Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 91 (2018) 812–821

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

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

The evolution of waste-to-energy incineration: A review T

a,⁎ b,c b,c
Luke Makarichi , Warangkana Jutidamrongphan , Kua-anan Techato
a
Interdisciplinary Graduate School of Energy Systems (IGES), Prince of Songkla University, Hatyai, Songkhla, Thailand
b
Faculty of Environmental Management, Prince of Songkla University, Hatyai, Songkhla, Thailand
c
Center of Excellence on Hazardous Substance Management (HSM), Bangkok, Thailand

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: From the simple water wall incinerators of the late 19th century, the concept of waste-to-energy incineration has
Waste-to-energy (WtE) evolved dramatically. Initially, waste treatment had no energy recovery objective at all. To date, state of the art
Waste management facilities exist and are coupled with not only mechanisms to recover heat and energy in combined heat and
Municipal solid waste (MSW) power plants, but sophisticated mechanisms to clean flue gas, utilize wastewater, and assimilate diverse streams
Municipal solid waste incineration (MSWI)
of waste with high efficiency. This paper reviews the evolution of waste-to-energy incineration with the prime
objective of evaluating progress made in solving problems, past and present concerns and future prospects in the
industry. The review shows that waste-to-energy incineration has played a significant role in reducing the global
waste problem and by maximizing its potential today, much more can be achieved. Nevertheless, the root
problem notably the growing waste volume in today's society has not been fully addressed. An understanding of
this evolution capacitates players in the waste-to-energy industry to better understand problems and formulate
practical solutions which will steer waste to energy incineration towards more growth in the interim and devise
lasting solutions for the distant future.

1. Introduction
The volume of municipal solid waste (MSW) generated globally
from urban areas is increasing rapidly as a result of expanding human
population and rapid urbanization [26,61,67]. The World Bank esti-
mates that solid waste generated from urban areas globally will in-
crease from roughly 3.5 million tonnes per day currently generated to
6.1 million tonnes per day by 2025 [67]. MSW incineration (MSWI)
plays a pivotal role in not only managing this expanding volume of
waste but also in recovering energy that can be used to supplement
traditional supplies [11,16]. With more than 80% of the global primary
energy share being met from fossil fuels [2,23] MSWI can play a crucial
role in offsetting fossil fuel consumption and increasing the renewable
energy share while at the same time assisting with waste treatment
[53,65]. To date, approximately 1179 MSWI plants around the world
exist with a total capacity in excess of 700,000 metric tonnes per day
(hereafter written as MT/d) [33]. Currently, most plants are located in
the EU, the US and East Asia [33]. Many African and Latin American
countries also perform incineration to inertize medical and hazardous
waste albeit without energy recovery [44]. The development of MSWI
was not without its own challenges. Lessons learned from past failures
helped shape the global outlook of today's WtE1 landscape [58]. Today
the WtE industry is financially rewarding, earning in excess of US$20
billion every year [62]. Despite such tremendous growth, some fun-
damental questions still arise: will the popularity of MSWI continue to
grow? Will global waste management policies remain in favor of WtE?
Is the root problem that led to the birth of MSWI being adequately
addressed? In this paper, literature is reviewed in order to closely
analyze the evolution of MSWI in an attempt to answer these questions
and give an understanding of the evolving concerns and future pro-
spects around WtE. The objective of the paper is to give an overview of
the development of MSWI, with particular emphasis on the major
achievements made around combustion technology and air emissions
control in order to bring to light unresolved problems and the likely
future direction of WtE. In the arrangements of sections of this paper,
first, a historical overview surrounding the advent of MSWI plants is
presented. Secondly, an effort is made to describe the path through
which modern MSWI technology was developed with a particular focus
on combustion technology and air pollution control (APC) systems.
Finally, current concerns and future prospects around MSWI are dis-
cussed with the aim of highlighting challenges that remain unresolved
and recommendations that may be useful in tapping optimal gains from

