433530

012

WMR30410.1177/0734242X11433530Dorn et al.Waste Management & Research

Original Article
Waste Management & Research
30(4) 432441
The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0734242X11433530
wmr.sagepub.com

A review of energy recovery from

waste in China
Thomas Dorn1, Sabine Flamme2 and Michael Nelles1

Abstract
Although municipal solid waste (MSW) disposal in Europe and other developed countries has led to a widespread production of
solid recovered fuel (SRF) and its incineration in various technical combustion processes, such developments have not yet occurred
that widely in developing and transitional economies. This article puts mass-burn technologies and SRF into a China perspective,
reviewing issues from technology application problems to emerging trends and future perspectives. Over the last two decades, growing
waste volumes have prompted a move to waste incineration, especially in the large densely populated first-tier cities. However, with
an organic fraction above 70% and a resulting water content of up to 65%, it is still argued that MSW in China is too moist for
incineration. The introduction of mechanical biological treatment (MBT) or mechanical physical stabilization (MPS) technology for
SRF production could provide the solution, either by offering further pre-drying options to mass-burn incinerators or by creating SRF
to be burnt in co-incineration plants. First experiences of MBT and MPS technologies show promising results in terms of the capacity
to deal with organic waste fractions, but the further disposal/utilization of the plants output stream has not yet been fully addressed.
Keywords
Energy recovery, China, MSW disposal, solid recovered fuel, mechanical biological treatment, mechanical physical stabilization,
technology transfer

China MSW overview

Buekens et al. (2011) conclude that average per capita waste generation in China comes to 118 kg capita 1year1, a very low per
capita rate compared to 524 kg capita1 year1 in the EU (Eurostat,
2010) or 762 kg capita1 year1 in the US (OECD, 2010). This is
a common misconception. Chinese waste statistics cover a mere
661 cities with a total of approximately 614 million inhabitants.
Official Chinese statistics showing 157.3 million Mg of MSW in
2009 (CS Bureau, 2010), therefore convert to a waste generation
level of around 256.2 kg capita1 year1 (Dorn et al., 2010b). Data
from rural areas is not available and therefore not included in
national statistics, although 54% of the Chinese population lives
in a rural setting (amounting to 721 million people (CS Bureau,
2010)). It is estimated that in 2010 there were 160 million Mg of
officially accounted for waste, with an additional 65 million Mg
of rural waste bringing the actual total closer to 225 million Mg
(UN, 2002). Although in per capita terms rural waste quantity is
estimated to be very low (90.2 kg capita1 year1), the sheer scale
and disposal of this untreated waste in unsecured open pits make
it a real issue. Clear data is not yet available, however British
researchers are currently exploring rural waste generation rates
(Moys, 2011).
Additional differences must be taken into account when looking at Chinese waste statistics. First of all, MSW generation in
larger Chinese cities shows much higher per capita rates compared to smaller cities, so one has to distinguish between first-tier

and second- or third-tier municipalities. For example, MSW generation lies at 310 kg capita1 year1 in Beijing (Li et al., 2009),
or 405 kg capita1 year1 in Shanghai (Zhu et al., 2009), 394 kg
capita1 year1 in Chongqing (Yuan et al., 2006), 427 kg capita1
year1 in Hangzhou (Zhao et al., 2009) and 485 kg capita1 year1
in Hong Kong (Ko and Poon, 2009). Also contrary to most
European countries, municipal waste in China is not segregated
in the household and collected separately. MSW in China contains cooking briquette ashes, household waste, kitchen residues,
garden waste from public parks and green areas, street cleaning
waste and even rubble from construction sites (Figure 1). In a
2009 study comparing Chinese to European MSW fractions,
Raninger (2009) found that wet organic waste (food and kitchen
waste) accounted for 78% of MSW (compared to the respective
European figure of 12%), dry organic waste (wood, paper, yard
waste, composites) made up for 10% versus 47 % in Europe, and
non-biodegradable waste (plastic, metal, glass, ash) came to 12%
compared to a share of 41 % in European MSW (Raninger, 2009).

1Universitt

Rostock, Rostock, Germany

Mnster, Mnster, Germany

2Fachhochschule

Corresponding author:
Thomas Dorn, Celebrity Garden C 58, Che Xin Rd. 2, 201612
Shanghai, P. R. China
Email: Thomas.dorn@uni-rostock.de

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UNIV ESTDL DE MARINGA on November 13, 2015

433

Dorn et al.
One reason for this waste characteristic is the efficient recycling rate achieved by private waste pickers working in the informal recycling sector. The vast majority of materials with a
commercial value (cardboard, paper, plastic, wood, glass, etc.), is
collected prior to entering the MSW stream (Dorn et al., 2010b).
The commercial value of these recyclables is shown in Table 1.
The consequence is that the public sanitation bureaus in
charge of MSW disposal are left with the non-valuable kitchen
and street cleaning waste. This is a strain on their financial
resources as money is required to dispose of the waste, but hardly
any revenue can be achieved.
From 2003 to 2006 the number of waste treatment and disposal facilities shrank by 27%, from 574 to 413 facilities. Total

capacity however, rose by 17.5% to 258 000 Mg day1 during the

same period, indicating that more modern and efficient disposal
units were being put into operation. By 2009 the number had
risen again, to 567 facilities comprising 93 waste-to-energy
(WTE) plants, 16 composting plants and 447 landfill sites. The
daily treatment and disposal capacity increased to 356 130 Mg
day1 of MSW (CS Bureau, 2010). Assuming the facilities ran at
a 90 % capacity, 365 days a year, this would allow an annual 117
million Mg of MSW to be properly disposed of, i.e. 74.4% of the
statistically accounted for 157.3 million Mg of waste, or 52% of
the estimated total 225 million Mg generated in China. Buekens
et al. (2011) refers to 62.9% of MSW disposed of in a controlled
way for 2007 with a mere 9.6% being incinerated. The 2009

