Renewable Energy 188 (2022) 933e944

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Energy and economic evaluation of MSW incineration and gasification

in Brazil
Livia Fernanda Rodrigues a, Ivan Felipe Silva dos Santos, PhD b, *,
Thereza Isabelle Silva dos Santos a, Regina Mambeli Barros b, Geraldo Lúcio Tiago Filho b
a
(UNIFEI - MG), Brazil
Natural Resources Institute, Federal University of Itajuba
b
(UNIFEI - MG), GEER e Renewable Energy Group, Brazil
Natural Resources Institute, Federal University of Itajuba

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Ever-increasing waste generation from the world population, along with the demand for renewable
Received 27 July 2021 energy sources, are two topics gaining prominence in global conversations. Energy recovery of municipal
Received in revised form solid wastes stands out as a possible solution for both problems. Thus, the present study aims to analyze
30 September 2021
the use of gasifiers and incinerators as technology for municipal solid waste treatment and energy
Accepted 19 February 2022
Available online 25 February 2022
generation from economic and energetic perspectives. The study was carried out in three municipalities
in different regions of Brazil with distinct characteristics: Itajub

a, Campinas and Campo Grande. The
calculations were performed considering each city's waste production values and gravimetric compo-
Keywords:
Municipal solid waste
sition. For each, two different waste flow scenarios were considered: the first adopted constant power
Gasification and waste treatment values, while the second used values that varied year to year. The results obtained
Incineration showed that the second scenario had greater energy potential than the first; however, its generation
costs are higher, due to the greater flow of waste. Regarding the types of technology, gasification resulted
in lower generation costs in Itajuba
, while incineration was more attractive for Campinas and Campo
Grande. This distinction can be explained by the different levels of organic matter in the cities involved.
The use of both types of technology did not prove to be economically viable for any of the cities and
conditions analyzed, thus demonstrating the need for government incentives for their viability.
© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Aside from the issues related to waste generation, increasing

international concerns over climate change have spurred investi-
Collection and disposal of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) are gation and investment in the generation of renewable energy in
among the greatest challenges currently facing many countries. order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). The use of energy
Solutions must be technically feasible, economically sustainable, from waste helps to solve all these problems, as it provides an
socially and legally acceptable, as well as environmentally friendly adequate disposal of waste while simultaneously generating energy
[1]. In particular, developing countries are facing soaring challenges that replaces the consumption of fossil fuels and helps to mitigate
for managing solid waste; a compounding factor is that its GHG emissions [4].
improper management causes hazards to society and the envi- In light of this, Waste-to-Energy (WTE) processes recover en-
ronment [2], which is the case in Brazil. Solid waste generation in ergy from waste through either direct combustion (e.g., incinera-
Brazil is significantly expressive, equal to 79 million tons per year, tion, pyrolysis, and gasification) or production of combustible fuels
with the waste generation index 1.04 kg/person.d. The rate of in the forms of methane, hydrogen, and other synthetic fuels (e.g.,
inadequate disposal of MSW is also high, equal to 40.5%, with 17.5% anaerobic digestion, mechanical biological treatment, and refuse-
of the total amount disposed of in dumps [3]. derived fuel). Incineration and gasification are the two primary
WTE technologies that have been used successfully throughout the
world [5].
* Corresponding author. Regarding incineration technology, this process entails thermal
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (L.F. Rodrigues), decomposition by taking advantage of the heating value of the
[email protected] (I.F.S. Santos), [email protected] (T.I.S. Santos), waste and generates energy through combustion. This process
[email protected] (R.M. Barros), gltiagofi[email protected] (G.L. Tiago Filho).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.02.083
0960-1481/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L.F. Rodrigues, I.F.S. Santos, T.I.S. Santos et al. Renewable Energy 188 (2022) 933e944

occurs in the presence of excess oxygen and at temperatures higher [22] demonstrated through life cycle analysis that incinerators,
than 800
C, in which the carbon-based materials are decomposed, regardless of power generation, are environmentally more attrac-
producing heat, ash, combustion gases, and slag. These process tive than landfills, which is the most commonly used technology for
outputs are dealt with accordingly: the heat of combustion can be waste disposal in Brazil [3]. [23] also reached the same conclusion
converted into hot water, steam or electricity; generated toxic gases based on a systematic review of publications on the subject in the
are neutralized; slag and ash are sent to landfills; and the steam can literature [24]. compared energy generation in incinerators and
be recovered by reusing water [6,7]. gasifiers using life cycle analysis. Among all the scenarios evaluated
Incinerators are constituted of combustion chambers and post- by the authors, the use of purified synthesis gas in combined cycles
combustion chambers. In the first chamber, the controlled burning was the technology with the best environmental results, even
of waste occurs at a predefined rate; in the second chamber, the better than direct incineration. The authors conclude that
burning of carbon monoxide (CO) and organic substances con- gasification-based WTE technologies showed lower environmental
tained in the gases coming from the combustion chamber are impacts on the categories of acidification, nutrient enrichment and
finalized [8]. The combustion chamber ovens have different con- photochemical ozone formation potential but caused higher global
figurations. Those available on a commercial scale are combustion warming potential [24]. Despite the fact that both incineration and
furnaces, multiple chamber combustion, fluidized bed combustion gasification are more advantageous than landfills, the use of these
and rotary body combustion. The most commonly used for MSW technologies is still incipient in Brazil, mainly because landfills are
are grid and fluidized bed combustion processes. Therefore, the the cheapest disposal option [3,25].
main factors that will determine which model will be used are the In this context, research that evaluates the economic and energy
physical state of the waste and the required capacity [9]. According potential of incineration and gasification technologies within the
to Ref. [10]; the economically viable potential for MSW incineration context of the Brazilian energy market becomes relevant. Thus, to
in Brazil is 4.43 TWh/y in the most conservative scenarios. collaborate with the development of these technologies in Brazil,
On the other hand, gasification is a thermo-chemical conversion the present study presents an economic and energy analysis of
process in which MSW is transformed into a combustible gaseous gasifiers and incinerators for the treatment of MSW considering the
product named synthesis gas, which can be transformed into en- country's particularities. The novelty of this article resides in the
ergy. The most commonly used types of gasifiers are fixed and fact that this is a more ample and robust analysis of the Brazilian
fluidized beds. For the former, the fuel movement occurs due to context, considering three different municipalities located in three
gravity; the equipment operates at relatively low temperatures, different states (Itajuba
, in the state of Minas Gerais; Campinas, in
between 400
C and 500
C, and works with high density and grade the state of Sa~o Paulo; and Campo Grande, in Mato Grosso do Sul).
fuels. For fluidized beds, the fuel particles are suspended in a bed Each case has its own distinct characteristics such as population,
with inert sand or aluminum particles and fluidized by the air flow. waste generation and gravimetric composition. A sensitivity anal-
This improves the heat transfer conditions in the combustion ysis was carried out on the results obtained, promoting discussions
chamber, enabling more efficient reactions. This operation of this about the potential and limits of these technologies in the country.
type of gasifier is more flexible, being more suitable for the density
of MSW and tolerating greater variations in water content [11e13]. 2. Methodology
In light of this, fluidized gasifiers were considered in this article due
to the results seen in the studies from Refs. [11,14]. The economic and energy assessments were carried out
Raw MSW is not appropriate for gasification, so generally sep- considering three cities are from different states and demonstrate
aration is needed, including mechanical homogenization and the different characteristics in relation to waste generation and gravi-
separation of glass, metals, and inert materials before the treatment metric composition: i) Itajuba
: located in the state of Minas Gerais
of residual waste [15]. Afterwards, waste shredding into diameters with a high rate of human development and little industrial ac-
smaller than 50 mm is necessary in order to prepare the material ~o Paulo, with intense
tivity; ii) Campinas: located in the state of Sa
for the fluidized gas chamber, according to Stapf et al. [16]. This industrial activity and economic development, suitable for the
process is followed by the removal of water content from the waste most appropriate disposal and waste technologies; and iii) Campo
and briquetting, which is the formation of pressed briquettes. This Grande: capital of the state of Mato Grosso do Sul, which disposes
process is called pretreatment and ensures that the composition of its waste in a controlled landfill near exhaustion, thus charac-
parameters and Lower Heating Value (LHV) of the resulting gas are terizing a window of opportunity for the development of new al-
within the desired compositions. Particularities such as water ternatives for waste treatment [26e29].
content of the waste and irregularity in the granulometry may in-
fluence the gasifier design, decreasing the LHV of the gas produced 2.1. Population projection and waste production
and hindering the equipment power [17e19]. The sequence pre-
sented for the pretreatment has been adopted by multiple authors The study was carried out over a 20-year period, corresponding
when conducting energy calculations for gasifiers, such as [11,19]; to the average lifetime of the incinerator and gasifier. The year 2021
Jimenez [12,14]. was considered as the year of implementation of the equipment.
After these initial steps, the residues are heated to temperatures Bearing in mind that the study must contemplate the population
higher than 700
C in an environment with reduced amounts of growth that can occur within 20 years, population projection was
oxygen or air, allowing the incomplete combustion [20]. The main carried out from 2020 to 2040. The population projection model
product of this process is the synthesis gas, composed mainly of CO, adopted the arithmetic increment method, described in Equation
CO2, CH4, H2 and particulate materials, used mainly for energy (1) [30]. This model was adopted due to the fact that the population
production. This process also generates a solid by-product known variations observed in Table 2 are approximately linear between
as glassy slag, which is a chemically inert residue which can be the years of population census.
reused as aggregate material [21].
Based on various references, [10] compiled a table comparing Pop ðtÞ ¼ P0 þ r:ðt  t0 Þ (1)
the advantages and disadvantages of various technologies for po-
wer generation from MSW. Table 1 summarizes this information for Where: r ¼ population growth rate over time; P1 ¼ city population
incineration and gasification. in the year t1 (inhabitants); P2 ¼ city population in the year t2
934
L.F. Rodrigues, I.F.S. Santos, T.I.S. Santos et al. Renewable Energy 188 (2022) 933e944

