Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Availableonline
Available onlineatatwww.sciencedirect.com
www.sciencedirect.com
Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Energy
EnergyProcedia
Procedia143 (2017) 000–000
00 (2017) 494–499
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

World Engineers Summit – Applied Energy Symposium & Forum: Low Carbon Cities & Urban
Energy Joint Conference, WES-CUE 2017, 19–21 July 2017, Singapore

Municipal
TheSolid Waste Management
15th International in Heating
Symposium on District Indonesia - A Study
and Cooling
about Selection of Proper Solid Waste Reduction Method in D.I.
Assessing the feasibility of using the heat demand-outdoor
Yogyakarta Province
temperature function for a long-term district heat demand forecast
a,b a,b a,b
Hanifrahmawan
a,b,c
Sudibyo
a
, Yano Surya
a
Pradana b
, Arief Budiman
c
, Wiratnic
I. Andrić *, A. Pina , P. Ferrão , J. Fournier
Budhijanto *a,b, ., B. Lacarrière , O. Le Corre
a
a Chemical Engineering Department, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Jalan Grafika No. 2, Sleman 55281, Indonesia
IN+ Center for Innovation,
b
Technology and Policy Research - Instituto Superior Técnico, Av. Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal
Center for
b Energy Studies, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Jalan Sekip K-1 A, Sleman 55281, Indonesia
Veolia Recherche & Innovation, 291 Avenue Dreyfous Daniel, 78520 Limay, France
c
Département Systèmes Énergétiques et Environnement - IMT Atlantique, 4 rue Alfred Kastler, 44300 Nantes, France

Abstract

Abstract the amount of Yogyakarta province municipal solid waste (MSW) came into Piyungan landfill site stood
Recently,
at around 470 ton/day consisting of 77% organic and 23% inorganic fractions. Annually, there was an increase as
Districtasheating
many 8% per networks
annumare forcommonly
the amount addressed
of MSW. in theReduction
literature as
of one
the ofMSW
the mostcan effective solutions
be "forced" for decreasing
in integrated waste the
greenhouse gas emissions from the building sector. These systems require high investments which are returned through the heat
management site (in Indonesia is called TPST) which was built in the municipal level. In each TPST, there are two
sales. Due to the changed climate conditions and building renovation policies, heat demand in the future could decrease,
main activities
prolonging which arereturn
the investment Recycling
period. and Composting. Both scenarios assume that 23% of inorganic waste can be
The main scope of this paper is to assess
recycled so that the subsequent needtheisfeasibility
to manage of using the heat
organic demand
waste. Based– outdoor temperature
on these function forcalculations
considerations, heat demand
performed with: 1). Scenario 1: The TPST has been operated but there is no waste reduction atis the
forecast. The district of Alvalade, located in Lisbon (Portugal), was used as a case study. The district consisted
source;of 2).
665
buildings that vary in both construction period and typology. Three weather scenarios (low, medium,
Scenario 2: TPST is operated and followed by solid waste reduction at the source. If the second scenario is applied, high) and three district
renovation scenarios were developed (shallow, intermediate, deep). To estimate the error, obtained heat demand values were
the amount of waste that goes to landfill Piyungan can be reduced up to 200 ton/day. Actually, scenario 1 is the
compared with results from a dynamic heat demand model, previously developed and validated by the authors.
realistic oneshowed
The results because thatofwhen
Indonesian’s
only weatherculture.
changeUnfortunately,
is considered, theas margin
scenarioof 1error
wascould
highly dependentfor
be acceptable onsome
the TPST, the
applications
(the error
number ofinTPST
annual demand
which wasbelower
must built than 20% steadily
increase for all weather
that it scenarios
can reachconsidered).
60 units inHowever,
2030 whichafterisintroducing
impossible renovation
to find
scenarios,
space the error value
in Yogyakarta increased
province. up tosecond
If the 59.5%scenario
(depending on the weather
is applied, and renovation
the amount of wastescenarios
that goescombination
to Piyungan considered).
landfill
Thecan
site valuebe ofreduced
slope coefficient
graduallyincreased
from 25% on (1-3
average within
years), 35%the (4-7
rangeyears),
of 3.8%and up 50%
to 8%(8-15
per decade,
years) that corresponds
through to the
composting
decrease in the number of heating hours of 22-139h during the heating season (depending on the combination of weather and
activity. The challenge possessed by scenario 2 is how to force people reduce their own organic waste by
renovation scenarios considered). On the other hand, function intercept increased for 7.8-12.7% per decade (depending on the
composting activity.The values suggested could be used to modify the function parameters for the scenarios considered, and
coupled scenarios).
improve the accuracy of heat demand estimations.

© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of The 15th International Symposium on District Heating and
Cooling.
* Corresponding author. Tel.:+6281328183160.
E-mail address: wiratni@ugm.ac.id
Keywords: Heat demand; Forecast; Climate change
1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the World Engineers Summit – Applied Energy Symposium &
Forum: Low Carbon Cities & Urban Energy Joint Conference.
1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of The 15th International Symposium on District Heating and Cooling.
1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the World Engineers Summit – Applied Energy Symposium & Forum: Low
Carbon Cities & Urban Energy Joint Conference.
10.1016/j.egypro.2017.12.716
 Hanifrahmawan Sudibyo et al. / Energy Procedia 143 (2017) 494–499 495
2 Hanifrahmawan Sudibyo et al./ Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the World Engineers Summit – Applied Energy Symposium &
Forum: Low Carbon Cities & Urban Energy Joint Conference.

Keywords: municipal solid waste; composting; organic waste; recycling; integrated waste management site

1. Introduction

In Indonesia, specifically in D.I. Yogyakarta province, the amount of municipal solid waste reached up to 470
ton/day consisting of 77% of organic fraction and 23% of inorganic fraction of MSW. This amount was obtained
after the MSW transported from the lower level of collecting site, which is in the residential area or housing cluster,
and then brought into the middle level of collecting site (Sudibyo et al., 2017), which is in the district level namely
integrated waste management site (in Indonesian it is called Tempat Pengolahan Sampah Terpadu or TPST). In the
TPST, the inorganic fraction of the waste will be recycled and the organic fraction will be composted. Afterward,
the wastes are ready to be transported into the Piyungan landfill site as the final disposal site in the province.
However, the positive trend line of MSW production as many as 8% per annum indicated that the Piyungan landfill
site will no longer be able to accommodate the waste produced by the citizens.

Ideally, the amount of waste entering the Piyungan landfill site can be reduced from its source regardless of the
methods (composting, recycling, etc.) (Sarkar et al., 2016; Colón et al., 2010). If the reductions on its source run
well, then the amount of waste transported into the integrated waste management site (TPST) in the district level can
also be reduced and so can the waste transported into the Piyungan landfill site. The only thing that matter in this
idea is the social culture in Indonesia which is hard to do efforts for reducing the waste produced from their
household activities. By assuming that the waste reduction on its source is not applicable and the waste increase
constantly at 8% per annum, the possible effort is forcing the waste reduction in the TPST by recycling and
composting. Therefore, this paper aims to study the best scenarios to be implemented in D.I. Yogyakarta province
by two approaches which are reducing the waste only by recycling and composting in the TPST and reducing the
waste from its source combined with the reduction in the TPST.

2. Methods

Since there are two activities (recycling and composting) which are potential to reduce the waste significantly, it is
necessary to determine the designed capacity of each TPST to handle both recycling and composting. The designed
capacity of each TPST was 45 ton/day for recycling and 13 ton/day for composting. There are two scenarios to be
assessed which are:
a. Scenario 1: The TPST is operated but without the waste reduction on its source.
b. Scenario 2: The TPST is operated together with the organic waste reduction on its source.
The assessment is conducted by assuming that all inorganic fraction of the waste is recycled totally while the
organic fraction of waste was composted partially so that the required number of the TPST was calculated by using
Eq. 1 and Eq. 2. Because the inorganic fraction of the waste is recycled totally, then the remaining MSW entering
the Piyungan landfill site will be the organic one which is calculated using Eq. 2. Hopefully, the remaining MSW
entering the landfill can be in between 200-300 ton/day.

N TPST recycling 
% inorganic waste. (total daily MSW ) (1)
45 ton / day
Organic waste remaining  470.(1  25%  23%)  13 ton / day . N TPST composting  (2)
496 Hanifrahmawan Sudibyo et al. / Energy Procedia 143 (2017) 494–499
Hanifrahmawan Sudibyo et al./ Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 3

The information about the number of TPST for composting (NTPST-composting) was based on the capability of Office
of Public Work, Housing and Energy-Mineral Resources of Yogyakarta in realizing the construction of TPST in the
following years (see Fig. 1) while the percentage of reduction at the source and TPST (by recycling) was 25% and
23% respectively based on mini-scale application previously conducted by the office.
60
Number of TPST, units

50
40
30
20
10
0

Year
Fig. 1. Prospective number of TPST in D.I. Yogyakarta province by Office of Public Work, Housing and Energy-
Mineral Resources of Yogyakarta

However, the number of TPST for composting in scenario 2 was much smaller than the Scenario 1. The
calculation of the NTPST-composting followed Eq. 3 with the profile of organic waste reduction from its source is shown
by Fig. 2. Each TPST, either for recycling or for composting, is built on 1,200 m2 area. Afterward, the total area
must be calculated to see its percentage of the total area of D.I. Yogyakarta province. The detail calculation can be
seen in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2.