Figure 1. Residual waste composition in Shanghai & Hefei (Source: Chen et al., 2005; Dorn et al., 2010b).
Table 1. Market prices for recyclables (Source: Dorn et al., 2010b).
Material

RMB selling pricea unit1

Euro selling priceb unit1

Plastic bottles (branded)

Plastic bottles (other)
Other plastic
Polyethylene
Polypropylene
Plexiglas
Waste iron
Sheet metal
Brass
Copper
Aluminium cans
Glass bottles
Paperboard
Newspaper
Books and periodicals
TV sets
Refrigerator
Washing machine
Air-conditioner
VCD player

0.22 per piece

0.10 per piece
0.80 kg1
0.60 kg1
0.80 kg1
0.95 kg1
0.90 kg1
0.20 kg1
9.30 kg1
15.00 kg1
0.11 per piece
0.10 per piece
0.70 kg1
0.95 kg1
0.70 kg1
5280 per piece
30150 per piece
1090 per piece
110800 per piece
50100 per piece

0.024 per piece

0.011 per piece
0.089 kg1
0.067 kg1
0.089 kg1
0.105 kg1
0.100 kg1
0.022 kg1
1.032 kg1
1.665 kg1
0.012 per piece
0.011 per piece
0.078 kg1
0.105 kg1
0.078 kg1
0.55531.08 per piece
3.3316.65 per piece
1.119.99 per piece
12.2188.8 per piece
5.5511.1 per piece

aPrices

bPrices

vary from city to city.

vary from city to city; approximate conversion at current exchange rate (1 euro = 9 RMB)

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UNIV ESTDL DE MARINGA on November 13, 2015

434

Waste Management & Research 30(4)

statistics of the CS Bureau (2010) account for 89 million Mg

MSW disposed of in landfill sites (80%), 20.2 million Mg MSW
incinerated (18.2%) and 1.8 million Mg MSW composted (1.6%).
The 111 million Mg total indicates a capacity utilization of
85.4%. In addition to this utilization shortfall, there is also the
question of the disposal of waste not included in the official statistics, namely MSW generated in remote or rural areas.
It is safe to assume that 50% of the MSW generated in China
is dumped without prior treatment, with all the obvious consequences in terms of environmental degradation, public health
risk, potable water contamination, methane generation, and climate change implications due to green house gas emissions.

Waste incineration in China

Currently 18.2% of the officially accounted for MSW is combusted while 80% still goes into landfills untreated (CS Bureau,
2010). Chinese municipal authorities acknowledged in the late
1990s, that the combustion of MSW through incineration plants
offers several advantages over land filling, but there are also
drawbacks: the high investment costs for incineration plants; the
need for trained manpower; the need to treat flue gas; and management and disposal of bunker leakage water and ash, as these
contain highly toxic elements.
Waste to energy plants (WTEs) have been growing in number, driven by land scarcity and a tremendous growth in the volume of waste, as well as environmental factors such as water
table contamination, fire and explosion hazards, and residential
unrest due to foul odours emanating from dump sites. This trend
is especially significant in the more developed cities along
Chinas East Coast belt. The majority of plants are thus found in
the Bohai Area (BeijingTianjin), the Yangtse River Delta
(NanjingWuxiSuzhouShanghai), and the Pearl River Delta
(GuangzhouHong Kong). The target for these municipalities
has been not so much energy recovery but volume reduction.
Statistics are unclear about the actual number of WTEs in operation. Buekens et al. (2011) account for 63 in the year 2005,
whereas Chinese statistics refer to 67 (year 2006 in CS Bureau,
2010). Independent discussions with the association of Chinese
WTE operators, has led to the figure used below: 61 plants in
operation in 2009, with construction ongoing for a further 40
plants (Dorn et al., 2010a).

The University of Rostock (Dorn et al., 2010a) conducted a

study on the status of waste incineration in China between 2009
and 2010. Within the framework of this study, 30 WTEs were
shortlisted for visits during April and May of 2009, however
many plants do not allow visitors. As a result, only 15 of the 61
plants in operation in 2009 [as of September 2011 there are over
100] could be visited (see Table 2). Many of the plants that do not
allow visitors belong to operators who have a reference plant
which is proudly displayed. Operators are quite selective about
which plant is shown to whom, as most of the plants are run with
a much higher coal co-firing content than officially admitted.
These private WTE operators seek to maximize profits by selling
electric energy from the majority of their WTEs. This can only be
achieved with a higher calorific value and better thermal recovery to run steam turbine generating sets, thus the ratio of waste to
coal is changed to achieve optimum power generation as opposed
to optimal waste disposal.

Incineration technology applied in China

Three main incineration technologies are used in China (Figure 2).
Most large cities use the stoker grate technology. Stoker grate
WTEs typically have a daily capacity of 1000 to 1500 Mg day1,
each line with a maximum throughput of 500 Mg day1. Early
plants were imported through Mitsubishi-Martin (Shenzhen,
1988) as well as Alstom (Shanghai, 1999) and Noell (Ningbo,
2001). The investment costs of these plants were approx. 70 000
Mg1 day1 (at September 2011 exchange rates) and proved to
be a heavy burden for the municipalities (Li et al., 2002). Today,
this technology is typically chosen where space constraints apply
(i.e. in large urban agglomerations) and the emphasis is to reduce
waste volume. An economically viable operation can only be
ensured where municipalities are prepared to pay tipping fees, as
power generation and respective electricity sales revenue cannot
cover the operating costs. These tipping fees range from 85 RMB
Mg1 (Ningbo) to 247 RMB Mg1 (Shanghai) (10 and 29 Mg1
respectively, at September 2011 exchange rates; Dorn et al.,
2010a).
Fluidized bed furnaces were brought to China from Japan by
Ebara (Li et al., 2002). The 200 Mg day1 plant in Harbin had
investment costs of 90 000 Mg1 day1 at current (September
2011) exchange rates (Li et al., 2002). Fluidized bed furnaces

Table 2. Waste incineration plants for MSW in China 2009 (Source: Dorn et al., 2010a; Yang, 2007).
Technology

Plants

Capacity (Mg day1)

Furnaces

Output (MW)

Generators

Stoker Grate
international
local
Fluidized-bed
international
local
Others
Total

32
27
5
15
4
11
14
61

28 200
24 470
3 730
11 300
4 300
7 000
7 225
46 725

83
68
15
36
12
24
32
151

441
386
55
261
75
186
25
702

46
39
7
26
8
18
5
77

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UNIV ESTDL DE MARINGA on November 13, 2015

435

Dorn et al.