Table 1
Advantages and disadvantages of incineration and gasification [10].

Technology Advantage Disadvantages

Incineration  Small installation areas  Potentially high concentration of metals in the ashes
 Energy recovery during MSW combustion  Elevated operation and maintenance costs
 High yield and continuous feed  Particle emissions, SOx, NOx and chlorinated compounds (such as dioxins and furans) which require a
 Low generation of noise and odor rigorous gas treatment system
 Plant installation within city limits, reducing  Inviable results for wastes with high moisture content or chlorinated compounds (for the risk of toxic
transport costs gas emissions)
 Greater reduction of waste volume to be disposed  High costs
of in landfills
Gasification  Production of fuel (gas/oil), which can be used for  Tar production
many purposes  More suitable for large scale power plants using Rankine cycle
 Waste volume reduction up to 90%  High capital and operating costs
 Easily expandable technology  Immature, inflexible technology with risk of failure
 Can be used for all kinds of wastes  Corrosion of metal tubes during reaction

Table 2
Municipality population in different years. Source: Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics [31].

Ano Itajub

a Campo Grande Campinas

Population (inhabitants) Population (inhabitants) Population (inhabitants)

1991 75,014 522,801 839,420

2000 84,135 659,127 959,504
2010 90,658 779,224 1,072,184

(inhabitants); t1 ¼ year of P1; t2 ¼ year of P2; and Pop ¼ population used in Ref. [37] in USW applications in Brazil. This value was
every year. The data of the chosen cities used for the population adopted for the calculations in this study. According to Ref. [18];
projection model are shown in Table 2. For this it is noted that waste material moisture after drying should be between 10% and
Itajuba
is a smaller city, while Campo Grande and Campinas are 15% for gasification. Based on these data, the Cm constant can be
more populous ones. calculated, which is equivalent to the relation between the material
The projection of the quantity of MSW takes into account the mass after drying and the mass prior to drying considering the
current population of the city, population growth rate, and the rate original moisture. This difference is due to the removal of water
of waste generation per capita. From these factors, it is possible to mass from the total mass. For the values adopted herein, the Cm
obtain total annual waste generation using Equation (2) [30]. In the value was 0.62. This value is near to 0.66, which was adopted by
case of gasifiers, the waste must be dry. So the Equation to be used Stapf et al. [16].
is 3 [18]. The mass flow of each type of waste, for each city, was then
detailed according to its gravimetric composition. These data are
Ru ðtÞ ¼ Pop ðtÞ$Ig ðtÞ$365 (2) shown in Table 3. Thus, the mass flow of each residue, for both
equipment, can be obtained through Equation (4).
Rs ðtÞ ¼ Pop ðtÞ$Ig ðtÞ$365$Cm (3)

Where: Ru(t) ¼ mass flow of wet waste generated by the city (kg/y); Fr : RðtÞ
Rr ðtÞ ¼ (4)
Ig(t) ¼ waste generation index (kg/person.d); Rs(t) ¼ mass flow of 100
dry waste generated by the city (kg/y); and Cm ¼ constant relative
Where: Rr(t) ¼ mass flow rate of each waste (kg/y); Fr ¼ percentage
to the loss of mass of the residues due to drying. In the present
of each type of waste material in gravimetric composition; and
study, an index of waste generation increasing by 0.5% per year was
R(t) ¼ mass flow of waste generated by the city (kg/y).
also considered [32]. The waste generation indices used were:
0.612 kg/person.d in Itajuba
(2015 data obtained in Ref. [33];
0.846 kg/person.d in Campo Grande (2017 data obtained in Table 3
Ref. [26]; and 1.124 kg/person.d in Campinas (2013 data obtained in Gravimetric composition of MSW in the municipalities analyzed. Source: [27];
Drumond Júnior [26,28].
Ref. [28].
For better comprehension of the Cm parameter, one must Waste

Itajuba Campo Grande Campinas
consider the waste material's humidity. The average MSW hu- (%) (%) (%)
midity varies due to myriad factors. Among the most influential
Organic matter 64.15 46.63 52.26a
variables are climatic conditions such as temperature and precipi- Paper and cardboard 9.7 12.64 15.47
tation. This index also varies according to the average income of the Textiles and leather 0 0 1.89
region under study, seeing that lower income regions tend to have Wood 0 0 0.29
greater percentages of organic material, which presents greater Plastics 11.8 20.80 15.57
Rubber 0 0 0.29
moisture levels [34]. The values reported for this parameter vary
Metal 2.3 0.92 1.05
widely in the literature. Tun and Juchelkova
[35] cited moisture Other 12.05 7.56e19.01b 13.21
levels of 40% in developing countries [36]. found levels varying a
This percentage considers 32.23% of foodstuff waste material and 20.03% garden
between 37% and 56% in sanitary landfills in Northeast Brazil. waste.
[11] points out that MSW moisture indices vary between 40% b
Among this percentage, 11.45% were classified by Ref. [26] as “other combus-
and 60%. The average of these values (50%) is equal to the value tibles materials”.

