Elsevier

Biomass and Bioenergy

Volume 14, Issue 1, 10 March 1998, Pages 83-89
Biomass and Bioenergy

Potential of municipal solid waste (MSW) as a source of energy in São Paulo: its impact on CO2 balance

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(97)00042-1Get rights and content

Abstract

Energy generation is needed in São Paulo and MSW represents a promising alternative, although it is more expensive than hydroelectric power. About 14 900 t/day of MSW is generated, of which 8433 t/day is domestic and commercial MSW. From this amount, 1800 t will be destined to generate 30 MW of power. The eco-balance of CO2 has been considered for incineration and recycling. The recycling program of plastics, metals, paper and glass would represent a significant reduction in energy and CO2 emission. The total CO2 released is 3.34×105 t/yr without recycling, and is 1.25×105 t/yr with a recycling program. Most of the CO2 comes from plastics and paper production. Economic aspects could probably favor incineration with energy production as the best option.

Introduction

The disposal of municipal solid waste (MSW) is becoming one of the biggest problems in São Paulo city. Although the MSW per capita is still low (0.7 kg/day), compared with other large cities around the world, it is expected to grow 2–3% per year (compared with 1% per year worldwide) (see Table 1). Disposal costs are increasing due to the larger volume of MSW generated and a reduction in available sites for landfills. Limitations in space could be eased with a larger recycling program and incineration.

MSW is a potential, large source of energy worldwide. Typical energetic values are 10.47 MJ/kg[1] in the U.S.A. and 12.48 MJ/kg in Europe.[2] In Brazil it is reported to be between 5.82 and 9.12 MJ/kg,[3] but is increasing due to the growth in utilization of plastics in packaging.[4] A waste-to-energy project for São Paulo was considered in the 1970s, but it became a more important option in the 1980s. Now, it is considered again. A thermal electric power plant using MSW and generating 30 MW of electrical power is being proposed, consuming 5 MW for its operation.[3] The cost is distributed as 70% for equipment, 20% for construction and 6% for projects. The total cost is estimated to be US$230 million, with operation costs of US$5 million/year over 30 years of operation. With a conversion efficiency of 23% the cost would be US$80/MWh, with 10% IRR, and no transmission costs. In comparison a waste-to-energy plant in Paris has a cost of US$10.73/MWh with an efficiency of 50%.[2] Electric power supply tariff in São Paulo is about US$40.00/MWh (marginal expansion tariff). To make waste incineration for energy production competitive, this would have to be the price charged. In this case, the price difference (US$40.00/MWh), would have to be subsidized by the county government. The difference would come from an incineration tax charged by the county government. The alternatives for final disposal are landfills (US$9–24/t) and composting (US$8–24/t).[3]

The CO2 released in Brazil was reported to be 45 million t in 1985.[5] Waste-to-energy is still a negligible portion of the energy supply of Brazil, but could become important in large populated areas such as São Paulo despite the consequent increase in CO2 emissions. This work is a preliminary study of the importance of a recycling program in terms of CO2 emissions in São Paulo city. The eco-balance of incineration from the CO2 pollution point of view has been considered for the most important materials: glass, paper, plastics and metals (mainly steel).

Section snippets

Material and methods

The comparison between the different alternatives considered was based on the carbon content released to the atmosphere of the different fuels used in fabrication process. It should be noted that some American data were used, and in Brazil electricity use by industry is much more common than in the U.S.A., where most energy comes from fossil fuels. Nevertheless, the hydropower potential in Brazil is completely exhausted, and new power plants to solve the energy supply crisis will come from

Results and discussion

Table 3 shows the final results of CO2 emission for each material. The first total represents the case of no recycling (incineration or landfill), and second total is the case where the material is recycled. Each material is discussed in detail.

Glass represents 2.3% of the MSW mainstream. The average consumption of energy for glass production is about 10.89 MJ/kg in São Paulo city.[10] There were no significant differences among the companies and industrial processes. Glass companies in São

Conclusions

In São Paulo, due to the low rate of voluntary separation and the high cost of curbside recycling collection programs (recovering bottles, cans, newspaper, cardboards and other clean papers), incineration appears to be more feasible. Additionally, incineration would reduce the requirements for landfills by 90–95%. This alternative could change if the population is educated to separate plastics and clean paper for recycling at higher rates than can be expected today. The summary of our

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Roberto Pessine, from CESP-São Paulo Electric Co., for help with information and scientific discussions.

References (15)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (13)

  • Carbon emissions calculation from municipal solid waste and the influencing factors analysis in China

    2015, Journal of Cleaner Production
    Citation Excerpt :

    Corsten et al. (2013) compared energy savings and CO2 emissions under two modes of waste recycling and burning using the simulation model to show that high quality recycling can reduce emissions by 2.3 Mt CO2 per annum, while burning can only reach a third of the MSW recycled at waste treatment plants in The Netherlands in 2008, however, the economic and technical aspects of any high-quality MSW recycling policy should be further integrated in assessments. Leão and Tan (1998) studied the impact of recycling plastics, metal, paper, and glass on CO2 emissions. The results indicated that the amount of CO2 emissions is 3.34 × 105 t per annum without recycling while the amount of CO2 emissions is 1.25 × 105 t per annum with recycling: considering the economic factors, burning is the best choice although the effects represent only a slight emissions reduction.

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text