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: makarichiluke@gmail.com (L. Makarichi).
URL: http://www.envi.psu.ac.th/ (L. Makarichi).
1
While waste-to-energy also refers to conversion by biochemical processes, in this paper the term will primarily refer to waste-to-energy via incineration.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.088
Received 2 May 2017; Received in revised form 25 November 2017; Accepted 14 April 2018
1364-0321/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. Makarichi et al.
MSWI as an option for waste management. It is expected that the
knowledge shared is useful in shaping both current and future prospects
within the WtE sector as well as waste management in general.
2. Historical perspective and the development of MSWI
2.1. The ‘Throw Away’ society
The birth of formal MSW management systems was initiated by
problems that arose from continued population growth within early
towns and cities soon after the industrial revolution [43]. Science had
shown that diseases were closely linked to bacteria (referred to as
‘germs’ during that era) and other microorganisms found in air, soil,
and water [17]. The practice of dumping refuse in the open as well as
on river banks was rampant [43]. A realization that the dirtier en-
vironments created conducive conditions for the growth of these dis-
ease-causing agents pushed the public to demand action from the city
and town administrators [43,57]. Knowing the political consequences
of failure to solve the citizens’ problems, the responsible authorities
yielded to the pressure. Soon, clean water supply and sewerage re-
ticulation services were provided and by the turn of the 19th century,
formal collection and disposal of garbage had begun [31]. This turn of
events would not stop there. The volume of waste continued to rise,
newer strategies to fight existing challenges were developed and newer
problems emerged [43]. In the course of time, responsible authorities
realized that the public had a role to play in reducing the waste disposal
problem and began imposing regulations which primarily restricted
locations where waste could be dumped [57]. In the US, the first reg-
ulations to be formulated by the Federal Government were issued in
1929 in which dumping of waste on river banks was prohibited [43].
The term ‘Throw Away society’ was coined from an article published
on 1 August 1955 in an American magazine that ran under the name,
‘Life’ [57]. It generally denotes a society with an excessively high
consumption pattern and wastage of resources thereby generating huge
volumes of refuse. The waste volumes did not only expand with
growing population but also evolved in characteristics (Fig. 1). [43].
This presented newer challenges to already implemented management
strategies. For example, with an increasing proportion of product
packaging as shown in Fig. 1, the use of pigs in large-scale farms to
consume the garbage only resulted in an excessive build-up of rejected
plastics as the pigs could only consume food waste. Responsible au-
thorities had to devise new solutions.
2.2. The advent of waste recovery plants
During the last quarter of the 19th century, it had become evident
that the rising waste volumes could be dealt with by incinerating part of
Fig. 1. Solid waste generation in the US and New York in 1905, 1960 and 2010.
Adapted from [57].
813
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 91 (2018) 812–821
the waste and recovering some of the materials present in the waste
streams. The first batch of plants in the US and Europe were the or-
dinary refractory incinerators which were later replaced by the water-
wall and modular incinerators of the late 19th century [58]. Focus of
these early incinerators was on waste management alone with no in-
tention to make use of the generated heat. There was growing reali-
zation that landfills would soon fill up and land to construct new ones
would soon run out owing to pressure from rapid urbanization. The first
MSW incinerator in the UK was built in 1870 [33] while in the US the
first MSW incinerator without energy recovery was built in 1885 in
New York City [16]. Heat recovery from incinerators began prior to the
20th century in Europe. In the US, it was not until halfway through the
20th century that rising oil prices prompted the need to utilize heat
from the incinerators so as to generate steam and electricity [58]. This
ultimately put heat recovery at the helm of primary waste treatment
systems design. Initial WtE plants were in the form of simple water-wall
and modular incinerators which lacked flue gas treatment mechanisms
[58]. Methane recovery through co-digestion of refuse and sewage
sludge as well as refuse derived fuel (RDF) production was later in-
itiated. The potential for long-term markets for steam further catalyzed
growth in thermal MSW treatment with heat recovery. It was not long
before new problems began to emerge. The MSWI plants had technical
problems which caused regular plant shut down and excessive rundown
hours [58]. At the same time, resource recovery plants were also set up
with the US's first commercial plant being commissioned in 1971 [58].
The initial objective was to recover the ferrous and non-ferrous mate-
rials especially iron, aluminium, glass and paper fibre [58]. Prevailing
policies were inadequate in supporting resource recovery and as a result
expected economic gains were not being realized. Pollution from the
WtE incinerators was becoming a growing concern and public opposi-
tion began to mount. In the 1960s particulate matter was the only
regulated pollutant but by 1980 regulations required control of acid
gases too [37]. Incineration of a heterogeneous mix of MSW coupled
with poor handling of ash created more public skepticism [46]. The bad
reputation earned by these early WtE incinerators grossly affected
public opinion and stirred opposition [46]. Increasing public pressure
drove location of new plants away from towns but also too far from the