935
L.F. Rodrigues, I.F.S. Santos, T.I.S. Santos et al. Renewable Energy 188 (2022) 933e944

2.2. Energy and economic analysis Table 5

Productive capacity and installed power of the equipment [18].

For incineration, it is desirable that MSW have a high LHV, such ðPot  PPÞ$Dt$FC
E¼ (8)
as plastics, paper and cardboard, given that material with greater 1000
moisture levels, such as organic content, may hinder the incinera-
tion process[8]. In the case of gasification, the irregularity in the
granulometry is also a factor that influences the quality of the waste Primary separation

as a fuel; thus, to avoid difficulties in the gasifier operation, the Capacity (ton/h) Consumed power (kW)
residues are submitted to a briquetting process followed by drying. 0.4 25.75
The formation of briquettes consists of a thermal compaction pro- 2.1 44.15
cess that reduces the initial volume of the waste and, under high 4.2 51.50
temperatures, evaporates part of the moisture, which contributes 10.0 132.40
16.7 176.60
to the increase in the waste material's LHV [18].
Table 4 reveals the LHV values on a dry basis, which will be used Mechanical treatment
Productive capacity (ton/h) Consumed power (kW)
in the gasifier calculations and on a wet basis for the incinerator
calculations. From these values and with the aid of Equations (5) 0.5 44.130
and (6), it is possible to determine the total LHV of the residues 0.8 55.162
1 66.195
[8]. In the present study, it was considered that metal materials 1.5 80.905
were recycled, and the materials included in “Other” were generally 2 99.292
not inserted in the calculations due to their unpredictability and the
lack of more specific data on the studied cities. Due to the great
variation in the material involved in this class, which should differ
among the cities, any attempt to estimate heating power would as the value on dry basis calculated by Equation (6). The circulating
bring about many uncertainties regarding the results. Data were fluidized gasifier was adopted, in accordance with [11] and Stapf
found only for Campo Grande, which described 11.45% of materials et al. [16], whose operation efficiency was set at 75%. Its energetic
classified as “Other” as combustible material. For this case, an conversion efficiency was then set at 30% [11,20].
average heating power between the remaining residues was As the chosen gasification technology requires additional pro-
considered. Thus, from the residue LHV, the available power in each cesses such as separation of recyclable materials (plastics, glasses
year of the technology under study is determined through Equation and non-ferrous metals), shredding to a diameter smaller than
(7). 50 mm, drying and briquetting to treat the waste before feeding the
reactor [11,16], a portion of the power generated will be lost to meet
Fr $LHVr these additional processes (Consumed Power- CP), determined
LHVf ¼ (5)
100 through data from Ref. [18]; who related installed power with
productive capacity of the equipment used for mechanical treat-
X
n ment (briquettes), as seen in Table 5 [18]. Equation (8) presents the
LHVtot ¼ LHVf (6) calculation for the energy that can be produced using the studied
i¼1
technologies, taking into account the CP values. It is noteworthy
that pre-treatment will not be considered for incineration tech-
X
n
Rr $LHVtot $h nologies, given that the authors considered grill combustion in-
Pot ¼ (7)
i¼1
3; 600$Dt cinerators that comport waste material in its raw state and are able
to handle a wider variety of grain sizes, being the most commonly
Where: LHVf ¼ lower heating value per fraction of MSW (kJ/kg); utilized incinerator for MSW [8,38]. Therefore, the value of CP for
LHVr ¼ lower heating value of each type of waste (kcal/kg); ob- incinerators is equal to 0.Where: E(t) ¼ energy generated by the
tained in Table 4 according to FEAM [8]; Fr ¼ fraction of MSW (%); equipment (MWh/year) and FC ¼ equipment capacity factor,
n ¼ number of types of waste; LHVtot ¼ total lower heating value of adopted as being 80% for both technologies as [10].
waste (kJ/kg); h ¼ efficiency of energy conversion equipment; Analyses were performed for two scenarios as reported by
Rr(t) ¼ mass flow rate of each waste (kg/y); Dt ¼ number of annual Ref. [20]: i) The first had constant power and waste treatment;
hours ¼ 8,760 h/year; 3,600 ¼ conversion constant from h to s; and while ii) the second considered power and waste mass increases on
Pot ¼ available power due to the energy use of waste in kW. a yearly basis. The first scenario (SC1) consists of designing the
In gasifier calculations, the LHV of the fuel derived from the equipment to be used (incinerator or gasifier) to meet the waste
residue after the briquetting process can only be determined in demand of the initial year. The equipment will generate the same
more detail by means of experimental tests. As one of the objectives energy in all years and operate with constant load and low power.
of the present study is to evaluate the impact of gravimetric Under these circumstances, from the second year forward, the
composition on the energy potential, the total LHV was estimated waste production will be greater than the equipment capacity, thus
leading to an excess of material disposal in sanitary landfills.
In the second scenario (SC2), all residues produced will be
Table 4 treated in the studied technology. With this, the operating load of
Lower heating value of waste [8]. the equipment and the energy produced will increase each year,
Waste LHV dry basis (kJ/kg) LHV wet basis (kJ/kg) with the maximum power reached in the last year. This scenario is
Organic matter 17,991.20 2,979.01
capable of treating more waste than the first; however, it presents
Paper and cardboard 15,899.20 11,418.14 higher installation costs [20]. Both scenarios are represented by
Textiles and leather 17,572.80 8,037.46 Fig. 1, in which one can observe lesser installed power in SC1, thus
Wood 15,480.80 10,418.16 resulting in reduced energy generation, as well as the greater po-
Plastics 43,095.20 34,279.51
wer variable and total mass of waste treatment in SC2.
Rubber 40,584.80 36,120.47

936
L.F. Rodrigues, I.F.S. Santos, T.I.S. Santos et al. Renewable Energy 188 (2022) 933e944

Fig. 1. Graphs of power over time of equipment in scenarios 1 and 2 [20]..

