Journal of Cleaner Production 55 (2013) 67e71

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Enhancing landfill gas recovery

Antti Niskanen*, Hanna Värri, Jouni Havukainen, Ville Uusitalo, Mika Horttanainen
LUT Energy, Environmental Engineering, Lappeenranta University of Technology, P.O. Box 20, FI-53851 Lappeenranta, Finland

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

Article history: The landfilling of municipal solid waste (MSW) may cause potential environmental impacts like global
Received 9 April 2011 warming (GW), soil contaminations, and groundwater pollution. The degradation of MSW in anaerobic
Received in revised form circumstances generates methane emissions, and can hence contribute the GW. As the GW is nowadays
12 April 2012
considered as one of the most serious environmental threats, the mitigation of methane emissions
Accepted 29 May 2012
should obviously be aimed at on every landfill site where methane generation occurs. In this study, the
Available online 19 June 2012
treatment and utilization options for the generated LFG at case landfills which are located next to each
other are examined. The yearly GHG emission balances are estimated for three different gas management
Keywords:
Landfill gas
scenarios. The first scenario is the combined heat and power (CHP) production with a gas engine. The
Greenhouse gas second scenario is the combination of heat generation for the asphalt production process in the summer
Landfill and district heat production by a water boiler in the winter. The third scenario is the LFG upgrading to
Recovery biomethane. The estimation results illustrate that the LFG collection efficiency affects strongly on the
Utilization magnitudes of GHG emissions. According to the results, the CHP production gives the highest GHG
emission savings and is hence recommended as a gas utilization option for case landfills. Furthermore,
aspects related to the case landfills’ extraction are discussed.
Crown Copyright Ó 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction approximately 49 GtCO2
eq and the emissions of the waste and

1.1. Background
Landfilling has been the only disposal method that can deal with
all the materials in the solid waste stream and it has also been
considered to be the simplest and in many areas the cheapest
disposal method (Mc Dougall et al., 2001). Thus, the majority of the
generated solid waste is disposed at landfills. The nature of the
disposed waste is different compared to the material found in the
surroundings of landfills, and it may thereby affect negatively the
environment (Christensen, 2011). Landfills may pose negative
environmental impacts to air, land, and water, like GHG emissions,
soil contaminations, and groundwater pollution. Since huge
amounts of solid waste is disposed at landfills, it is really important
to pay attention to the adequately environmental management
within whole life cycle of landfills with the aim to mitigate the
potential environmental impacts caused by landfilling.
Landfilled organic waste generates landfill gas (LFG) when it
degrades in anaerobic circumstances. Without treatment, the
released methane of LFG can create notable greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. In 2005, the total anthropogenic GHG emissions were
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ358 400 230627; fax: þ358 5 624 6399.
E-mail address: Antti.Niskanen@lut.fi (A. Niskanen).
wastewater management sector were approximately 1.5 GtCO2
eq
(Bogner et al., 2008). Globally, LFG emissions from landfills
contribute to approximately half of all GHG emissions from the
waste and wastewater management sector (Bogner et al., 2008).
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), CH4 recovery from landfills is a key to the GHG mitigation
practices in the waste management sector (IPCC, 2007). According
to Statistics Finland, municipal waste landfills generated
1.12 MtCO2
eq of emissions in 2008 (Statistics of Finland, 2010a). This
amount creates 84% of all GHG emissions from the waste
management sector in Finland. The great attention paid to the
mitigation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions has been the catalyst
for numerous policies worldwide. EU and Finnish regulations and
strategies on waste management strongly encourage restricting the
landfilling of biodegradable waste and increasing of the utilization
of waste in order to decrease LFG emissions (EU 99/31/EC; EU
Commission, 2005; Huhtinen et al., 2007; Ministry of the
Environment, 2010a; VnP 861/97). In addition, gas energy utiliza-
tion is preferred in the EU directive, Finnish regulations, and IPCC
guidelines (EU 99/31/EC; IPCC, 2007; VnP 861/97). Moreover, at the
national level, the Working Group called “Bioenergy from Waste”
proposed 13 waste-to-energy actions in Finland in February 2010.