consumers of generated heat and steam [58]. That development made
infrastructural design for supplying heat and steam more complex and
expensive. This new host of problems led to the decline in thermal
treatment as an alternative to landfilling. In the US, incineration
dropped from 31% of the total MSW stream in the 1960s to 9% in mid
1980s [38]. With landfilling still being an option, MSW diversion began
to dwindle.
3. Evolving MSWI technology
3.1. Combustion technology
Since the advent of WtE plants, the objectives of MSW treatment
changed rapidly with more attention being directed towards heat re-
covery. Additionally, regulations governing the disposal of incineration
ash as well as flue gas emissions were becoming more stringent. As a
result, the adoption of MSWI as an option for waste management de-
manded the development of robust technology capable of achieving
three things: volumetric reduction of the MSW, optimal recovery of
heat and materials as well as cleaning the resulting flue gas to meet
prevailing emission limits [43,66].
Early incinerators were categorized into continuous feed, batch-
feed, ram-feed, metal conical and waste heat recovery incinerators
[49]. Continuous feed incinerators were further grouped into traveling
grate incinerators, reciprocating incinerators, rotary kilns and barrel-
grate incinerators. They differed from batch-feed incinerators in that
the latter used a system where refuse was fed at periodic intervals al-
lowing the previously-fed batch to burn almost completely. That way,
continuous feed incinerators had the capacity to handle larger amounts
L. Makarichi et al.
Fig. 2. Regional distribution of MSWI plants by combustion technology (*excluding China) Data sources: [9,25,33].
of waste in comparison to batch incinerators. Ram feed and metal
conical incinerators were only variations of batch feed incinerators. Of
these early incinerators, only waste heat recovery incinerators were
incorporating mechanisms to recover heat while the rest were designed
with the primary objective of MSW volume reduction and waste in-
ertization. Among the early waste-heat recovery incinerators were low-
pressure boilers, high-pressure boilers, and water wall furnaces. Low-
pressure boilers were the first to be developed and the majority of them
had boilers located in the combustion chamber which lowered com-
bustion efficiency as a result of excessive cooling of the furnace [49,58].
High-pressure boilers were later developed with refractory linings that
prevented excessive cooling of the furnace and had an additional ad-
vantage of effective cooling of flue gases to the required range of
250–300 °C (482–572 °F). Water wall furnaces were first applied in
Europe and they had higher heat recovery efficiencies than low and
high-pressure boilers. The major applications of the recovered heat
were in providing hot water for domestic and industrial heating, sewage
sludge drying as well as seawater desalinization for the provision of
potable water to households in coastal areas [58]. Heat recovery for
electricity began around the middle 20th century with the first plant
being built in Paris, France [29]. Towards the end of the 20th century,
as incinerator designs became more complex due to the need for im-
proved combustion efficiency, more sophisticated air emissions control
systems and more efficient materials handling systems were developed.
Large-scale batch feed MSWI were not developed further. Only the
continuous feed incinerators survived the test of time. Today, the MSWI
technologies are divided into three main groups: moving grate, rotary
kiln, and fluidized bed incinerators. While these three were already in
use as early as the first half of the 20th century [49,58], they have been
modified over the years to suit current demands of MSWI.
They incorporate varying degrees of MSW pre-processing which was
non-existent in early incinerators. Over the years, technology for pre-
processing has been developed to remove bulky and hazardous mate-
rials as well as non-combustibles, thereby giving MSW better com-
bustibility and improved emission control [19,51]. Screening through
the use of trommel screens, air classifiers, magnetic separators, and
eddy current separators can be done to reduce the heterogeneity of
MSW prior to incineration. Trommel screens utilize the interaction of
MSW particle size, trommel aperture, declination angle, drum length
and rotation speed to separate MSW components while air classifiers
take advantage of density differences to separate light fractions from
the bulk of the MSW [6,19]. More advanced systems available today
814
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 91 (2018) 812–821
make use of optical sorting devices to separate waste materials based on
their optical properties [3]. Magnetic separators and eddy current se-
parators are specialized for removing ferrous and non-ferrous but
electrically conductive metals respectively [19]. Needless to be com-
pared against one another, all these separation techniques are normally
used in combinations to achieve the desired degree of separation prior
to MSWI.
Moving grate incinerators employ a mass-feed approach which re-
quires minimal pre-processing in the form of screening and pit fluffing
[19]. On the other hand, fluidized bed incinerators can only handle
waste that has undergone shredding and size reduction apart from basic
separation [3,29]. Shredding and size reduction equipment exists ran-
ging from high-speed low torque (HSLT) and low-speed high torque
(LSHT) hammer-mill shredders. HSLT shredders have a larger capacity
of around 300 t/h while LSHT can only handle up to 150 t/h for large-
scale plants [19]
Moving grate incinerators have proved to be superior to either ro-
tary kiln or fluidized bed incinerators primarily because of their ability
to handle large volumes of MSW without prior sorting or shredding save
for the removal of bulky materials such as white goods and hazardous