N TPST composting  scenario 2 

% organic waste  . (total daily MSW )  organic waste reduction on its source (3)
13 ton / day

60%
waste reduced from the
Percentage of organic

50%
40%
source

30%
20%
10%
0%

Year

Fig. 2. Prospective profile of percentage of organic waste reduction from its source from 2016-2030

3. Results and Discussions

From the results of modelling, Scenario 1 can make the amount of waste that goes to the Piyungan Landfill Site
stagnant at less than 300 ton/day. The implication of the Scenario 1 which only relies on TPST as a means to reduce
the amount of waste to Piyungan Landfill Site is the number of TPSTs that have been built increase in number.
From Fig. 3, it can be seen that the number of TPST can reach 60 in 2030. In the case of D.I. Yogyakarta, building
60 TPSTs is clearly not easy. Therefore, the Scenario 1 is the realistic scenario because changing the society culture
is difficult but with the risk of waste processing facilities in the form of TPST continues to grow.
 Hanifrahmawan Sudibyo et al. / Energy Procedia 143 (2017) 494–499 497
4 Hanifrahmawan Sudibyo et al./ Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

If the Scenario 2 is applied, the amount of waste entering Piyungan Landfill Site can be reduced to a maximum of
200 ton/day (see Fig. 4). Based on observations in the USA, the average family composting and can reduce about
50% of organic waste. The challenge that exists is how to force the community to want to reduce their organic waste
by doing self-composting because people are not spoiled by the TPST but must take the initiation to reduce their
own waste.
1600 70
Without TPST
Piyungan Landfill Site, ton/day

1400 With TPST

Number of Waste Enetering

60
1200 Estimated Number of TPST

Number of TPST
50
1000
40
800
30
600
20
400
200 10

0 0
2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030
Year
Fig. 3. Calculation result of Scenario 1 from 2016 – 2030

1600 Without TPST 25

Piyungan Landfill Site, ton/day

1400
Number of Waste Entering

With TPST and reduction on its source

20
1200 Estimated number of TPST

Number of TPST
1000 15
800
600 10

400
5
200
0 0
2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030
Year
Fig. 4. Calculation result of Scenario 2 from 2016 – 2030

From the two scenarios above, the absolute thing is there is always waste that will go to the Piyungan Landfill
Site. Therefore, waste processing technology (thermal or bio-based process) is still required until 2030 onwards to
reduce waste volume and extend the life of the Piyungan Landfill Site. If it is required to choose which scenario is
most likely to occur is the Scenario 2. The Scenario two looks at the potential aspect of TPST building in 2030
which is only reaches 20 TPSTs. The coercion against the public will be possible when there are local regulations
which can encourage people to reduce the waste to be disposed of in the trash bin (Vigneswaran et al., 2016). One of
them is determination of high garbage collection fees based on the amount of garbage (Jara-Samaniego et al., 2017).

4. Conclusions

Scenario 2 is the best one to be applied but need support from the province government. The support can be in
the form of starting a program or making a breakthrough by giving mandate to the citizens of D.I. Yogyakarta
498 Hanifrahmawan Sudibyo et al. / Energy Procedia 143 (2017) 494–499
Hanifrahmawan Sudibyo et al./ Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 5

province to start owning their own composting facility through specific regulation. The government can also impose
a punishment for violation over the regulation.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express the highest appreciation to Ms. Rani Sjamsinarsi, M.Sc., Mr. Edy Indrajaya,
M.Sc., and Ir. Kuspramono from Office of Public Work, Housing and Energy-Mineral Resources of Yogyakarta,
Indonesia for the support in this study.

References

[1]. Hanifrahmawan Sudibyo, Akmal I. Majid, Yano S. Pradana, Wiratni Budhijanto, Deendarlianto, Arief Budiman, (2017) “Technological
Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste Management System in Indonesia.” Energy Procedia 105 (2017): 263-269.
[2]. Sutripta Sarkar, Subrata Pal, Sunanda Chanda, (2016) “Optimization of a Vegetable Waste Composting Process with a Significant
Thermophilic Phase.” Procedia Environmental Sciences 35 (2016): 435 – 440.
[3]. Joan Colón, Julia Martínez-Blanco, Xavier Gabarrell, et al. (2010) “Environmental assessment of home composting.” Resources,
Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010): 893–904,
[4]. S. Vigneswaran, J. Kandasamy, M.A.H. Johir. (2016) “Sustainable Operation of Composting in Solid Waste Management.” Procedia
Environmental Sciences 35 ( 2016 ): 408 – 415.
[5]. J. Jara-Samaniego, M.D. Perez-Murcia, M.A. Bustamante et al. (2017) “Composting as sustainable strategy for municipal solid waste
management in the Chimborazo Region, Ecuador: Suitability of the obtained composts for seedling production” Journal of Cleaner
Production 141 (2017): 1349-1358.