One of those actions is the reduction of GHG emissions from
landfills which means that in practice LFG should be recovered
more efficiently (Ministry of the Environment, 2010b). Although

0959-6526/$ e see front matter Crown Copyright Ó 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.05.042
68 A. Niskanen et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 55 (2013) 67e71
the target of waste management regulations and strategies is to
promote the LFG utilization, the number of landfills with an active
gas collection system has not grown during the years 2005e2008.
After the closure of a landfill, the methane generation of LFG
decreases making the utilization difficult. Although the amount of
yearly generated methane reduces, the generation may continue
decades after the closure and thus create notable cumulative GHG
emissions in the long term. After an intensive gas generation phase,
landfilled waste could also be recovered for energy production
purposes. In the earlier studies (Obermeier and Saure, 1995; Cossu
et al., 1995; Rettenberger, 1995; Hogland et al., 2004), energy values
from 11 up to 20 MJ kg
1 have been observed for extracted waste,
and such high values can be sufficient for the incineration. On the
other hand, naturally notable lower values can be obtained
depending on the waste material content. The challenging long-
term after-care of landfills could be shortened and made easier if
the organic material were extracted and recovered for energy
production. Thus, waste utilization could give GHG emission
savings due to the replaced fossil fuels. In addition, impure wood
and plastic fractions which are not suited for recycling could also be
utilized in energy production. In addition to energy production and
GHG emission saving advantages, also other environmental bene-
fits could be achieved, like the avoidance of risks related to the
surrounding soil or groundwater pollution. Also, economical
benefits could be achieved because the after-care period is shorter
and the overall costs of landfill operations decrease. Many
economical drivers can also promote the extraction and utilization
of waste materials from landfills, as van der Zee et al. have noticed
(Van der Zee et al., 2004). Valuable precious metals of landfilled
electrical devices can be separated and recovered, as well as other
materials (Zhao et al., 2007). On the other hand, the impurity of the
separated materials can limit their markets (Williams, 2005). In
addition, the observed pollution or the possibility of the pollution
of the surrounding environment can be avoided which are the
common motives for landfill extraction (Van der Zee et al., 2004).
According to the directive on the landfill of waste, LFG collection
and treatment is obligatory in European countries (EU 99/31/EC). If
LFG is recovered as an energy or material product, it can be
regarded as a phase of landfill mining. Also, it can be considered as
a necessary pre-treatment phase for later landfill mining.
This study focuses on the LFG recovery and utilization and
particularly on the LFG recovery performance improvements and
the utilization option comparison using case landfills from the
Kymenlaakso Jäte Oy in South-East Finland. During the recent
years, the LFG generation in the new landfill has increased signif-
icantly. Therefore, the LFG management solution examination is
a very current topic. The objective of this paper is to estimate the
yearly GHG emissions for three optional LFG management
scenarios. In addition, landfilled waste extraction aspects are
discussed.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. LFG generation at case landfills
Two typical Finnish medium size municipal solid waste (MSW)
landfills (the new landfill of 7.8 ha and the old landfill of 9.1 ha) are
operated by Kymenlaakson jäte Oy in the Kymenlaakso region.
Landfills are located next to each other. The old landfill was closed
in 2001 and the new one was opened the same year. The bottom
lining of new landfill fulfills the environmental protection
requirements defined in the EU directive on the landfill of waste,
whereas the lining of old landfill does not fulfill those require-
ments. The amount of landfill gas collected from the old landfill is
approximately 0.88  106 m3 yr
1 with an average methane
content of 33% (Sarlin, 2006, 2007). According to the annual
statistics of Kymenlaakson jäte Oy, from 65  103 to 72  103 t of
waste (mainly MSW from households) is landfilled yearly in the
new landfill. In 2008, the total generation of landfill gas was eval-
uated to be 0.80  106 m3 yr
1 (Detes, 2008). In spring 2010, the
Finnish Meteorological Institute carried out gas emission
measurements with a micrometeorological method for the new
landfill. According to micrometeorological measurements, the gas
generation was approximated 4.5  106 m3 yr
1 (Laurila, 2010).
According to these studies, the gas generation has increased
significantly in the new landfill during the two years from 2008 to
2010.
2.2. Scenario settings for gas recovery
Based on the gas generation and collection measurements
carried out at case landfill sites, the energy potential of the landfill
gas is shown in Table 1.