Figure 2. Waste-to-energy with grate and fluidized bed furnaces (Source: Dorn et al., 2010b).

have a smaller capacity ranging between 100 and 500 Mg day1.

Plant configuration is also different compared to stoker grate
technology. Fluidized bed furnaces require a thorough sorting
process to separate out inert waste fractions and a shredder further down the line prior to the feeder into the furnace. This technology is widely applied in cities with less stringent space
constraints and operational costs can generally be covered
through power generation and electricity sales. Incentives offered
by the Chinese Government further promote this technology. By
co-feeding MSW into the coal-fired combustion process, power
generation units can claim renewable energy status and receive
the subsidized energy price of 0.55 RMB kWh1 (approximately
0.06 kWh1), as opposed to the standard 0.33 RMB kWh1
(approx. 0.04 kWh1) (currency exchange rate September 2011)
paid to power stations solely fired by coal (China Renewable
Energy Law, 2006).
Both of the above-mentioned technologies do not further utilize the heat generated. Waste heat boilers to provide thermal
energy to a variety of applications are quite common in Europe.
The most prevalent utilization is district heating, which further
raises the energy efficiency of European WTE plants. WTE district heating in China is unknown, as heating is not common in
southern China (south of the Yangtze River) and even north of the
Yangtze River tariff and supply regulations do not exist (Dorn
and Nelles, 2010).
A third technical concept was brought to China by Canadian
rotary kiln builder Richway (Li et al., 2002). Data received from
the association of Chinese WTE operators indicate plant costs of
34 000 Mg1 day1. Only a few of the plants were installed to
incinerate MSW. Today, where implemented, the rotary kilns
generally have a capacity of under 100 Mg day1 and are used in
hazardous waste applications (e.g. Hangzhou DADI) (Ma et al.,
2011).

Buekens et al. (2011) report an equal market share for grate

and fluidized bed furnaces at 40% each in the year 2005. In their
study of 20092010, Dorn et al. (2010a) found that in 2008 stoker
grates held an approximately 60% market share, with fluidized
bed furnaces holding approximately 33%, and rotary kiln technology accounting for the final 7% market share. Taking into
account ongoing construction projects reported by the association of Chinese WTE plant operators, one can estimate the shares
to be more equal again at 45% each for grate-based incinerators
and fluidized bed furnaces in 2010.

Digestion, absorption and adaptation of

foreign technology
It should be noted that larger stoker grate plants do not generate
more electric power in China in comparison with smaller fluidized bed furnaces, as they were designed for waste fractions containing a much higher calorific value of 57 MJ kg1. Research
by Dorn et al. (2010a) in Hefei, Shanghai and Beijing showed
that due to the high content of wet organic fractions, the average
lower heating value of Chinese MSW ranges from 3 to 5 MJ kg1,
as opposed to the 67 MJ kg1 typically required to obtain a
smooth combustion process. In addition to cost-saving efforts
with regard to co-firing fuel, this has caused Chinese research
and design institutes to develope measures to improve and adapt
foreign designs in conjunction with foreign manufacturers.
MSW receiving bunkers have been enlarged to hold waste for
57 days instead of 23 days. Within 57 days up to 20% of the
MSWs water content collects as leachate, leading to more efficient drainage systems being designed to facilitate drying.
Further developments to combat challenges presented by the
MSWs high water content are hot combustion air re-circulation
into the hopper or pre-heating of combustion air, which is led

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UNIV ESTDL DE MARINGA on November 13, 2015

436

Waste Management & Research 30(4)

Figure 3. Schematic diagram of Changchun incineration facility (Reproduced from Cheng et al., 2007 with permission from
American Chemical Society).

through the waste inlet. In order to allow for further drying and
longer combustion time, an extension in the length of the stoker
grates is usually found in Chinese WTE plants, from the standard
European 78 m to up to 12 m in length. Last but not least, insulation walls have been reinforced to up to double their European
thickness in order to keep thermal losses to a minimum.
Parallel to these developments, the effective localization of
the manufacturing of components led to a significant reduction in
costs. Stoker grate technology made in China (e.g. Weiming) is
now available at 29 000 Mg1 day1 (at September 2011
exchange rates), about 40% of the initial cost.
Similar to the grate technology, and as an innovative response
to the implementation problems described above, China adapted
fluidized bed furnaces to implement waste-co-firing. Beijing
Qinghua University (Dorn et al., 2008) and Hangzhou Zhejiang
University (Buekens et al., 2011) are leaders in that field. At
Beijing Qinghua University, innovative incineration technology
has been developed by local engineers adapting Western technology to enhance the operational efficiency of equipment in China.
The developments led to the creation of four new patented technologies. The potential impact of these innovations along with
other Chinese innovations in this sector spans beyond China,
enhancing waste treatment options for the developing world as a
whole. The technology designed at Qinghua University and
implemented in Changchun combines the best of both models:
the foreign stoker grate technology as well as the fluidized bed
design. This results in a technology that can cope with high water
content while requiring only minimal waste sorting and that
makes it highly relevant for application not just in China, but also
in other developing countries. The grate design of the integrated
dryer and feeder in Changchun allows MSW to be fed and dried
simultaneously. Cheng et al. (2007) describe the three drying
stages used to reduce moisture content to less than 10% before

