously to global concerns like the depletion of fossil fuels, the greenhouse gas effect and global warming, the need to innovate and employ unconventional energy sources using available natural or non-natural resources has become crucial for the future [3,4]. Besides reducing energy consumption by understanding of energy-saving [5], one of the concepts is waste utilization in form of waste to energy (WtE) concept where generated energy is in the form o f heat or electricity fro m waste [6]. There are t wo options generally to control the MSW number left for d isposal to landfill wh ich are biological and thermal treat ments . Bio logical treat ment, however, is lower cost for similar waste, but is more difficult to control the bacteria gro wth and needs mo re t ime. Thus, thermal t reatment becomes alternative for the huge volume of wastes [6]. There are three options of thermal based WtE of MSW management system, i.e., incineration, air gasification, and plasma gasification [7,8,9]. Basically, incineration is chemical reaction of o xygen (oxidation) with a combustible material. During incinerat ion, the flue gases produced represented the available fuel energy as heat [8]. Gasification, in part icular, is the conversion of solid waste to fuel or syngas through gas forming reactions [10]. The result is not a hot flue gas as in the conventional direct combustion of wastes but a hot fuel gas (syngas), containing large amounts of not completely o xidized products that have a calorific value [11,12]. The organic content of the waste is converted main ly to carbon mono xide, hydrogen, and lower amounts of methane [ 6,8]. On the other hand, through plasma gasification p rocess, the organic fraction is converted into syngas and the inorganic fraction is vitrified into a non-leachable glass-like slag that can be safely disposed of or even reused as construction material after cooling [12,13]. Since the uniqueness of Indonesia’s MSW, technological evaluation becomes crucial stage before establishing the real WtE plant. On average, Indonesian generates 0.76 kg/day of solid waste. Thus, with total population of 253 million in 2014, Indonesia would generate around 190,000 ton/day of MSW which is ad min istratively d istributed into 34 provinces and more than 465 municipalities [1]. MSW management is responsibility by municipality (local government). However, MSW management focuses largely on waste collection, treatment (co mposting) and disposal. Thus, most local authorities prefer open dumping, creating a despondent situation in the landfill site. Th is way is the easiest but has many d isadvantages for health, safety, and environmental threats, such as spreading of disease & foul odors, causing slide down, contaminate the ground water, etc [1]. Considering these facts, thermal based WtE of M SW manage ment system should be considered by local government in Indonesia. In this study, we chose Piyungan landfill (waste disposal facility) in Yogyakarta Province as a case study. 2. Methods There are three steps to be executed for thermal based WtE of MSW management system, which are: 1). characterizing the waste chemically, 2). setting the process flow diagram, and 3). studying the feasibility of the process economically and environmentally. The data related to the composition such as garden waste, food waste, etc. were supplied by the Office of Public Work, Housing and Energy-M ineral Resources of Yogyakarta. Characterizing the waste chemically means the mixed organic and inorganic waste were represented by one single chemical formu la to simp lify the calcula tion of mass balance and energy balance. The moisture content and the weight percentage of carbon (C), hydrogen (H), o xygen (O), nitrogen (N), sulphur (S), and ash was referred to the prev ious study [14,15]. The sum of specific element mass of all kinds of waste was then converted into mole to gain the mole rat io among all elements. The mole ratio would be the basis to define the index o f each element in a single chemical formula of waste (CxHy OzNaSb ).

265

Hanifrahmawan Sudibyo et al. / Energy Procedia 105 (2017) 263 – 269

The process flow diagram to help calculate mass and heat balance is basically consisted of three units . Those are the waste reduction thermally, the effluent gas cleaning system, and the electricity generation unit. The necessary cleaning system is due to the presence of acid gas. The clean ing would choose th e use of basic solution to absorb the acid gas. The electricity generation unit could have either both steam turbine generator (STG) and gas turbine generator (GTG) existed together or only one of which. Feasibility study to judge if the process was economically feasible began fro m calculat ing CAPEX, OPEX and Working Capital by referring to Turton [16], net power p roduced, and the annual inco me fro m the electricity sales. Afterwards, it was continued to the profit calcu lation before ended with the economic parameter calculat ion. The calculation involved two currencies which are US Dollar and Indonesia n Rupiah (IDR) actually, but will be presented only in the latter by assuming that 1 USD was similar to IDR 14,000.00. Meanwhile, the environmental feasibility study would measure the number of CO2 emission. 3. Results and Discussion Table 1 shows chemical co mposition of MSW in Piyungan Landfill, Yogyakarta. Based on the calculation of potential calorific value, it is clearly seen that the potential calorific value of the mixed waste was 4,730 kkal/kg, and it is relatively similar to the sub-bituminuous coal. The weight of moisture presented is almost on 1:1 rat io with the dry mas s of the waste. Based on the elemental analysis to the waste, the chemical formula of mixed organic and inorganic waste is C502.91 H2038.48O878.78N20.37 S. Table 1. Chemical composition of municipal solid waste Waste Type