In this study, the gas collection efficiency for the new landfill is
set to 75% as recommend by USEPA (2008). With this collection
efficiency, the total amount for available energy content of yearly
collected LFG is 21,300 MWh which is a reference unit for each gas
utilization scenario. In GHG emission estimations, the collected LFG
is assumed to be utilized according to one of the following utili-
zation options:
 Scenario 1: Combined heat and power (CHP) production with
a gas engine.
 Scenario 2: The combination of heat generation for the asphalt
production process in the summer and district heat production
by a water boiler in the winter.
 Scenario 3: LFG upgrading to biomethane (corresponding to
the quality of natural gas).
Scenarios 1 and 2 are chosen based on previous feasibility
studies (Karttunen, 2007; Niskanen et al., 2009a). Scenario 3 can be
seen as an innovative option in Finland, and hence it is included in
this study. The gas utilization options were studied to determine
the GHG emissions that could be yearly avoided if energy produc-
tion by fossil fuels is replaced by LFG.
2.3. Other scenario assumptions
The yearly utilization period is assumed to be 8000 h for each
utilization option. When the collected landfill gas is not utilized, it
is treated by flaring. The treatment efficiency for methane by flaring
is assumed to be 99% (SEPA, 2002). The gas engine efficiency is
assumed to be 44% for heat and 39% for electricity generation
(Wong et al., 2001). The efficiency of heat generation both in district
heating and in the asphalt production process is assumed to be 90%.
The overall internal energy consumption of the upgrading process
is estimated to be 9.1%, including the CH4 loss which is set to 1.5% of
the total amount of collected CH4 (Pertl et al., 2010). It is assumed
Table 1
Energy potential of landfill gas from the old and new landfill.
Landfill Collected Methane Collected Energy content
LFG concentration methane potential
[106 m3 yr
1] [%] [106 m3 yr
1] [MWh/yr]
Old landfill 0.80a 33a 0.26 2600
New landfill 3.34b,c 56b 1.87 18,700
SUM 4.14 2.13 21,300
a
Sarlin, 2006 and Sarlin, 2007.
b
Laurila, 2010.
c
with gas collection efficiency of 75%.
 A. Niskanen et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 55 (2013) 67e71
that the lost CH4 is not released into the atmosphere without
treatment. It is also assumed that the LFG collection system
consumes the electricity produced by the average Finnish elec-
tricity production structure, and that the upgrading process would
consume marginal electricity because if the utilization process is
realized, it will increase the load of electricity consumption. GHG
emissions for the average electricity production are assumed to be
207 kg/MWhe and for the marginal electricity production with
a coal condensing power plant 823 kg/MWhe (Dahlbo et al., 2005;
Statistics of Finland, 2010b). The methane oxidation efficiency in
the landfill cover for released LFG is assumed to be 10%. The GHG
emission factor (GHG emissions per production, for energy
production in unit: kgCO2
eq /MWh) and other assumptions for LFG
utilization and the emissions of replaced fuels are presented in
Table 2.
For each Scenario, 1, 2, and 3, the GHG emission and emission
saving magnitudes (Fig. 1) caused by the management of yearly
collected LFG, as well as the GHG balances of yearly generated LFG
(Fig. 2) are estimated based on the collected data, scenario settings,
and assumptions (presented above).
3. Results and discussion
The GHG emissions due to the utilization of collected LFG
(4.14  106 m3 yr
1) for Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 are presented in Fig. 1.
As the results demonstrate (Fig. 1), the highest amount of GHG
emission savings, approximately 8000 tCO2
eq /yr, can be achieved if
the collected LFG is utilized in Scenario 1. The main contributor for
the avoided GHG emissions is the replaced electricity. If LFG is
utilized in Scenario 3, emission savings of approximately
6800 tCO2
eq /yr can be reached. On the other hand, the electricity
consumption of the upgrading process leads to the highest GHG
emissions, 1200 tCO2
eq /yr, and thus reducing the GHG emission
balance of Scenario 3. Scenario 2 leads to significantly lower
emission savings, approximately 4300 tCO2
eq /yr, than the other
scenarios. The estimated GHG balances (including the GHG emis-
sions from fugitively released LFG) for the generated LFG on three
gas management options are shown in Fig. 2.