waste enters the combustion chamber. They allow the incinerator

to be adapted to MSW with a moisture content of up to 55%.
Unlike in standard CFB incinerators, only simplified pre-sorting is necessary, and waste with particle sizes up to around 50 cm
can be incinerated without the need for shredding. Separation
occurs through a magnetic separator and air classification,
removing metals and bulky materials before the waste is deposited in the bunker. The bunker, where garbage is left for up to 2
days, has the added benefit of reducing water content before the
waste is dropped onto the feeder via a clamshell crane (Figure 3).
Imported incinerators generally use diesel as a supplementary
fuel, but this is an expensive measure. The model from Qinghua
University deals with this by co-firing with pulverized coal fed
into the combustion chamber via a screw conveyor, using diesel
only to start the combustion process (340400 kg of light diesel
per startup), thereby lowering operational costs considerably.
This technology requires an average fuel to MSW ratio of 12
17%, as measured from July 2005 to December 2006 (when converted into coal equivalents) (Cheng et al., 2007). The fuel to
MSW ratio is very important for the overall profitability, following the Recognition and Management Measures for the National
Encouragement of the Comprehensive Utilization of Natural
Resources issued by the Chinese State Development and Reform
Commission on 7 September 2006. Based on that, WTE plants
which have a coal/waste weight ratio of over 20% are regarded as
a conventional power generation facility, meaning these are not
eligible to receive subsidized electricity prices. This can make a
difference of 0.15 RMB kWh1 (0.018 kWh1 at September
2011 exchange rates). Fluidized bed furnace technology developed at Zhejiang University in Hangzhou or the technology from
Qinghua University is typically available for 30 00031 500
Mg1 day1, which is about one-third of the investment costs of
the first WTE plant installed.

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UNIV ESTDL DE MARINGA on November 13, 2015

437

Dorn et al.

Figure 4. Hazardous waste incinerator scheme (Ma et al., 2011).

A similar development has recently been reported for the

rotary kiln technology applied in hazardous waste incineration,
where the State Key Laboratory of Clean Energy Utilization at
the Zhejiang University in Hangzhou has again played a key role
(Figure 4) (Ma et al., 2011).
The incineration system consists of a rotary kiln, a stoker
grate furnace and a post-combustion chamber. A crane feeds the
waste from the bunker into a hopper. From there it is transferred
by hydraulic feeder into the rotary kiln, where the waste is heated,
de-volatilized and combusted. A gate system seals the rotary kiln
during feeding to avoid contamination through hazardous gases.
During plant start-up and shut-down a diesel burner, located at
the front section of the kiln, ignites the waste; it also operates in
case the furnace temperature drops below 800 C. Energy recovery comes in the form of a waste heat boiler and an air pre-heater.
The exhaust gas leaving the post-combustion chamber is cooled
by the waste heat boiler from 1100 to 550 C. An air pre-heater is
put into the last section of the waste heat boiler. Air to be injected
into the front section of the rotary kiln and the centre of the stoker
grate furnace is pre-heated to 200 C. The steam generated by the
boiler is then used for various heating requirements (e.g. waste
oil recycling) (Ma et al., 2011).

New developments in the Chinese

waste sector
The current status of solid recovered fuel
in China Chinese research background
The first ideas of solid recovered fuel (SRF) production in China
were born out of the necessity to make space for more land filling. In order to gain space in overflowing landfill sites and to
raise the calorific value of MSW to a level at which complete

combustion is achieved without costly co-firing, Chinese experts

are increasingly promoting the application of mechanical and
biological waste pre-treatment. Biological dry-stabilization or
mechanical-physical processes are applied to this end.
An example of Chinese research direction is the work conducted by Chen et al. (2007). In 2007, Chen et al. stated that aged
MSW requires mechanical excavation prior to re-treatment and
final utilization irrespective of its origin from illegal dump sites
or un-safe landfills. They proposed that the old MSW is first separated into various fractions, before combustibles are used to produce SRF. For this purpose the fractions are to be shredded and
blended, with potential catalysts added to reach a homogenous
mixture with stable qualities and in order to help acidic gas emission control. A chemical analysis of combustibles showed that
contaminants such as sulfur and chlorine were still high, prompting Chen et al. (2007) to propose the addition of CaO (8% of the
total weight), to reduce the formation of acidic gases when combusting the SRF. Whether this is necessary, or whether proper
treatment of flue gas would solve the problem remains to be seen.
In their study, Chen et al. (2007) conclude that the low moisture content of the aged MSW enables incineration of the derived
SRF without any further pre-drying. Furthermore, when mixing
the SRF with fresh MSW in waste incineration plants (in both
fluidized bed incinerators and grate-furnace incinerators) the better combustion behaviour would lead to a faster evaporation of
remaining moisture in the fresh MSW. According to Chen et al.
(2007), the calorific value of the SRF is approximately 16.517
MJ kg1 after a two-stage separation process that enriches plastics, rubber and other combustibles (Table 3).
Compared to fresh MSW, an increase of the lower heating
value (LHV) of up to three times could be achieved. This would
mean avoiding the costly addition of primary fuels otherwise
necessary to stabilize combustion. With well thought out

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UNIV ESTDL DE MARINGA on November 13, 2015

438

Waste Management & Research 30(4)

Table 3. Combustibles in ten-year-old MSW from Laogang Landfill (dry basis, impurities included) (Chen et al., 2007).
Component

C (%)

N (%)

H (%)

S (%)

Cl (%)

O (%)

Plastic
Rubber
Wood and bamboo
Clothes and fabric

77.21
46.54
42.67
57.78

< 0.3
< 0.3
1.035
< 0.3

12.36
5.2
6.01
6.72

3.305
4.235
3.19
2.305

0.425
0.407
0.365
0.184

14.52
40.85
25.59

technology transfer and cost-effective and environmentally

sound synergies, MPS technology and MBTs producing SRF
could provide a solution that will prevent bio-organic fractions
ending up on a landfill. These waste components would be rendered inert, effectively preventing methane emissions and greenhouse gas build up. Indeed, the hope for MBTs is great, as they
could also allow existing landfill sites to be rehabilitated, allowing for new space for landfilling by recovering and re-using partially degraded MSW.