Mass, ton/day We t

Dry

Moisture

C

H

O

N

S

Ash

*Calorific Value

Garden Food Plastic T extile Rubber Wood Total

201.6 129.6 43.2 24.0 14.4 67.2 480.0

92.7 40.5 39.3 21.8 13.1 33.6 241.0

108.9 89.1 3.9 2.2 1.3 33.6 239.0

44.5 19.4 23.6 12.0 10.2 16.1 125.8

5.9 2.4 2.8 1.4 1.3 2.0 15.8

35.2 15.4 8.9 6.8 0.0 14.4 80.7

2.4 1.4 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.9 6.0

0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7

4.3 1.7 3.9 0.6 1.3 0.0 11.8

3,900 4,080 8,300 6,100 6,100 5,400 4,730

502.9

2038.5

878.8

20.4

1.0

-

-

Mole ratio

Composition in kg

*Calorific values were in kkal/kg and were taken from http://www.ecn.nl/phyllis [17] and Jenkins [18].

Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 show proposed process flow diagram of incineration unit, conventional air gasification unit, and plasma gasification unit. The incineration process used moving grate incinerator (I -101) before followed by the cooling of the flue gas through superheated steam generation in E-101. The cool flue gas was cleaned in the packed scrubber column (C-101) (see Fig 1). The process flow diagram of air and plasma gasificat ion are all the same (see Fig 2). What makes the m difference only on the type of gasifier used and the syngas composition due to capability to handle high moisture content [8]. The conventional gasifier would need the heat energy of syngas to maintain the operation temperature. The air entering gasifier was also heated by the syngas before it was entering the gasifier. On the other hand, plasma gasifier partially need the electricity produced to support plasma torch generating plasma. The process unit feasibility was assessed based on its ability to gen erate electricity and its environmental impact after electricity generation. Table 2 shows performance measurement and

266

Hanifrahmawan Sudibyo et al. / Energy Procedia 105 (2017) 263 – 269

environmental assessment of process unit for MSW treatment with the capacity of 480 metric ton/day. Based on Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources of Indonesia’s Regulation No. 19 Year 2013, the electricity generated fro m bio mass or renewable resources using either gasificat ion or incineration were priced at IDR 1,450.00 per kWh and it would be bought by National Electricity Co mpany (PT. PLN). The side products of the power produced are CO2, NOx, and SOx emission. Based on the standard of EPA for “Carbon Pollution Standard for New Power Plant”, the standard for CO 2 equivalent emission is 1,400 lbs/MWh (0.6364 kg/kWh). Therefore, none of three process units is environmentally feasible. 6 21

12

275

1

8 L-101

100

1.1

8

Utility

30 1

13

30

1

3

Ca(OH)2

14 1

150

1

150

G-102

P-102 A/B

Stack

S-103

1000

1 1 15 30 1 MSW

S-101

150

E-101

I-101

Dust Collector

10

S-102

2

7

9

9

1

1

1

50

50

1 50

C-101 300

1

S-105

80 P-103 A/B

Udara

11

5

G-101

5

1,1

4

30

1

IPAL

P-104 A/B

1

1

50

30

Gypsum 300

BFW Ash Collector

P-101 A/B

Fig. 1. Process flow diagram of inceration process unit 9 1

2 20

1

1

30

30

270 MSW

5

3

6

10

15

1

1

1

1

30

800

300

200

S-101

1 30

4

11

G-101

S-103

1 1 S-102 30

14

300

1

8

150

E-103

E-101

1 30

13

12

P-101 A/B BFW

1

1

30

150

7 1 192

Air

To waste treatment

16 1 17

24

200

1

1

30

275 To stack

NaOH sol.