As the results clearly illustrate (Fig. 2), the GHG emission
balance for Scenario 1, approximately 3600 tCO2
eq /yr, is signifi-
cantly lower than for Scenario 2, approximately 7300 tCO2
eq /yr, and
for Scenario 3, approximately 6300 tCO2
eq /yr. The magnitude of the
GHG emission balance for Scenario 3 is approximately 14% lower
than for Scenario 2. With the LFG collection efficiency of 75%, the
Table 2
Assumptions of replaced processes and emission factors.
Utilization process Replaced process
CHP heat production Local heat production
by LFG by natural gas
CHP electricity production Marginal electricity
by LFG production by coal
in Finland
District heat by LFG Local heat production
by natural gas
Heat production in asphalt Heat production by light
production process fuel oil (specific process)
CHP heat production by Local heat production
up-graded LFG by natural gas
CHP electricity production Marginal electricity
by up-graded LFG production by coal
in Finland
a
GHG emissions based on fuel classification of Statistics of Finland (2010b) and heat and electricity production efficiencies reported by Flyktman and Helynen (2003).
b
The heat production efficiency for natural gas is assumed to be 90%.
69
gas utilization can notably compensate for the GHG emissions
caused by the uncollected LFG of 11,400 tCO2
eq /yr. As discovered in
many studies (Börjesson et al., 2007; Spokas et al., 2006; Themelis
and Ulloa, 2007), the LFG collection efficiency ranges extensively in
individual municipal landfills.
USEPA has given 75% as a default value for the collection
efficiency (USEPA, 2008; Sullivan, 2010) when the collection
system is in use and operates without problems. The collection
efficiency of 75% was the assumption also in this study for the
new landfill. Obviously, assumptions related to the recovery of
LFG can have significant impacts on the assessment of GHG
emissions, as presented in earlier studies (Manfredi et al., 2009a;
Moberg et al., 2005; Wanichpongpan and Gheewala, 2007).
Higher gas collection efficiency increases the amount of LFG
available for utilization purposes and hence enables higher GHG
emission savings while direct gas emissions from the landfills to
the atmosphere decrease. As discussed in a number of other
studies (Lombardi et al., 2006; Manfredi et al., 2009a; Niskanen
et al., 2009b), the direct emissions are typically the main
contributor to the GHG emissions from landfilling. In this case, if
the gas collection efficiency were 85% and all the collected LFG
would be utilized in Scenario 1, the fugitive emissions from the
landfills would decrease by 40% and the GHG emission savings
through utilization would increase by 11.8%. In other words, with
higher collection efficiency (85%), the emission balance of
Scenario 1 would be numerally negative,
2220 tCO2
eq /yr (Fig. 3),
when the GHG emission savings are higher than the emissions.
On the other hand, if the collection efficiency were 65%, the
emissions from the landfill would grow by 40% and the avoided
emissions would be reduced by 13.3%. In that case, the GHG
emission balance of Scenario 1 would be 9000 tCO2
eq /yr (Fig. 3).
Considering the fact that the gas collection efficiency is a crucial
factor in the mitigation of GHG emissions, it is important to
pursue as high collection efficiency as possible. After the gas is
collected, it can be treated, thus decreasing the global warming
effect strongly. Logically, gas utilization is more advantageous
than treatment because the LFG utilization can replace the use of
fossil fuels (Hao et al., 2008; Lombardi et al., 2006; Manfredi
et al., 2009b).
Due to the improved gas collection, it is possible to mitigate the
GHG emissions resulting from landfilling significantly. In Finland,
where the LFG emissions form 84% of all GHG emissions caused by
the waste management sector, the effective gas collection affects
strongly the emissions of the entire waste management sector.
Basis for the GHG emission
assumption factor
[kgCO2
eq /MWh]
Current fuel for 213a
district heating
Change in electricity 823a
generation
Current fuel for 213a
district heating
Current fuel in asphalt 220b
production process
Current fuel for district 213a
heating
Change in electricity 823a
generation
70 A. Niskanen et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 55 (2013) 67e71
Fig. 1. Estimated magnitudes for GHG emissions and emission savings caused by
collected gas management on Scenarios 1, 2, and 3.