Relevance of MBTs and SRF to China

energy from waste
Despite all the WTE measures described above, most of the
energy content from Chinese MSW is used to evaporate the high
water content rather than superheating the turbines steam circles.
Given that water reduction during firing accounts for 80% of
weight and volume loss, it is not surprising that fluidized bed technology is the preferred technology. Typically, MSW is pre-sorted
manually as well as through sieves and ballistic separation for
inert and non-burning fractions (ash, stones, rubble, glass, metals)
and then shredded to particle sizes < 200 mm to allow for a continuous feeding into the furnace. This process alone enhances the
calorific value by separating out non-combustibles.
Because of the different waste preparation within MBTs, these
plants could help in tackling the amount of bio-organic waste
fractions in China effectively, while at the same time providing a
welcome renewable energy source. As any waste incineration in
China, whether mass-burn WTE or WTE of SRF, is considered to
provide renewable energy, MBTs and MPS are in line with
Government goals of achieving 11.4% renewable energy as a
percentage of total energy consumption by 2015, as published in
the 12th Five-Year-Programme, of March 2011 (Xinhua, 2011).
The terms solid recovered fuel, refuse derived fuel (RDF)
and others are often used and defined differently in practice, due
to the lack of a precise and legally binding terminology. This article uses the definition of SRF as provided by the Gtegemeinschaft
Sekundrbrennstoffe und Recyclingholz (BGS) e.V. in Germany,
which generally differentiates SRF into high calorific fractions
and SRF for co-incineration (Flamme and Geiping, 2012).
SRF for co-incineration is defined by the BGS e.V. (Flamme,
2008) as ready-for-use combustibles derived from production
specific waste or municipal waste after an extensive conditioning. This conditioning can be achieved by ballistic separation or
additional near-infrared technology. The aim of the conditioning
is to produce a fuel with a defined quality, which is suitable for

the co-incineration in cement-, lime- or power plants. SRF for

co-incineration usually shows grain sizes < 20 mm, with a caloric
value from 20 up to 25 MJ kg1 and a specific moisture of 10 up
to 15%. SRF for co-incineration is produced predominantly in a
blow-able form (fluff), enabling the combustion during the flight
phase of the material after entry into the combustion chamber.
The primary applications of SRF (in cement plants and cofiring for electricity) are also in line with Chinas requirements.
The building industry has been booming for the past decades and
no slow down is in sight, as investments and development moves
inland with the Go West Policy (Basmajan, 2010). SRF could
thus pose a very specific benefit to a key high-energy industry in
China. China currently relies on domestic coal resources and to a
growing extent on imported coal, however Chinese coal has a
low calorific value and a high ash (10-40%) and sulfur content
(0.32.4%) (Lillieblad et al., 2006), which causes considerable
environmental problems leading China to displace the USA from
its spot as the number one CO2 emitter. Co-firing of SRF would
thus pose both a domestic and international benefit to China, as
non-renewable resources are saved and because co-firing with a
separated and dried organic waste fraction is categorized as a
carbon-neutral component in the countrys emissions balance.

New technologies introduced to China

To date, a few SRF projects have been put into operation in
China, however, as laid out in the current 12th Five-Year
Programme (Xinhua, 2011), environmental protection, protection of non-renewable resources, climate change, and recycling
are becoming a part of the Chinese Governments economic and
political strategy. As a result, there are now a number of Chinese
cities looking for sustainable solutions to dealing with their
MSW, leading to an increased interest in alternative solutions by
local and provincial authorities and many opportunities for foreign-led pilot projects around China.

MBT plants
One pilot project started in 2007 is the biological treatment plant
for MSW in Gaobeidian city (Hebei Province). It was contracted
by a German-Chinese joint venture, designed by the Technical
University of Braunschweig (Department of Waste and Resources
Management), and financed with assistance from the KfW development bank. The facility was approved as a lighthouse project
for GHG mitigation by the German Federal Ministry of
Environment in 2009, and funded by the German governments

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UNIV ESTDL DE MARINGA on November 13, 2015

439

Dorn et al.
international climate initiative. The facility is scheduled to go
into operation in 2011, with an annual treatment capacity of
40000 Mg MSW. The total emission reduction is expected to
amount to 80 000250 000 Mg CO2 equivalents over a 10-year
period (Klsch et al., 2011).
The MBT plant will consist of a mechanical and a biological
treatment step to segregate valuable fractions (paper, plastics),
and enrich the organic content. The waste stream is to be split
into three fractions (fine, medium, and coarse). Based on the
waste analysis conducted, the medium fraction is expected to
consist mainly of organic materials after going through manual
sorting stations along with the coarse fractions. This is to be converted into compost. The fine fraction will undergo biological
treatment (aerobic, actively ventilated stabilization) prior to final
disposal, potentially as an additional landfill cover. Biological
treatment will generate a stabilized biomass with an expected respiration activity of less than 5 mg O2 kg1. The coarse fraction is
to be crushed and fed back into the waste stream or directly disposed of at the landfill site (Klsch et al., 2011). Earlier experiences by agricultural enterprises with waste-derived compost
have been disappointing, as the non-segregated collection leads
to a high contamination with pollutants and heavy metals. As
such, it is highly unlikely that compost from Gaobeidian will be
further utilized, for example as a fertilizer. At best, it may be used
as backfill material or end up in a landfill.
In 2009 Shanghai city started its own MBT project in the
south-western district of Songjiang, with design and engineering
input by Tongji University experts. The author, living just 3 km
east of the plant, got a chance to visit the nearly finished plant in
July 2011. A 64 000 m plot to house the newly built plant was
chosen adjacent to the Songjiang landfill. The plant is comprised
of a waste delivery section and a bag cutting section with a pre-
separation line to sort out inert waste fractions as well as nonorganics. The non-organic material is further led through sieves
and separation steps, so that plastic materials can be gathered for
recycling in the plastics industries. Other waste fractions such as
paper, rubber, textiles and wood chips are used for SRF production. Organic materials are transferred to the large rotting hall
where, heaped into clamps, the waste rots for a period of 17 days.
Ventilation is provided through a grate system on the floor, which
is also used to drain leachate. To avoid foul odours, the halls air
is extracted via a suction system installed under the roof and fed
into bio-filters filled with wood chips. Following this treatment,
material is sieved again and packed as compost. Leakage water
from the organics is collected underground and channelled into a
wastewater treatment plant with bio-gas generation. It is envisaged that the biogas can fuel a gas engine and generate power to
lower the electricity costs of the plant (Lu et al., 2011).
The plant capacity is designed to dispose of up to 1500 Mg
day1 of MSW. The expected output of SRF is between 100 and
200 Mg day1, plastic material for recycling 100 to 200 Mg d1,
and up to 100 Mg d1 of compost. The water treatment plant is
designed to clean up to 800 Mg d1 of leachate, reflecting the
needs brought on by waste which can show a water content of up
to 70%. Operators are still unsure what will become of the