For economic calculations, it was first necessary to determine [44], seen in Equations (13) and (14). If the NPV is greater than zero,
the investment cost related to the acquisition and installation of the the project is financially viable; likewise, values less than zero are
equipment. Regarding incinerator, the installation cost was ob- not viable. The LCOE, on the other hand, is nothing more than the
tained through Equation (9) as seen in Ref. [39]. For the fluidized minimum energy sales tariff for the project to make it viable [45].
bed gasifier, the installation cost was obtained by Equation (10),
which takes into account the cost of the gasification equipment and X
m
ðE:TÞ  Com
NPV ¼ I (13)
mechanical treatment (equation constructed based on values ob-
j¼1 ð1 þ iÞj
tained in Ref. [11].
Pm Cn
Iinc ¼ 15; 797 $ Pot 0:82 $ ð1 þ FIÞ $ k1 (9) j¼0 ð1þiÞj
LCOE ¼ Pm E
(14)
j¼0 ð1þiÞj
Igas ¼ k2 $ð0:993 $ Rs Þ (10)
Where: E(t) ¼ energy generated by the equipment (MWh/year);
Where: Iinc ¼ incinerator investment in BRL; FI ¼ tax factor due to T ¼ energy sales rate (USD/MWh), adopted as 59 USD/MWh, ac-
technology imports e a value of 30% was adopted based on the rate cording to the ceiling of the A-4 generation auction for renewable
of thermal energy generation equipment [40]; k1 ¼ quote between sources [46]; Com ¼ operation and maintenance cost (USD/year);
EUR and BRL. The quote used to convert the values was 5.86 BRL for I ¼ investment cost (USD); i ¼ interest rate, defined as 5% per year
each V (euro), an approximated value to the euro average against which corresponds to the 2019 SELIC rate plus a 3% risk factor [47];
the Brazilian real in 2020 [41]; Igas ¼ gasifier investment in BRL; j ¼ years of analysis; and m ¼ useful life of the project in years,
k2 ¼ 1.7 which corresponds to the correction of inflation between adopted as 20 years, according to Ref. [48].
the years 2015 (year of data collection) to February 2021 [42]; and In order to better understand and the economic viability of the
Rs ¼ mass flow of dry waste in kg/y. project, a sensitivity analysis of the LCOE was also carried out in
Operation and maintenance costs were also calculated for each light of the variations in the discount rate and the amount of
of the technologies. For the incinerator, a 4% cost of the initial in- organic matter in the waste. The annual interest rate varied be-
vestment per year was considered (Equation (11)). In the case of the tween 3% (optimistic value) and 7% (pessimistic value) in each of
aerator, the total cost of operation and maintenance was considered the cities and technologies studied, while the fraction of organic
to be the sum of the costs of the aerator, the first portion of the matter was varied by 10% in relation to the base scenario. This
equation, and the briquetting, the second portion of Equation (12) percentage being removed or added distributed equally among the
[11]. Given that the analyses were constructed considering two other waste fractions. For gasification technology, a sensitivity
waste flow scenarios, with the highest level of waste treatment in analysis was carried out to understand the impact of moisture on
the second scenario, the costs of disposal in landfills (technology of the LCOE values.
dominant disposal in the Brazilian scenario) in both equipment
were considered in each of the scenarios. Thus, the advantages of
3. Results
the second scenario would be accounted for due to the lower cost of
using landfills, still necessary in the first scenario.
3.1. Energy analysis

Cominc ¼ 0:04$Iinc þ Cat (11)

Based on the described methodology, the population projection
of the municipalities was carried out using Equation (1). The pro-
Comgas ¼ 0:11$Rs þ Cat (12) jection of the quantity of MSW is determined through Equation (2)
for incinerators and Equation (3) for gasifiers. Finally, it is possible
Where: Cominc ¼ annual costs of operating and maintaining incin- to calculate the power generation potential for each of the studied
eration; Comgas ¼ annual gasification operation and maintenance technologies. The power available for the municipalities according
costs; Rs ¼ mass of dry waste in kg/y and Cat ¼ costs with waste to these calculations is shown in Table 6.
disposal in landfills ¼ 60 BRL/t [18]. The results in Table 6 demonstrate that the municipality of
The economic analysis was performed for both technologies Campinas has greater energy potential compared to other munic-
using Net Present Value (NPV - [43] and Levelized Cost of Electricity ipalities due to its larger population. It is also observed that
937
L.F. Rodrigues, I.F.S. Santos, T.I.S. Santos et al. Renewable Energy 188 (2022) 933e944

Table 6
Energy results for the two technologies in each city.

Year Population in inhabitants Mass of wet waste (106 kg/y) Incinerator Gasifier

Pot (kW) Pot (kW) CP (kW)

Itajuba
2025 103,009 24.186 1,020.82 839.7 113.18
2030 107,126 25.788 1,088.42 895.4 116.22
2035 111,243 27.456 1,158.79 953.29 119.39
2040 115,360 29.191 1,232.00 1,013.53 122.69
Campo Grande
2025 981,664.00 315.47 21,894.44 8,275.21 850.28
2030 1,049,143.00 345.66 23,990.31 9,067.37 905.24
2035 1,116,623.00 377.18 26,178.10 9,894.26 962.61
2040 1,184,103.00 410.08 28,461.078 10,757.14 1,022.47
Campinas
2025 1,255,946.00 547.04 29,286.77 16,201.98 1,434.63
2030 1,317,199.00 588.21 31,490.69 17,421.23 1,508.97
2035 1,378,453.00 631.11 33,787.27 18,691.74 1,586.43
2040 1,439,707.00 675.80 36,179.75 20,015.30 1,667.12

incineration is the alternative that presents the greatest power Table 8

generation potential available from the waste material. The only Percentage of population served by energy from equipment.

scenario with comparable results is in the city of Itajuba
, consid- City Population served (%)
ering gasification. This case is a consequence of the fact that Itajuba

Incinerator Gasifier
has higher organic content in its waste compared to other cities


Itajuba 10.63% 7.53%
(64% compared to values less than 52% in other cities, based on
Campo Grande 23.9% 6.22%
Table 3). In gasifiers, the lost power CP has grown according to the Campinas 25.02% 12.60%
increase in the quantity of MSW over the years, as expected.
To determine the energy generated by the equipment over the
years, Equation (8) was used. For the first scenario, in which the
population service rates at least 90% higher than gasification in
energy generated is remains constant from year to year, the results
Campo Grande and Campinas, which reinforces the conclusion that
of the energy generated by the equipment for each city are shown
incineration is more energetically advantageous in cities with
in Table 7.
lower content of materials organic.
Table 7 also brings the energy rates of the incinerator and
The energy generated by the projects in the second scenario
gasifier in each city in relation to the mass of wet waste used for
varies each year; these results obtained are shown in Table 9. Ac-
energy generation. It is evident that incineration generation and
cording to the results, the second scenario generates more energy
energy rates benefit from lower organic content in the cities of
in all municipalities for both projects because it treats a greater
Campo Grande and Campinas; in Campinas, it is even higher due to
quantity amount of waste.
the high plastic content in the city. The energy index of the incin-
erator in Campo Grande is 64% greater than that of Itajuba
, a city
with greater organic content than Campo Grande. In turn, the en- 3.2. Economic calculations