Like the LFG collection efficiency, the emission factors can also
vary extensively. Obviously, the selected factors have a notable
effect on the results of the GHG emission estimations of the
considered processes. The amount of emission savings due to
energy recovery substantially depends strongly on the data used for
emissions calculations (Finnveden et al., 2005; Fruergaard et al.,
2009; Manfredi et al., 2009a). In this study, it is assumed that the
additional electricity production by gas utilization replaces the
marginal electricity produced by coal condensing power plants. The
Finnish average electricity production includes a notable share of
CO2 emission neutral production, such as hydropower and nuclear
electricity generation. Thus, if average fuel mix were assumed to be
replaced, the amount of emissions and emission savings from the
electricity production could be significantly lower, and hence the
differences between utilization options would change. Country-
specific emission data for energy production can vary signifi-
cantly, and hence dissimilar outcomes for emission estimations are
possible (Fruergaard et al., 2009). However, the marginal data was
used in this study for the replaced electricity data, as preferred by
Fruergaard et al. (2009).
Uncertainties related to emissions caused by collected LFG do
not change the superiority of the examined utilization options from
the GHG emission point of view. Higher amounts of emissions from
the treatment process or a lower collection efficiency of LFG would
diminish the overall GHG emission balance of the considered
system. If the amount of available gas were lower, it would decrease
the emission savings and the feasibility of utilization, and in
contrast, an obviously higher amount of gas would increase the
emission savings and decrease the investment risks.
From the GHG emission point of view, the CHP utilization option
seems to be the most rational alternative. However, the GHG
emission aspect cannot be the only criterion in the selection of the
most convenient gas utilization technology. Other aspects, such as
technical and economic ones, have to be taken into account. Each
utilization technology sets requirements for the amount and
quality of the generated LFG. In addition, the utilization technology
must be adaptable to the existing infrastructure. For example, the
Fig. 2. Estimated overall GHG emission balances for three gas management scenarios.
Fig. 3. Effect of LFG collection efficiency on the GHG emission balance, avoided GHG
emissions, and GHG emissions caused by the released LFG of Scenario 1.
district heat generation is locally-oriented and requires an existing
district heating network, and the utilization in an industrial process
requires a suitable business near the landfill. Long distance trans-
portation of the collected LFG is not feasible, and hence the gas
needs to be utilized on-site or near the landfill. Obviously, this
restricts the choice of the location for the gas utilization. Landfills
are often apart from residential areas, and thus, the possibilities for
heat recovery from LFG may be limited. It is, nevertheless, possible
to situate industry that demands heat close to the waste manage-
ment site. A significant supply of heat energy may encourage such
industries to relocate near the landfill. Moreover, the decline of LFG
generation after the landfill closure must be taken into account.
After the gas generation is diminished and the methane content is
too low for energy utilization purposes, the landfill after-care
period can be reduced through extraction measures. The most
valuable waste fraction can be separated and the residues can be
routed to incineration. Thus, the recovery of energy can be maxi-
mized, the material recovery is enhanced, and the risk of soil
contamination and groundwater pollution decreases in after-care
period.
4. Conclusion
The results show that the performance of LFG collection has
a very strong impact on the GHG emissions of the landfill and on
the amount of LFG available for utilization. In addition, the results
show that emission savings through the utilization of collected LFG
can significantly compensate for the released LFG. According to the
estimated GHG balance results, the combined heat and power
(CHP) production with a gas engine is the recommended option for
collected gas utilization.
After the methane generation is too low for gas utilization,
landfilled material could be extracted for incineration. Thus, the
recovery of energy can be maximized, the material recovery is
enhanced, and the risk of pollution decreases. Furthermore,
possible economic benefits can be achieved through reduced after-
care period.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like gratefully to acknowledge the Fortum
Foundation and the Lappeenranta University of Technology
Research Foundation for their financial support to this study.
References
Bogner, J., Pipatti, R., Hashimoto, S., Diaz, C., Mareckova, K., Diaz, L., Kjeldsen, P.,
Monni, S., Faaij, A., Gao, Q., Zhang, T., Ahmed, M.A., Sutamihardja, R.T.M.,
Gregory, R., 2008. Mitigation of global greenhouse gas emissions from waste:
conclusions and strategies from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
 A. Niskanen et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 55 (2013) 67e71
Change (IPCC) fourth assessment report. Working group III (Mitigation). Waste
Manag. Res. 26, 11e32.