compost, as there is no demand or market for it. Most likely it

will be disposed of in the adjacent landfill. The future of the SRF
produced is also unclear: it might be burnt in Shanghai WTE
plants, or in a nearby coal-fired power station. So far, only the
destination of the recyclable faction is known, as several smallscale factories using such materials operate in Songjiang.

Mechanical separation plants

One of the earliest examples of a Sino-German mechanical treatment plant is in Beijing, put into operation in 2008 with a
throughput of up to 2500 Mg day1. The primary goal of the plant
is to sort out the high calorific fraction of MSW and make this
transportable by turning it into SRF bales. Due to the financial
crisis, the plant changed hands several times after opening and
was even temporarily closed down. Operation finally started in
the autumn of 2010, and the plant has since been processing
approximately 2000 Mg day1 of MSW collected in northern
Beijing. The major obstacle now is the non-existent market for
SRF bales, leading to an almost overflowing storage today.

MPS plants
Another German company is about to conclude a partnership with
the Shenyang and the Hefei municipal governments to establish a
MPS plant using mechanical physical treatment. Aim of the technology is to produce high calorific SRF out of Chinese MSW with
non-separated organic fractions that contain a high humidity prior
to treatment. After treatment, during which an important step is the
drying of wet organic fractions in a revolving drum dryer by hot
flue gases from a power station, and production of SRF, the SRF is
to be burned in the neighbouring coal-fired power station. As coalfired power stations generate a lot of heat that otherwise would be
wasted, such waste-heat is well suited to being utilized for the
mechanical-physical processes, meaning no additional fuel is
required to dry the wet organic waste fractions. This further
enhances the climatic efficiency as well as the energy efficiency of
the whole waste treatment system. Reference plants of the German
supplier are already in operation in the north of Germanys capital,
Berlin (Schu and Schu, 2007).
In Shenyang as well as Hefei, processes are being adapted to
consider the particularities of Chinese MSW and reach commercial viability. This relates to both, the waste-heat utilization in the
drying of wet organic components, as well as reducing energy
consumption in the shredding and blending processes.
Furthermore, the SRF should substitute costly primary fuel; pricing versus the coal costs will have to be fixed between the
partners.

SRF utilization: cement plants

On 18 January 2011, a Sino-German Joint Venture (JV) company
between FAW and Remondis Co. held the opening ceremony for
its first project in China. The main business scope of the JV is the
collection, treatment, disposal and recycling of industrial

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UNIV ESTDL DE MARINGA on November 13, 2015

440

Waste Management & Research 30(4)

hazardous waste from the painting process in automotive plants.

The company is the first of its kind in China, producing SRF
generated from solid and liquid hazardous waste such as solvents
and paint residue by coagulation and filtering plants. By recycling hazardous waste and rendering it harmless to provide the
recycled product to a local cement plant of the Yantai Group, the
company not only saves energy and protects the environment, but
also reduces the consumption of natural resources and improves
the efficiency of national resources utilization.
Chemical and hazardous waste accounts for approximately
12% of SRF fuel burnt in cement kilns (Cement Sustainability
Initiative, 2005). Spent solvents and paint residues are characterized by an energy content of 1540 MJ kg1. Depending on the
actual lower heating value, 1.31.8 Mg of SRF can substitute 1
Mg of coal.
On 7 April 2011 Lafarge Shuion Cement and Zunyi, Guizhou
Province Government signed a strategic cooperation agreement
on further promoting the concept of a circular economy in the
field of cement production. Lafarge Shuion concluded a co-operation with the Zunyi Government for the disposal of MSW and
sludge treatment in their cement kilns. As a first step, the company, the largest cement producer in southwest China, will invest
in state-of-the-art technology to produce SRF as an alternative
fuel from MSW. The plant will consist of a sorting and shredding
section, in which inert material is separated from SRF fractions.
A rotary drum dryer is used to reduce the water content of SRF.
Construction is expected to be concluded in 2011, with a processing capacity aimed at 200 Mg day1 of MSW (Lafarge, 2011).
It is expected that up to 1.5 Mg of coal can be substituted by 1 Mg
of the SRF. The final result however, will depend on the homogeneity of MSW as well as the lower calorific value of Chinese MSW.
A similar project has been reported by Heidelberger Cement
of Germany. At their plant in Guangzhou, combustion of SRF
gained from waste water sludge has been increased to 600 Mg
day1 (Euwid, 2011). Lafarge and Heidelberger are using highpressure pumps to feed sludge directly into kilns, thus avoiding a
pre-drying process.
The emission of toxic and environmentally harmful substances is a valid concern related to the incineration of SRF and
hazardous materials. So far no emission tests have been published. One reason for this is the absence of any rules or guidelines governing such emissions from cement kilns. Contrary to
emission limits governing the incineration of hazardous waste
mentioned above, cement plants (according to Chinese standard
GB 4915-2004) only have to use bag filters when burning SRF.
Limits to be met apply to dust emission (3050 mg m3 h1), SO2
(200 mg m3 h1), NO2 (800 mg m3 h1) and fluorine (5 mg m3
h1) (China Standards, 2004).