20

22

1

1

60

552

P-103 A/B C-102 A/B

C-101

L-102 L-101 E-102

To utility

27 18 1 60

1 100

19

To waste treatment

1 60

21

23

1

1

30 P-104 A/B Air

30

BFW

P-102 A/B

Fig. 2. Process flow diagram of both conventional air and plasma gasifications process unit

267

Hanifrahmawan Sudibyo et al. / Energy Procedia 105 (2017) 263 – 269

Table 3 shows economic analysis paramaters for the proposed MSW treatment. Fro m this table, we may see that only two out of three process units are feasible which are both gasification processes. Incineration is considerably not feasible because of the loss if it operates. Th at’s why the economic parameters don’t need to be calculated further. For both gasification processes, all parameters stand in a good value. When we look at IRR (internal rate of return), it is interesting because it is above the MARR (Minimu m Attractive Rate of Return) wh ich is usually between 13 – 18% [16]. Afterward, Weighted Objectives (WO) method was used to select suitable technology (Table 4). T able 2. Performance measurement and environmental assessment of process unit for MSW treatment capacity 480 metric ton/day Ge ne rating Me chanism

Incine ration

Steam T urbine Generator Gas T urbine Generator T otal Power Produced, kWh/ton T otal Power Required, kWh/ton Net Power Produced, kWh/ton CO2 equivalent emission, kg/kWh

355 355 39 316 3.1182

Conventional Gasification 611 549 1,160 391 769 0.8030

Plasma Gasification 611 856 1,467 526 941 0.6870

T able 3. Feasibility study of the economic aspect for MSW treatment capacity 480 metric ton/day Parame te r

Incine ration

Conventional Gasification

Plasma Gasification

Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) Operational Expenditure (OPEX) Annual Profit Before Tax T ax* Annual Profit After Tax Net Present Value (NPV) Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Return On Investment (ROI) Pay Out T ime (POT)

IDR 293,982,577,991 IDR 101,831,991,128 (IDR 44,828,232,839) 25% -

IDR457,874,429,469 IDR 82,017,587,461 IDR 99,728,607,183 25% IDR 74,796,455,387 IDR 263,494,038,842 26.88% 8.20% 7.57

IDR 1,248,470,109,560 IDR 94,342,057,478 IDR 95,263,556,369 25% IDR 71,447,667,277 IDR 279,501,194,961 24.23% 7.83% 7.79

*Act No. 36 of 2008 (Indonesia) about Income T ax paragraph 17 clause 2 T able 4. Weighted Objectives Method to select compatible technology for MSW treatment at Piyungan Landfill

0.15 0.05 0.20 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.15

Incineration 5 4 7 3 2 8 6

Score (0-10) Air Gasification 6 7 6 6 7 4 6

Plasma Gasification 6 7 4 6 7 2 4

1

4.95

6.00

5.10

Parameter

Weighting Factor

Volume reduction Net Power Produced Initial Investment Environmental Impact Economic Feasibility T echnology Maturity Social Involvement Total Score

268

Hanifrahmawan Sudibyo et al. / Energy Procedia 105 (2017) 263 – 269

This WO method used weighting factor to show the importance of each parameter. Net power produced has the lowest weighting factor because the primary goal is how to reduce the MSW volu me so that Piyungan Landfill doesn’t need area expansion. Social involvement is a non -technical parameter to accommodate the waste pickers who had lived for several years from picking and reselling useful MSW. The scoring referred to the latest condition in Indonesia. Interpretation of the scoring is the closer the total score to 10, the better the performance of the technology for related parameter. We can see that air gasification is the most feasible to be applied recently although plasma gasificat ion has similar score in case of net power produced, economic feasibility, and environmental feasibility. Abbreviation CAPEX OPEX NPV IRR POT ROI MARR WO

Capital Expenditure Operational Expenditure Net Present Value Internal Rate of Return Pay Out Time Return on Investment Minimum Attractive Rate of Return Weighted Objectives

4. Conclusions The planning of using thermal-based process in waste management system in Indonesia could promise good economic feasibility. Air and plasma gasification would be able to consume MSW for then producing electricity to get profit. As the benefit, the waste disposal facilities don't need area expansion. Acknowledgement The authors would like to expres the highest appreciation to Ms. Rani Sjams inarsi, M.Sc., Mr. Edy Indrajaya, M.Sc., and Ir. Kuspramono fro m Office o f Public Work, Housing and Energy-M ineral Resources of Yogyakarta, Indonesia for the support in this study. References [1] [2] [3]