Börjesson, G., Samuelsson, J., Chanton, J., 2007. Methane oxidation in Swedish
landfills quantified with the stable isotope technique in combination with an
optical method for emitted methane. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41, 6684e6690.
Christensen, T.H., 2011. Solid Waste Technology and Management, first ed. Wiley-
Blackwell, West Sussex, UK.
Cossu R., Motzo G.M., Laudadio M., 1995. Preliminary study for a landfill mining
project in Sardinia. Proceedings, Sardinia’95, 5th International Landfill
Symposium, Cagliari, Italy.
Dahlbo, H., Laukka, J., Myllymaa, T., Koskela, S., Tenhunen, J., Seppälä, J.,
Jouttijärvi, T., Melanen, M., 2005. Waste Management Options for Discarded
Newspaper in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area, Life Cycle Assessment Report.
The Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, Finland.
Detes, 2008. Gas Engineering Survey. FID Emission Measurements at Kymenlaakso
Jäte Oy. Soil-Air Measurements Landfill. Detes Scandinavia Ltd, Tampere, Finland.
European Council (EC) Directive 1999/31/EC. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.
eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri¼CELEX:31999L0031:EN:NOT.
EU Commission, 2005. Taking Sustainable Use of Resources Forward: A Thematic
Strategy in the Prevention and Recycling of Waste. Available from: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri¼CELEX:52005DC0666:EN:NOT.
Finnveden, G., Johansson, J., Lind, P., Mobergb, Å., 2005. Life cycle assessment of
energy from solid wastedpart 1: general methodology and results. J. Clean
Prod. 13, 213e229.
Flyktman, M., Helynen, S., 2003. Determine of efficiency for initial allocation of
emission allowances. VTT processes, Energy production Investigation report
PRO2/6095/03. (In Finnish)
Fruergaard, T., Astrup, T., Ekvall, T., 2009. Energy use and recovery in waste
management and implications for accounting of greenhouse gases and global
warming contributions. Waste Manag. Res. 27, 724e737.
Hao, X., Yang, H., Zhang, G., 2008. Trigeneration: a new way for landfill gas utili-
zation and its feasibility in Hong Kong. Energ. Policy 36, 3662e3673.
Hogland, W., Marques, M., Nimmermark, S., 2004. Landfill mining and waste
characterization: a strategy for remediation of contaminated areas. J. Mater.
Cycles Waste. Manag. 6, 119e124.
Huhtinen, K., Lilja, R., Sokka, L., Salmenperä, H., Runsten, S., 2007. The National
Waste Plan to the Year 2016 e Background Document. ISBN: 978-952-11-
2688-8 (pdf). Available from: http://www.environment.fi/download.asp?
contentid¼69139&lan¼fi.
IPCC, 2007. In: Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K., Reisinger, A. (Eds.), Climate
Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to
the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, p. 104.
Karttunen, P., 2007. Utilisation possibilities of landfill gas at Anjalankoski Ekopark.
Master thesis (in Finnish).
Laurila, T., 2010. Micrometeorological Measuring Methane and Carbon Dioxide Emis-
sions in Kymenlaakson Jäte Ltd. Keltakannas Landfill, in Spring 2010 (in Finnish).
Lombardi, L., Carnevale, E., Corti, A., 2006. Greenhouse effect reduction and energy
recovery from waste landfill. Energy 31, 3208e3219.
Manfredi, S., Tonini, D., Christensen, T.H., 2009a. Landfilling of waste: accounting of
greenhouse gases and global warming contributions. Waste Manag. Res. 27,
825e836.
Manfredi, S., Niskanen, A., Christensen, T.H., 2009b. Environmental assessment of
gas management options at the Old Ämmänsuo landfill (Finland) by means of
LCA-modeling (EASEWASTE). Waste Manag. 29, 1588e1594.
Mc Dougall, F.R., White, P.R., Franke, M., Hindle, P., 2001. Integrated Waste
Management: A Life Cycle Inventory, second ed. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK.