Outlook: the future of SRF in China

While energy and waste markets are increasingly influencing
each other in developed economies, the situation in developing
markets is quite different. In developing countries and in China in

particular, SRF is still at the very beginning of market penetration. First studies have been undertaken by Tongji University and
others, and several European waste disposal entities are considering the technical and economic viability (Lu et al., 2011). The
conditioning steps for the waste input, both before and after biological treatment, have been an area of performance enhancement too. Improvements in biodegradability and the drying of
wet bio-organics have enabled the efficient exploitation of the
high calorific fraction in industrial combustion plants (Nelles et al.,
2011). The first results look promising, with SRF potentially
offering a solution to chronically wet municipal waste, enhancing
calorific value, and getting rid of organic content. Other input
improvements have come in the form of optimization of MSW
separation prior to the creation of the SRF (e.g. separating ferrous
and non-ferrous metals), thereby enhancing the energy efficiency
of the entire process and making it more environmentally friendly.
Beyond the economic view, the resulting climate and resource
protection should also be factored into the equation. Indeed, the
most energy-effective design should be the aim. The degree of
efficiency of a combustion facility is an essential part of this, as
the higher the effectiveness, the more energy will be converted
into electricity and steam. The efficiency of industrial combustion plants or large power plants is usually higher than the efficiency of waste incineration plants. As such, the co-incineration
of SRF should be further developed. Present ecological balance
studies also conclude that CO2 reduction is higher when the
energy input is used more efficiently (Plchl et al., 2008).
Nevertheless, one must not forget that incineration and
mass-burning (energy-from-waste) incinerators, a term coined
by the local Chinese media, are controversial issues today. Even
in China, where public opposition to government projects is
scarce, an anti-incineration movement has formed in many of
the large first-tier cities. In industrialized countries, several
jurisdictions have decided against incineration, instead looking
to other emerging thermal treatment methods such as fixed-bed
gasification, fluidized bed gasification, and pyrolysis. Critics
state that these options have similar drawbacks to regular incinerators and energy-from-waste plants. All of these technologies
emit exhaust gases into the environment, thus requiring an elaborate flue gas cleaning process to mitigate risks from pollutants.
The transfer and implementation of these technologies must not
be forgotten or underestimated when promoting MBT and MPS
technologies to further SRF incineration or SRF co-incineration
in China.

Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in
the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References
Basmajan D (2010) Chinas go west policy: opportunities in Chengdu and
Xian. In: American Chamber of Commerce (ed.), Insight September
2010. Available at: http://www.amcham-shanghai.org/NR/rdonlyres/
B598B534-35C3-462A-B6A5-1799A77D0B38/13062/sep10_interview.
pdf (accessed 1 May 2011).

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UNIV ESTDL DE MARINGA on November 13, 2015

441

Dorn et al.
Buekens A, Yan M, Jiang X, et al. (2011) Die thermische Abfallbehandlung
in China [Thermal Waste Treatment in China]. Mll und Abfall 8:
366373.
Cement Sustainability Initiative (ed.) (2005). Guidelines for the selection
and use of fuels and raw materials in the cement manufacturing process.
World Business Council for Sustainable Development: No. 38.
Chen D, Mewes F, et al. (2005) Sorting results of Jiang Qiao WTE plant
(10/20039/2004), Tongji University handed over to author as Excel
spreadsheets in Shanghai, July 2010.
Chen D, Zhai X and Zhou G (2007) Life cycle assessment of RDF production
from aged MSW and its utilization system. In: Proceedings of the international conference on sustainable solid waste management, Chennai,
India 57 September, pp. 406414. Chennai, India: Anna University.
Cheng H, Zhang Y, Meng A, et al. (2007) Municipal solid waste fueled power
generation in China: a case study of waste-to-energy in Changchun City.
Environmental Science & Technology 2007; 41(21): 75097515.
China Standards (2004) Emission Standard of Air Pollutants for Cement
Industry GB 4915-2004. Available at: www.ep.net.cn/cgi-bin/dbbz/doc.
cgi?id=486 (accessed 18 July 2011).
China Renewable Energy Law (2006) Available at: http://martinot.info/
China_RE_Law_Guidelines_1_NonAuth.pdf (accessed 7 June 2011).
CS Bureau (ed.) (2010) China Statistical Yearbook (books 20012010).
Beijing, China: National Bureau of Statistics of China.
Dorn T and Nelles M (2010) Large potential, large flaws. Recycling Magazine
23: 3235.
Dorn T, Nelles M and Flamme S (2008) Solid municipal waste management
& waste incineration. In: Wu K (ed.) China: proceedings of 2nd international conference on environmental technology & knowledge transfer,
Hefei, China, 1314 July 2008. Hefei, China: Hefei University.
Dorn T, Nelles M and Flamme S (2010a) Stand und Entwicklung der
Abfallverbrennung in der VR China [Status and developments of MSW
incineration in PR China]. In: Bilitewski B, Faulstich M and Urban A
(eds) Tagungsband zur 15. Fachtagung Thermische Abfallbehandlung
[Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Thermal Waste Treatment],
Dresden, 910 March 2010. Pirna, Germany: Eigenverlag des forums fr
Abfaltwirtschaft und Altasten e.v.
Dorn T, Nelles M and Flamme S (2010b) Circular economy in China.
Presented at ISWA World Congress 2010 urban development and sustainalility a major challenge for waste management in the 21st century,
Hamburg 1518 November 2010. Available at: http://www.iswa.org/
uploads/tx_iswaknowledgebase/Dorn.pdf (accessed 14 April 2011).
Eurostat (ed.) (2010) Europe in Figures Eurostat Yearbook 2010, Eurostat
Statistical Books. Luxembourg: European Union.
Euwid (ed.) (2011) HeidelbergCement forciert weiter Einsatz sekundrer
Brennstoffe [HeidelbergCement continues to push use of secondary
fuels]. Euwid, Recycling und Entsorgung 12: 6.
Flamme S (2008) Solid recovered fuelconditioning, specifics, requirements, current business market. Article in the conference transcript of
the International 7th ASA Waste Days. Ennigerloh, Germany: ASA e.v.,
pp. 149160 (in German).
Flamme S and Geiping J (2012) Quality standards and quality requirements
for solid recovered fuels a review. Waste Management Research 30.
Ko PS and Poon CS (2009) Domestic waste management and recovery
in Hong Kong. Journal of Master Cycles Waste Management 11(2):
104109.
Klsch F, Ginter M and Fricke K (2011) German GHG mitigation Lighthouse
Project MBT Plant Gaobeidian (PR China). In: Kuehle-Weidemeier M
(ed.) Waste-to-resources 2011 IV international symposium MBT and
MRF, Hannover, Germany, 2426 May 2011. Laugenhageu, Germany:
Wasteconsult Ineternational.
Lafarge (ed.) (2011) Lafarge Shui and Zunyi City Sign Agreement to
Deepen Cooperation Strategy for Circular Economy. Press release
available at: www.lafarge.com.cn/wps/portal/cn/7_2-Latest_news_