ergy index of the gasifier is 22% per cent higher in the city of Itajuba
than in Campinas. All of these results show the impact of organic The installation costs for the developments according to the
matter in the choice of technology to be used in the energy use of analyzed scenarios were calculated using Equations (11) and (12) in
waste. each of the cities and are shown in Table 10.
Following these analyses, Table 8 shows the percentage of the Through the results of Table 10, higher costs are noted in the
population that would receive power generated by the equipment case of the incinerator in all cases studied. According to FEAM [8],
in each city. This analysis takes into account the average residential incineration tends to have higher implementation and operation
energy consumption for 2016, equal to 160 kWh/month according costs due to environmental controls for emitting dioxins and pro-
to EPE [49] and assumes that the average number of residents per ducing solid particles and residues rich in metals in its process.
household in Brazil is equal to 3 [50]. This table shows that in some The equipment installation costs in the budget for each mu-
cases, such as the incineration in Campinas and Campo Grande, this nicipality were analyzed to clarify the magnitude of these in-
percentage of the population approaches and even exceeds 20%, a vestments using the results in Table 10. The city of Itajub
a had a
very considerable value given that it is energy from waste. The revenue forecast of 63,167,850.03 USD for the year 2020 [51]. In-
same results in Table 8 also show that the incinerator reaches cinerators represent 10.37% of the city's total revenue considering

Table 7
Energy generated by the equipment considering the 1st scenario.

City Energy produced by the incinerator (MWh/ Energy produced by the gasifier (MWh/ Incinerator Energy index MWh/ Gasifier Energy index MWh/
year) year) t ta

Itajuba 6,788.40 4,807.84 0.296 0.457
Campo 142,134.33 48,058.57 0.486 0.375
Grande
Campinas 193,337.95 97,305.67 0.375 0.434
a
Index calculated using only the mass of residue that enters in the gasifiers.

938
L.F. Rodrigues, I.F.S. Santos, T.I.S. Santos et al. Renewable Energy 188 (2022) 933e944

Table 9
Energy generated by the equipment considering the 2nd scenario.

Year Itajuba Campo Grande Campinas

Incinerator energy (MWh/ Gasifier energy (MWh/ Incinerator energy (MWh/ Gasifier energy (MWh/ Incinerator energy (MWh/ Gasifier energy (MWh/
year) year) year) year) year) year)

2025 7,107.66 5,054.02 152,005.06 51,492.96 203,735.11 102,656.08

2030 7,579.51 5,420.86 166,629.92 56,635.43 219,116.63 110,644.49
2035 8,070.70 5,802.74 181,896.62 62,003.60 235,145.21 118,968.96
2040 8,581.86 6,200.14 197,828.07 67,605.53 251,843.57 127,641.30

Table 10 In the case of Itajuba
, where the power is less than 5,000 kW
Installation costs by scenario and technology. (Table 6), the projects can be registered in distributed generation,
1st scenario (USD) 2nd scenario (USD) according to resolutions 482/2012 and 687/2015 of the Brazilian


Itajuba Incinerator 6,552,819.0 8,060,859.1
Electricity Regulatory Agency [54,55]. Under these same conditions,
Gasifier 3,459,638.0 4,453,788.9 the projects can also follow the credit compensation system with
Campo Grande Incinerator 79,358,215.0 106,185,240.00 the energy generated being used to supply the municipal demand.
Gasifier 42,183,496.00 60,169,588.00 The rates to be used in the economic analysis would then be the
Campinas Incinerator 102,131,280.00 128,973,690.00
economy energy rate on energy purchases, which is around 150
Gasifier 73,807,511.00 98,104,468.00
USD/MWh, greater than the LCOE of gasification and incineration in
the city, improving the feasibility of the projects. Finally, it is clear
that the application of these technologies in distributed generation
scenario 1 and 12.76% for scenario 2. In the case of gasifiers, the
is a suitable option for their viability in smaller cities and, conse-
percentage varies from 5.5% for scenario 1e7.05% in scenario 2. For
quently, power.
Campo Grande, the expected revenue for 2020 is 833,915,759.1 USD
Due to the effect of reducing costs with ramping up [10], a
[52]. The installation of incinerators would correspond to 9.52% in
reduction in LCOE was expected with the increase in the population
scenario 1 and 12.73% in scenario 2, while under the gasifier sce-
of cities. However, this was not the case with the gasifier because
nario, the investment varies from 5.06%, in scenario 1e7.21% in
more populous cities demonstrated reduced organic matter con-
scenario 2. The city of Campinas, which has an estimated revenue of
. Another point to
tent in relation to the smallest studied city, Itajuba
1,202,899,806 USD in 2020 [53] pointed to an incinerator cost
be highlighted is that the production of waste per unit of in-
percentage equivalent to 8.49% in scenario 1 and 10.73% in scenario
habitants and the content of each type of waste in each city are
2, while gasifiers vary from 6.13% in scenario 1e8.15% in scenario 2.
different, which also influences the economic performance of
The percentages show that the gasifier tends to be a less expensive
technologies in each city.
alternative for each of the analyzed cities. In addition, it can be
has a very
In Table 11, it can be also noted that the city of Itajuba
concluded that in most cases, a small percentage of the cities'
high LCOE for incineration, making gasification a more economi-
revenue is required for the implementation of the proposed en-
cally viable alternative. The city has a percentage of organic matter
terprise, especially in the cities of Campinas and Campo Grande,
above the Brazilian average (around 50%, according to Ref. [56],
which have a considerably larger population than Itajuba
. However,
which directly affects the use of MSW treatment technologies. In
this analysis alone does not attest to the feasibility of investment on
this case, the use of incinerators is impaired due to the water
the part of the cities studied, given that there are numerous other
content in the organic matter and the non-consideration of the
areas that require investments.
drying process, which leads to an increase in the LCOE of this
In respect to economic analysis, two methodologies were
technology for the municipality. On the other hand, Campo Grande,
applied: Net Present Value (NPV) and Levelized Cost of Electricity
which is a city that has an organic average below the Brazilian
(LCOE) through Equations (13) and (14). The results are shown in
average and a much larger population, has a lower LCOE for
Table 11.
incineration.
It is noted that the waste treatment project through incinerators
Analyzing the studied scenarios, there was an increase in the
and gasifiers is an economically unfeasible project for all three
LCOE value for all cities in scenario 1 to scenario 2. The increases are
municipalities, given that each one resulted in negative NPV values
shown in Table 12.
and LCOEs higher than the energy sale tariff for both scenarios. One
Despite this increase, it is known that scenario 2 is better
of the factors that resulted in this result was the elevated equip-
environmentally because it treats a greater amount of waste and
ment investment cost, which cannot be amortized within the
requires less landfill usage. In addition, this scenario produces more
period of its useful life. As these technologies are not widely used in
energy than scenario 1, resulting in more benefits for the Brazilian
the country, their initial cost is still high.
energy matrix and a higher volume of reduced emissions.

Table 11
Results of the economic feasibility analysis.