71
Ministry of the Environment, 2010a. Towards a Recycling Society e National Waste
Plan until 2016. Environmental Protection Department (in Finnish) Available
from: http://www.ymparisto.fi/download.asp?contentid¼91466&lan¼fi.
Ministry of the Environment, 2010b. Bioenergy from Waste. Working Group Report.
Reports of the Ministry of the Environment 3/2010. ISBN: Helsinki, Finland.
Moberg, Å., Finnveden, G., Johanssona, J., Lind, P., 2005. Life cycle assessment of
energy from solid wastedpart 2: landfilling compared to other treatment
methods. J. Clean Prod. 13, 231e240.
Niskanen, A., Horttanainen, M., Panapanaan, V., 2009a. Scenario-based energy and
GHG emission balance estimations for alternative treatment options of biode-
gradable waste streams. Proceedings Sardinia ’09, 12th International Waste
Management and Landfill Symposium, Cagliari, Italy.
Niskanen, A., Manfredi, S., Christensen, T.H., 2009b. Environmental assessment of
Ämmänsuo Landfill (Finland) by means of LCA-modeling (EASEWASTE). Waste
Manag. Res. 27, 542e550.
Obermeier T., Saure T., 1995. Landfill reconstruction: biological treatment of landfill
waste. Proceedings, Sardinia’95, 5th International Landfill Symposium, Cagliari,
Italy.
Pertl, A., Mostbauer, P., Obersteiner, G., 2010. Climate balance of biogas upgrading
systems. Waste Manag. 30, 92e99.
Rettenberger, G., 1995 Results from a landfill mining demonstration project.
Proceedings, Sardinia’95, 5th International Landfill Symposium, Cagliari, Italy.
Sarlin, Hydor Oy, 2006. Biogas Plant Activity Report for the Year 2005 e Keltakangas
Landfill, Anjalankoski (in Finnish).
Sarlin, Hydor Oy, 2007. Biogas Plant Activity Report for the Year 2006 e Keltakangas
Landfill, Anjalankoski (In Finnish).
SEPA, 2002. Scottish Environment Protection Agency. 2002. Guidance on Landfill
Gas Flaring. Bristol, UK.
Spokas, K., Bogner, J., Chanton, J.P., Morcet, M., Aran, C., Graff, C., Moreau-Le
Golvan, Y., Hebe, I., 2006. Methane mass balance at three landfill sites: what
is the efficiency of capture by gas collection systems? Waste Manag. 26,
516e525.
Statistics of Finland, 2010a. Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Finland 1990e2008.
National Inventory Report under UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. Available
from: http://www.stat.fi/tup/khkinv/fin_nir_20100415.pdf.
Statistics of Finland, 2010b. Fuel Classification and Fuel Specific CO2
Default Emission. Available from: http://www.stat.fi/tup/khkinv/khkaasut_
polttoaineluokitus.html.
Sullivan, P., 2010. The Importance of Landfill Gas Capture and Utilization in the US.
Council for Sustainable Use of Resources/Earth Engineering Center. Columbia
University, New York, US.
Themelis, N., Ulloa, P., 2007. Methane generation in landfills. Renew. Energ. 32,
1243e1257.
USEPA, 2008. Background Information Document for Updating AP42 Section 2.4 for
Estimating Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. United States
Environmental Protection Agency. Report: EPA/600/R-08e116.
Van der Zee, D.J., Achterkamp, M.C., de Visser, B.J., 2004. Assessing the market
opportunities of landfill mining. Waste Manag. 24, 795e804.
VnP 861/97. Decision of the Council of State on Landfills. (in Finnish).
Wanichpongpan, W., Gheewala, S.H., 2007. Life cycle assessment as a decision
support tool for landfill gas-to energy projects. J. Clean Prod. 15, 1819e1826.
Williams, P.T., 2005. Waste Treatment and Disposal. The Wiley, West Sussex, UK.
Wong, E., Whitall, H., Dailey, P., 2001. Combustion engine generator sets. In:
Borbely, A.-M., Kreider, J.F. (Eds.), Distributed Generation e The Power Paradigm
for the New Millennium. Springer, Boca Radon, FL, US.
Zhao, Y., Song, L., Huang, R., Song, L., Li, X., 2007. Recycling of aged refuse from
a closed landfill. Waste Manag. Res. 25, 130e138.