[4]

[5] [6]

Dalankopoulos E, Badr O, Probert SD. Municipal solid waste: a prediction methodology for the generation rate and composition in the European Union countries and the United States of America. Resour Conserv Recy 1998; 24: 155 – 166. Global Business Guide Indonesia. Sweeping Opportunities in Indonesia’s Waste Management Industry. Retrieved Nopember 5, 2015 from http://www.gbgindonesia.com. Dewajani, H, Rochmadi, Purwono, S, Budiman, A. Catalytic cracking of Indonesian nyamplung oil (Calophyllum inophyllum) for bio-fuels production using ZSM-5 catalyst. Journal of Engineering Science and Technology 2015; 10 (Spec. Issue 7): 6169. Wirawan SK, Sudibyo H., Setiaji MF, Warmada IW, Wahyuni ET, “ Development of natural zeolites adsorbent: chemical analysis and preliminary TPD adsorption study ,” Journal of Engineering Science and Technology 2015; Special Issue 4 on SOMCHE 2014 & RSCE 2014 Conference, pp. 87 -95. Budiman, A, Ishida, M. A new method for disclosing internal phenomena in a distillation column by use of material-utilization diagram. Energy 2004; 29 (12-15 Spec Iss.): 2213-2223. Minutillo M, Perna A, Di Bona D. Modelling and performance analysis of an integrated plasma gasification combined cycle (IPGCC) power plant. Energ Convers Manag 2009; 50: 2837 – 2842.

Hanifrahmawan Sudibyo et al. / Energy Procedia 105 (2017) 263 – 269

[7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

[15] [16] [17] [18]

Zhao P, Ni G, Jiang Y, Chen L, Chen M, Meng Y. Destruction of inorganic municipal solid waste incinerator fly ash in a DC arc plasma furnace. J Hazard Mater 2010; 181(1–3): 580–5. Autret E, Berthier F, Luszezanec A, Nicolas F. Incineration of municipal and assimilated wastes in France: Assessment of latest energy and material recovery performances. J Hazard Mater 2007; 139(3): 569-574. Aktawan A, Prasetya A, Wilopo W. Study of characteristics of gasification process of various biomass in a downdraft gasifier. ASEAN Journal of Systems Engineering 2015; 3(1): 1 – 5. Daniyanto, Sutidjan, Deendarlianto, Budiman A. Torrefaction of Indonesian sugar-cane bagasse to improve bio-syngas quality for gasification process. Energy Procedia 2015; 68: 157-166. Gomez E, Rani DA, Cheeseman CR, Deegan D, Wise M, Boccacini AR. Thermal plasma technology for the treatment of wastes: a critical review. J Hazard Mater 2009; 161(2–3): 614–26. Moustakas K, Fatta D, Malamis S, Haralambous K.J, Loizidou M. Demonstration plasma gasification/vitrification system for effective hazardous waste treatment. J Hazard Mater 2005;123(1–3):120–6. Pradana YS, Budiman A. Bio-Syngas Derived From Indonesian Oil Palm Empty Fruit Bunch (EFB) Using Middle-Scale Gasification. Journal of Engineering Science and Technology 2015; 10 (Spec. Issue 8): 1-8. Othman N, Basri NEA, Yunus NM, Sidek LM. Determination of physical and chemical characteristics of electronic plastic waste (Ep-Waste) resin using proximate and ultimate analysis method. International conference on construction and building technology 2008; 169–180. Tchobanoglous G, Theisen H, Eliassen R. Solid wastes: engineering principles and management issues. New York: McGrawHill; 1977 T urton R, Bailie RC, Whiting WB, Shaeiwitz JA. Analysis, Synthesis, and Design of Chemical Processes. 3 rd ed., New Jersey: Prentice Hall; 2008. Phyllis2. Database for biomass and waste. Retrieved Nopember 5, 2015 from https://www.ecn.nl/phyllis2, Energy research Centre of the Netherlands. Jenkins B. Properties of Biomass, Biomass Energy Fundamentals. EPRI Report TR-102107; January 1993.

Biography Arief Budiman is the Professor and Vice Chairman of Center for Energy Studies, Gadjah M ada University, Indonesia. His specialization is on renewable energy, biomass waste for energy, biodiesel production, and exergy analysis. His h-index at Scopus is 5 recently.

269