City Technology NPV in USD LCOE in USD/MWh

1st scenario 2nd scenario 1st scenario 2nd scenario

Itajuba Incinerator 6,970,318.3 8,435,942.0 124.8 132.1
Gasifier 4,143,926.3 5,001,556.10 110.6 115.8
Campo Grande Incinerator 58,404,684.00 78,999,314.00 73.77 79.12
Gasifier 51,696,181.00 66,424,468.00 136.73 146.77
Campinas Incinerator 70,753,883.00 87,934,683.00 70.03 73.10
Gasifier 91,518,385.00 113,265,430.00 117.07 124.21

939
L.F. Rodrigues, I.F.S. Santos, T.I.S. Santos et al. Renewable Energy 188 (2022) 933e944

Table 12 Table 13
Increase in LCOE between scenarios 1 and 2. Variation of LCOE by renewable energy source in Brazil [45].

Incinerator Gasifier Treatment of MSW LCOE minimum LCOE maximum

(USD/MWh) (USD/MWh)


Itajuba 5.83% 4.75%
Campo Grande 7.26% 7.32% Landfills 54.19 83.53
Campinas 4.37% 6.10% Anaerobic digestion 80.28 121.21
Anaerobic digestion þ Incineration 85.11 132.11

Among the alternatives that can enable the use of these tech-
nologies, there are government actions aimed at increasing the incineration and gasification, for each city, according to the interest
energy sales rate in government bidding processes; reduction of rate. From the results of Fig. 3, it can be seen that the LCOE variation
the importation tax rates for the equipment, thus decreasing the by the interest rate is linear. The LCOE growth with a variation of 1%
cost of the investment necessary for its purchase; allocation of in the interest rate was between 5.1% and 6.2% in all cases analyzed.
additional resources for the development of these technologies in In addition, both in Campo Grande and Campinas, there is still a
national territory and disseminating their knowledge in order to long distance between LCOEs for gasification and incineration,
discover new ways to optimize their operation; and reduce pro- which is due to the elevated number of inhabitants and reduced
duction costs and increase their profitability. fraction of organic matter in waste in these cities. In Itajuba
the
The average LCOE between the two studied scenarios for the distance between the LCOE curves for both technologies are
technologies used in each municipality was indicated in Fig. 2. The shorter, indicating that for any interest rate value, gasification will
standard deviation was calculated, obtaining a result of 28.95 (USD/ be the cheapest technology in the city.
MWh) for the incinerator and 26.1 (USD/MWh) for the aerator, Fig. 4 shows the variations in LCOE as a function of variations in
considered between the cities. Based on these values, it can be the total organic matter content of the gravimetric composition of
concluded that the characteristics of the city in question greatly the residues. In all of the cases, the LCOE value for gasification di-
influence the financial viability of both types of energy projects. minishes as organic material increases, while the LCOE grows for
Comparing the LCOE obtained in this study with the LCOE from incineration as organic material reduces. The LCOE reduction for
other technologies for final disposal and energy recovery of waste the gasifiers was even more pronounced in the case of cities such as
in Brazil demonstrated in Table 13 (obtained in Ref. [45] e 2019 data Itajuba
and Campo Grande, reaching values greater than 20%; in
corrected for 2020 due to appreciation of the dollar), Itajuba
has turn, for the incinerator LCOE with reduced organic material con-
competitive values with the use of gasification compared to the tent, the reduction was less significant, being less than 7% in all of
other technologies in Table 13. The use of incineration in Campinas the studied cases.
and Campo Grande, conversely, is quite attractive in view of the
other technologies, eventually rivaling even the costs of landfills
which, being a technologically simpler option, naturally has a lower 4. Conclusion
LCOE.
The results obtained demonstrate that the economic and energy
performance of the analyzed technologies are a function of the
3.3. Sensitivity analysis population, their generation of waste and, above all, the gravimetric
composition of the waste. Incineration proved to be an option with
The sensitivity analysis of this study was conducted according to the greatest potential in the cities of Campinas and Campo Grande,
the discount rate values and the organic matter content in the while for Itajuba
, which has a high percentage of organic matter in
gravimetric composition. Fig. 3 shows the LCOE results considering its waste, thus increasing the water content of the waste and greatly

Fig. 2. Average LCOE of both technologies in the three cities.

940
L.F. Rodrigues, I.F.S. Santos, T.I.S. Santos et al. Renewable Energy 188 (2022) 933e944

Fig. 3. Variation of LCOE in function of the discount rate: Results in (a) Itajub
a; (b) Campo Grande; and (c) Campinas.

941
L.F. Rodrigues, I.F.S. Santos, T.I.S. Santos et al. Renewable Energy 188 (2022) 933e944

Fig. 4. Variation of LCOE in function of the organic matter content in the wastes: Results for (a) Gasification; (b) Incineration.

disadvantages the incineration process, gasification would be of areas in landfills (structure with high polluting potential) and a
favorable and lower LCOE in the city. greater reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, still amplifies en-
The economic feasibility study showed negative results for NPV terprise costs by up to 8%. Regarding this point, the results of the
and elevated LCOE values for all municipalities; that is, no tech- present work serve as a tool to support decision making.
nology showed financial feasibility. This is due to the fact that they Since Brazil still has a high rate of inadequate waste disposal, the
are technologies that are not widespread in the country, in turn study of energetic use of waste helps to solve this problem and also
making the initial investment necessary for the acquisition of to increase the generation of renewable energy throughout the
equipment high. This factor, added to the low values of energy sales country. Thus, the need to build a national policy of incentives for
tariffs, ends up not being sufficient to generate return on in- the generation of energy derived from waste should be highlighted,
vestments. Examples of alternatives that can make the project as these directives make it possible to reduce the costs of genera-
economically viable are government actions such as reducing the tion, in turn making them more financially competitive. As rec-
import rate of equipment, reduction of the interest rate, which ommendations for future studies, more detailed sensitivity
would facilitate the payment of the investment over time, or the analyses on energy and economic aspects of incineration and
increase of the energy sale tariff in the auction. gasification technologies, considering water content variations as
For this study, the analyzed scenarios demonstrated that the well as the efficiency of MSW drying processes, would shed greater
treatment of a greater quantity of waste mass in the second sce- light on these questions.
nario, while better environmentally due to the lower consumption

942
L.F. Rodrigues, I.F.S. Santos, T.I.S. Santos et al. Renewable Energy 188 (2022) 933e944

CRediT authorship contribution statement chapters/59269.