Appendix 1. Detail Calculation of Scenario 1

Remaining
Amount
MSW
of MSW
Waste reduction in the Percentage of amount
entering Rounded
TPST, ton/day NTPST- NTPST- Area requirement for TPST area of total entering
Year Piyungan number
recycling composting TPST facility, m2 D.I. Yogyakarta Piyungan
Landfill of TPST
province area Landfill
site,
Site,
ton/day
Recycling Composting ton/day
2016 470.0 108.10 122.23 2.4 7 9 11,282.67 0.000354% 239.7
2017 507.6 116.75 124.73 2.6 7 10 11,513.28 0.000361% 266.1
2018 548.2 126.09 127.43 2.8 7 10 11,762.34 0.000369% 294.7
2019 592.1 136.17 156.34 3.0 9 12 14,431.33 0.000453% 299.6
2020 639.4 147.07 198.49 3.3 12 15 18,321.84 0.000575% 293.9
2021 690.6 158.83 253.89 3.5 16 20 23,435.58 0.000736% 277.9
2022 745.8 171.54 296.56 3.8 19 23 27,374.43 0.000859% 277.7
2023 805.5 185.26 352.52 4.1 23 27 32,540.38 0.001021% 267.7
2024 869.9 200.09 382.80 4.4 25 29 35,335.61 0.001109% 287.0
2025 939.5 216.09 439.43 4.8 29 34 40,562.46 0.001273% 284.0
2026 1014.7 233.38 496.42 5.2 33 38 45,823.46 0.001438% 284.9
2027 1095.9 252.05 553.81 5.6 37 43 51,121.34 0.001605% 290.0
2028 1183.5 272.21 611.64 6.0 41 47 56,459.05 0.001772% 299.7
2029 1278.2 293.99 695.93 6.5 47 54 64,239.77 0.002016% 288.3
2030 1380.5 317.51 793.73 7.1 54 61 73,266.95 0.002300% 269.2
 Hanifrahmawan Sudibyo et al. / Energy Procedia 143 (2017) 494–499 499
6 Hanifrahmawan Sudibyo et al./ Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

Appendix 2. Detail Calculation of Scenario 2

Remaining
Amount of Percentage
Waste MSW
MSW of TPST
reducti Waste reduction in the Area amount
entering Rounded area of total
on on TPST, ton/day NTPST- NTPST- requirement entering
Year Piyungan number D.I.
its recycling composting for TPST Piyungan
Landfill of TPST Yogyakarta
source, facility, m2 Landfill
site, province
ton/day Site,
ton/day area
Recycling Composting ton/day

2016 470.0 117.5 108.10 91.00 2.4 7 9 11,282.67 0.000354% 153.4

2017 507.6 126.9 116.75 91.00 2.6 7 10 11,513.28 0.000361% 173.0

2018 548.2 137.1 126.09 91.00 2.8 7 10 11,762.34 0.000369% 194.1

2019 592.1 207.2 136.17 91.00 3.0 7 10 12,031.33 0.000378% 157.7

2020 639.4 223.8 147.07 91.00 3.3 7 10 12,321.84 0.000387% 177.6

2021 690.6 241.7 158.83 117.00 3.5 9 13 15,035.58 0.000472% 173.0

2022 745.8 261.0 171.54 117.00 3.8 9 13 15,374.43 0.000483% 196.2

2023 805.5 402.7 185.26 117.00 4.1 9 13 15,740.38 0.000494% 100.5

2024 869.9 435.0 200.09 117.00 4.4 9 13 16,135.61 0.000506% 117.9

2025 939.5 469.8 216.09 130.00 4.8 10 15 17,762.46 0.000558% 123.7

2026 1014.7 507.3 233.38 130.00 5.2 10 15 18,223.46 0.000572% 144.0

2027 1095.9 547.9 252.05 130.00 5.6 10 16 18,721.34 0.000588% 165.9

2028 1183.5 591.8 272.21 130.00 6.0 10 16 19,259.05 0.000605% 189.6

2029 1278.2 639.1 293.99 156.00 6.5 12 19 22,239.77 0.000698% 189.1

2030 1380.5 690.2 317.51 169.00 7.1 13 20 24,066.95 0.000755% 203.7