or_Press_releases_Detail?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/
connectlib_cn/Site_cn/AllPR/PressRelease_1302164516942/PR_
Header&xtmc=&xtcr=1 (accessed 14 April 2011).
Li X, Yan J, Chi Y, et al. (2002) Development of municipal solid waste incineration technologies. In: Better air quality in Asian and Pacific rim cities (BAQ 2002), 1618 December 2002, Hong Kong SAR. Hong Kong:
Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
Li ZS, Yang L, Qu XY, et al. (2009) Municipal solid waste management in
Beijing City. Waste Management 29: 25962599.
Lillieblad L, Johansson T and Porle K (2006) Electrostatic precipitator performance with Chinese coal. In: ICESP X international conference on air
pollution abatement technologies future challenges?, Cairns, Australia,
Paper 3A2. Cairns: Australia: International Society for Electrostatic
Precipitation.
Lu F, Yang N, Shao L, et al. (2011) Biological mechanical treatment of municipal solid waste in China: lab and field application. In: Kuehle-Weidemeier
M (ed.). Waste-to-resources 2011 IV international symposium MBT and
MRF, Hanover, Germany, 2426 May 2011, pp.5156. Laugenhageu,
Germany: Wasteconsult Ineternational.
Ma P, Ma Z, Yan J, et al. (2011) Industrial hazardous waste treatment featuring a rotary kiln and grate furnace incinerator: a case study in China.
Waste Management and Research, 29: 11081112.
Moys G (2011) Urban wastewater & solid waste management for small cities
and towns in China overview & perspectives for the 12th & 13th FYP.
In: European Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai, Waste Conference in
Shanghai Chemical Industrial Park, 9 March 2011.
Nelles M, Balhar M, Gruenes J, et al. (2011) Processing and Energy Recovery
of High Calorific M(B)T Fractions in Germany. In: Kuehle-Weidemeier
M (ed.). Waste-to-resources 2011 IV international symposium MBT and
MRF, Hanover, Germany, 2426 May 2011. Laugenhageu, Germany:
Wasteconsult Ineternational.
OECD (ed.) (2010) OECD Factbook 2010 Economic, Environmental and
Social Statistics. Available at: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/
oecd-factbook_18147364 (accessed 1 May 2011).
Plchl C, Wetzer W and Ragonig A (2008) Clean development mechanism:
an incentive for waste management projects? Waste Management and
Research 26: 104.
Raninger B (2009) Management and utilization of municipal and agricultural bioorganic waste in Europe and China. In: Workshop in School of
Civil Environmental Engineering. Nanyang Technological University,
Singapore, 25 March. Singapore: Nanyang Technological University.
Schu R and Schu K (2007) Niedertemperatur-Tunneltrockner zur optimierten
Wertstoffgewinnung, In: Thom-Kozmiensky KJ and Beckmann M (ed.) TK
Verlag,Neuruppin,BerlinerAbfallwirtschafts-undEnergiekonferenzEnergie
aus Abfall 3, September 2007, Neuruppin: TK Verlag. Available at http://
www.ecoenergy.de/go_public/freigegeben/Niedertemperatur-Tunnel
trockner_WasteConsult_Juni2008_Manuskript.pdf (accessed 10 July
2011).
UN (United Nations) (ed.) (2002) Projected Municipal Waste Generation for
the Urban Population in China. New York: United Nations.
Xinhua (2011) http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-03/05/c_
13762230.htm (accessed 15 May 2011).
Yang H (2007) Construction and running of MSW incineration plants in
China. In: China Urban Construction Design & Research Institute, annual
meeting of Association of Chinese WTE Operators, 2007.
Yuan H, Wang L, Su F, et al. (2006) Urban solid waste management in
Chongqing: challenge and opportunities. Waste Management 26(9):
10521062.
Zhao Y, Wang HT and Lu WJ (2009) Life-cycle assessment of the municipal
solid waste management system, in Hangzhou, China. Waste Management
Research 27(4): 399406.
Zhu MH, Fan Xi M, Rovetta A, et al. (2009) Municipal solid waste management in Pudong New Area, China. Waste Management 29(3): 12271233.

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at UNIV ESTDL DE MARINGA on November 13, 2015