[16] Stapf, D. Ceceri, G. Johansson, I. Whitty, K.. Biomass pre-treatment for bio-
energy. International Energy Agency e IEA Bioenergy. Available at: https://
Livia Fernanda Rodrigues: Worked in the calculations, Worked www.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/CS3-MSW-pretreat-
in the writing of the paper. Ivan Felipe Silva dos Santos: Concep- ment-for-gasification.pdf. Accessed on 09/2021.
tion of the idea of the paper, Worked in the writing of the paper, [17] B.A. Melo, Computational Evaluation of a Fluidized Bed Gasification System
Using the CSFB - Dissertation (Master in Energy Conversion) Software, Federal
Worked in the revisions. Thereza Isabelle Silva dos Santos: University of Itajuba
, Itajuba

, 2008 (In Portuguese).
Worked in the writing of the paper. Regina Mambeli Barros: [18] F.C. Luz, Technical-Economic Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste Gasification
Worked in the revisions, Worked in the translation. Geraldo Lúcio Plants for Electricity Generation. 251 P. Dissertation (Master in Mechanical
Engineering), Federal University of Itajuba
, Itajuba

, 2013 (In Portuguese).
Tiago Filho: Worked in the revisions. [19] F.C. Luz, M.H. Rocha, E.E.S. Lora, O.J. Venturini, R.V. Andrade, M.M.V. Leme,
O.A. del Olmo, Techno-economic analysis of municipal solid waste gasification
for electricity generation in Brazil, Energy Convers. Technol. 103 (2015)
Declaration of competing interest
321e337.
[20] M.R. Piva, Energy and Economic Analysis of the Gasification of Municipal Solid
The authors declare that they have no known competing Wastes in the City of Pouso Alegre. Course Conclusion Paper (Graduation in
Chemical Engineering), Federal University of Itajuba
, 2019 (In Portuguese).
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
[21] B.Q. Bastos, Technologies for Energy Utilization of Municipal Solid Waste.
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Graduation Project (Electrical Engineering at Escola Polite
cnica), Federal
University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, 2013 (In Portuguese).
[22] M.M.V. Leme, M.H. Rocha, E.E.S. Lora, O.J. Venturini, B.M. Lopes, C.H. Ferreira,
Acknowledgements Techno-economic analysis and environmental impact assessment of energy
recovery from Municipal Solid Waste (USW) in Brazil, Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
We give thanks to the Brazilian National Council for Scientific 87 (2014) 8e20.
[23] B. Dastjerdi, V. Strezov, M.A. Rajaeifar, R. Kumar, M. Behnia, A systematic
and Technological Development (CNPq), for granting productivity
review on life cycle assessment of different waste to energy valorization
in research scholarship to Prof. Regina Mambeli Barros (PQ2, Pro- technologies, J. Clean. Prod. V. 290 (2021), 125747.
cess Number: 303805/2018-8). [24] Y. Tang, J. Dong, G. Li, Y. Zheng, Y. Chi, A. Nzihou, E. Weiss-Hortala, C. Ye,
Environmental and exergetic life cycle assessment of incineration- and
gasification-based waste to energy systems in China, Energy (2020), https://
References doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.118002.
[25] P. Agamuthu, Landfilling in developing countries, Waste Manag. Res. 31
[1] H. Abdel-Shafy, M.S.M. Mansour, Solid waste issue: sources, composition, (2013) 1e2. Editorial.
disposal, recycling, and valorization, Egypt. J. Petrol. 27 (2018) 1275e1290. [26] P.M. Lima, F. Olivo, P.L. Paulo, V. Schalch, C. Cimpan, Life Cycle Assessment of
[2] H. Dhar, S. Kumar, R. Kumar, A review on organic waste to energy systems in prospective MSW management based on integrated management planning in
India, Bioresour. Technol. (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/ Campo Grande, Brazil, Waste Manag. 90 (2019) 59e71.
j.biortech.2017.08.159. [27] A.T. Gonçalves, Energy Potentiality of Household and Commercial Solid Waste
[3] ABRELPE, Brazilian Association of Public Cleaning and Special Waste Com- in the Municipality of Itajub
a - MG, Dissertation (Master), Energy Engineering
panies, vol. 52, 2020 (In Portuguese), https://abrelpe.org.br/panorama-2020/. Course, Federal University of Itajuba
, Itajub
a, 2007, p. 171 (In Portuguese).
(Accessed March 2021). [28] P. Drumond Júnior, Technical and Economic Analysis of Energy Recovery from
[4] S. Tan, H. Hashim, C. Lee, M.R. Taib, J. Yan, Economical and environmental Municipal Solid Waste: Case Study for the Municipality of Campinas. 2015.
impact of waste-to-energy (WTE) alternatives for waste incineration, landfill 135 P. Dissertation (Master) - Mechanical Engineering Course, State Univer-
and anaerobic digestion, Energy Proc. V. 61 (2014) 704e708. sity of Campinas, Campinas, 2015 (In Portuguese).
[5] H. Cheng, Y. Hu, Municipal solid waste (MSW) as a renewable source of en- [29] PSBCG. Basic Sanitation Plan for Campo Grande. Integrated Solid Waste
ergy: current and future practices in China, Bioresour. Technol. 101 (2010) Management. Available at: http://www.campogrande.ms.gov.br/semadur/
3816e3824. canais/plano-de-saneamento-basico-gestao-integrada-de-residuos-solidos/
[6] J. Berton, Case Study of the City of Campo Largo for the Valuation and Energy Accessed on: 07/16/2020 (RECEITA).
Use of Municipal Solid Wastes, Dissertation (Master), Chemical Engineering [30] R.M. Barros, The treaty about solid waste: management, usage, and sustain-
Course, Federal University of Parana
, Curitiba, 2016, p. 95, 2016 (In ability. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Intercie^ncia; Itajub
a, Minas Gerais, Brazil: Acta,
Portuguese). vol. 376, 2013 (In Portuguese).
[7] n. 2 (3) V. Polzer, Jul./Dec, The Cities Challenge: Sanitary Landfill vs. Power [31] IBGE. Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics. Infographics. Available
Generation Incinerator (WTE). GEO Themes, Pau Dos Ferros, Rio Grande Do at: http://cidades.ibge.gov.br/painel/painel.php?codmun¼355030. Accessed
Norte, Brazil, vol. 3, 2013, pp. 3e19 (In Portuguese). on: 07/2019 (In Portuguese).
[8] FEAM - Minas Gerais State Environmental Foundation, Energy Use of [32] B.V.R. Pin, R.M. Barros, E.E. Lora, I.F.S. Santos, Waste management studies in a
Municipal Solid Waste: Guidance for Municipal Governments of Minas Gerais. Brazilian microregion: GHG emissions balance and LFG energy project eco-
Directorate for Energy Research and Development and Climate Change nomic feasibility analysis, Energy Strat. Rev. V. 19 (2018) 31e43.
Management. Belo Horizonte, May 2012. Available at: http://www.resol.com. [33] I.F.S. Santos, R.M. Barros, G.L. Tiago Filho, Economic study on LFG energy
br/textos/aproveecimento_20energ_c3_a9tico.pdf. (Accessed February 2019) projects in function of the number of generators, Sustain. Cities Soc. 41 (2018)
(In Portuguese). 587e600.
[9] J.S. Schramm, Preliminary analysis of the energy potential and the incinera- [34] H.K. Ozcan, S.Y. Guvenc, L. Guvenc, G. Demir, Municipal solid waste charac-
tion process as an alternative in the management of municipal solid wastes in terization according to different income levels: a case study, Sustainability 8
Floriano
polis, in: 2015. 86 F. Course Conclusion Paper (Graduation) - Sanitary (2016) 1044.
and Environmental Engineering Course, Federal University of Santa Catarina, [35] M.M. Tun, D. Juchelkov
a, Drying methods for municipal solid waste quality
Floriano
polis, 2015 (In Portuguese). improvement in the developed and developing countries: a review, Environ.
[10] L.J.B. Silva, I.F.S. Santos, J.H.R. Mensah, A.T.T. Gonçalves, R.M. Barros, Inciner- Eng. Res. 24 (4) (2019) 529e542.
ation of municipal solid waste in Brazil: an analysis of the economically viable [36] A.L. Oliveira, Study of the variation in the moisture content and total volatile
energy potential, Renew. Energy 149 (2020) 1386e1394. solids of urban solid waste, with rainfall and its implications for the genera-
[11] L.R. Infiesta, Gasification of municipal solid waste (MSW) in the para- tion of leachate in the integrated landfill in Cruz das Almas e BA. Master's
napanema valley - CIVAP Project, in: Monograph (Specialization in Renewable dissertation (Civil Engineering), State University of Feira de Santana, Brazil,
Energies, Distributed Generation and Energy Efficiency), Polytechnic School of 2011 (In Portuguese).
the University of Sa ~o Paulo, Sa ~o Paulo, 2015, p. 122 (In Portuguese). [37] F.R. Soares, E.S. Miyamaru, G. Martins, Environmental performance of the
[12] L.F. Rodrigues, Energy and Economic Evaluation of Incineration and Gasifi- allocation and urban solid waste treatment with energetic reuse through life
cation of Solid Urban Waste through a Computational Routine. Final Gradu- cycle assessment at CTR - Caieiras, Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Sanita
ria e
ation Work (Chemical Engineering), Federal University of Itajub
a, Brazil, 2020 Ambiental 22 (5) (2017) (In Portuguese).
(In Portuguese). [38] Indaver. Grate incinerators. Available at: https://www.indaver.com/be-en/in-
[13] ABCM. Brazilian Association of Mineral Coal. Gasification. Available at: https:// belgium/timeline/. Accessed on: 09/2021.
www.carvaomineral.com.br/interna_conteudo.php?i_subarea¼16&i_ [39] A. Go
mez, J. Zubizarreta, M. Rodrigues, C. Dopazo, N. Fueyo, Potential and cost
area¼2. Accessed on: 09/2021. of electricity generation from human and animal waste in Spain, Renew.
[14] A.C.M. Jimenez, R.P. Bereche, S. Nebra, Three Municipal Solid Waste Gasifi- Energy 35 (2010) 498e505.
cation Technologies Analysis for Electrical Energy Generation in Brazil, Waste [40] RECEITA. RECEITA FEDERAL BRASILEIRA. Available at: http://www4.receita.
management research, 2019, pp. 1e12. fazenda.gov.br/simulador/Simulacao-tag.jsp Accessed on: 09/30/2019 (In
[15] Seo, Y. C. Alam, M. T. Yang, W. S.. Gasification of Municipal Solid Waste, Portuguese).
Gasification for Low-grade Feedstock, Yongseung Yun, IntechOpen, DOI: [41] INVESTING. Relationship between Euro and Brazilian Real. Available at:
10.5772/intechopen.73685. Available from: https://www.intechopen.com/ https://br.investing.com/currencies/eur-brl-historical-data. Accessed on: 03/

943
L.F. Rodrigues, I.F.S. Santos, T.I.S. Santos et al. Renewable Energy 188 (2022) 933e944

2021 (In Portuguese). Anuario2017vf.pdf. Accessed on 03/2019 (In Portuguese).

[42] BCB. Brazilian Central Bank. Citizen calculator. W/d. Available in https:// [50] Rosas, R., Saraiva, A. Sales, R. In Ten Years, Falls by Half Proportion of Over-
www3.bcb.gov.br/CALCIDADAO/publico/corrigirPorIndice.do? crowded Residences. Available at: https://Www.Valor.Com.Br/Brasil/
method¼corrigirPorIndice. Acessed: 03/2021 (In Portuguese). 4794551/Em-Dez-Anos-Cai-Pela-Metade-Proporcao-De-Residencias-
[43] M. Abdallah, A. Shanableh, A. Shadib, Financial feasibility of waste to energy Superlotadas. Accessed on 08/03/2019 (In Portuguese).
strategies in the United Arab Emirates, Waste Manag. 82 (2018) 207e219. [51] ITAJUBA.
Official diary. Itajuba
city hall. Available at: http://diariooficial.
[44] K. Branker, M.J.M. Pathak, J.M. Pearce, A review of solar photovoltaic levelized itajuba.mg.gov.br/upload/Lei%203343.pdf Accessed on: 01/2020 (In
cost of electricity, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15 (2011) 4470e4482. Portuguese).
[45] R.E. Santos, I.F.S. Santos, R.M. Barros, A.P. Bernal, G.L. Tiago Filho, F.G.B. Silva, [52] Campo Grande News. Available at: https://www.campograndenews.com.br/
Generating electrical energy through urban solid waste in Brazil: an economic politica/prefeitura-de-campo-grande-propoe-orcamento-de-rs-4-3-bi-para-
and energy comparative analysis, J. Environ. Manag. 231 (2019) 198e206. 2020 Accessed on: 13/01/2020 (In Portuguese).
[46] ANEEL. NATIONAL ELECTRIC ENERGY AGENCY. Available at: http://www. [53] CAMPINAS. Official diary. Campinas City Hall. Available at: http://www.
aneel.gov.br/sala-de-imprensa-exibicao/-/asset_publisher/XGPXSqdMFHrE/ campinas.sp.gov.br/uploads/pdf/1383797470.pdf Accessed on: 13/01/2020
content/aprovado-edital-do-leilao-de-geracao-a-4-de-fontes-renovaveis/ (In Portuguese).
656877?inheritRedirect¼false. Accessed on: 07/2019 (In Portuguese). [54] ANEEL, National Electric Energy Agency. Resolution 482, 2012. Available at:
[47] BCB, Brazilian Central Bank. Basic Interest Rates e History, 2021. Available, http://www2.aneel.gov.br/cedoc/ren2012479.pdf. (Accessed October 2018)
https://www.bcb.gov.br/controleinflacao/historicotaxasjuros. (Accessed (In Portuguese).
March 2021) (In Portuguese). [55] ANEEL, National Electric Energy Agency. Resolution 687, 2015. Available at:
[48] L.A. Hadidi, M.M. Omer, A Financial Feasibility Model of Gasification and http://www2.aneel.gov.br/cedoc/ren2015687.pdf. (Accessed October 2018)
Anaerobic Digestion Waste-To-Energy (WTE) Plants in Saudi Arabia, vol. 59, (In Portuguese).
2017, pp. 90e101. [56] BRASIL, Brazilian Ministry of the Environment. National Plan for Solid Waste,
[49] EPE - Energy Research Company. Statistical Yearbook of Electric Energy 2017 Brasilia, 2012. Available at: http://www.mma.gov.br/polides/solids. (Accessed
base year 2016. Available at: http://www.epe.gov.br/sites-pt/publicacoes- 14 March 2018) (In Portuguese).
dados Aberto/publicacoes/PublicacoesArquivos/publicacao-160/topico-168/

944