or explosive materials that may damage the MSWI equipment [3,64].
Additionally, they are capable of accommodating large variations in
waste composition and calorific value with great operational stability
[29,32]. Even though rotary kiln and fluidized bed incinerators have
equally been in use since the middle of the 20th century, only moving
grates have been fully developed and tested thoroughly to meet the
demands for large-scale technical performance. They can be built in
very large units capable of burning up to 50 t of waste per hour [19]. A
comparison made by Lu et al. [33] showed that in the EU (2012),
Germany and the US, the proportion of MSWI plants making use of
moving grate technology is 88%, 94%, and 76% respectively while the
rest are either fluidized bed or rotary kiln incinerators (Fig. 2). The
major disadvantage of moving grates is that they require a relatively
higher investment and maintenance capital outlay as compared to ei-
ther fluidized bed or rotary kiln incinerators [3]. Fluidised bed in-
cinerators require investment and operational capital which is roughly
70% that of moveable grates [19]. Nevertheless, their strict require-
ments in terms of feedstock homogeneity and their high sensitivity to
changes in the calorific value of waste feedstock make their operation
difficult [22]. This has undoubtedly lowered their competitive edge
against moving grates throughout the world. China currently has the
largest capacity of MSWI utilizing fluidized bed technology but the ratio
L. Makarichi et al.
Fig. 3. Distribution of MSWI according to their age (based on the onset of
construction) Adapted from [32].
is on the decrease [30,33]. Early combustion chambers were fitted with
auxiliary oil burners but now the requirement is that incinerators
should operate without supplementary fuel except in deliberate co-in-
cineration configurations [62,65].
The development of MSWI has been slowest in Africa, Latin America
and Australia [33,44]. In Africa, the only waste-to-energy treatment
facility is still under construction in Addis Ababa and is expected to
have a capacity of 1400 MT/d [42]. Brazil represents Latin America
with an MSWI capacity of around 600 MT/d while Australia has a ca-
pacity of only 390MT/d [33]. Even though China has the largest ca-
pacity of MSWI using fluidized bed incinerators, most of the fluidized
bed technology is still imported from Europe [30,33]. Even though new
MSWI plants are being built each year, a survey carried by Lombardi
et al. [32] which classified plants according to their first day of con-
struction showed that the most rapid increase in the number of plants
globally occurred betwen1990 and 2010 (Fig. 3). It can also be ob-
served from Fig. 3 that after 2010 the number of new plants that were
being constructed declined. Reviewed literature shows that the largest
decline occurred in the US as compared to either Europe or Asia [7,16].
One of the factors contributing to this decline in construction of new
MSWI plants was fierce public opposition arising from MSWI pollution
concerns [46]. EPA [16] affirmed that the availability of land for con-
structing new landfills also provided a cheaper alternative for waste
disposal in the US thereby making MSWI decline possible.
The overall thermal efficiency of a WtE plant depends on the end
use of the recovered energy [3,41]. Many energy recovery circuits
around the world today are based on the conventional Rankine cycle
with combined heat and power (CHP) or combined steam and power
(CSP) configurations with overall energy efficiencies up to 60%
[3,13,24,32].
3.2. Air pollution control (APC) systems
In comparison to the MSW combustion technology itself, the aspect
of air emissions control technology has undoubtedly influenced a
greater degree of WtE evolution owing to the air pollution concerns that
surrounded early incinerators. Early incinerators were mere mass burn
plants with little air emissions control. As a result, they quickly at-
tracted public opposition and many plants were forced to shut down
[29]. Electrostatic precipitators were developed around the 1970s
while more advanced APC systems were only developed in the late
1980s [29,66]. Plants fitted with ESPs and dust sprays could lower the
concentration of particulate matter in flue gas to meet the prevailing
emission limits. MSWIs built around the 1970s had an emergency bi-
815
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 91 (2018) 812–821
pass flue duct- a provision which allowed for the discharge of raw flue
gas in the event of extreme APC system failure [49]. This feature is not
common in modern MSWI plants. Emission limits have become more
stringent in response to increased public concerns over MSWI emis-
sions. A closer review of literature published during the early stages of
APC systems development suggests that MSWI pollutants that were of
prime concern were particulate matter (especially dust), oxides of ni-
trogen and sulphur and heavy metals even though flue gas assessments
showed the presence of hydrogen chloride (HCl) and hydrogen fluoride
(HF) as well [49]. As such, APC systems that incorporated wet scrub-
bing mainly involved water sprays with little or no addition of chemi-
cals and catalysts. Towards the close of the 20th century, on discovery
that dioxins were being emitted from MSWI plants, APC equipment had
to be modified to facilitate destruction of dioxins from the flue gases
[65,66]. Additionally, APC systems were developed to incorporate the
use of chemicals such as calcium carbonate, sodium bicarbonate or
calcium hydroxide in the wet and dry scrubbing processes [19,29].
Modern APC systems combine ESP, multi-stage scrubbing, bag house
filtration as well as selective and non-selective catalytic reduction
(SCR/ SNCR) to deal with oxides of nitrogen and sulphur, HCl, HF and
the majority of heavy metals [12,70]. Supporting experiments have
demonstrated that such multistage systems can be more cost-effective
than single-stage flue gas treatment systems [12]. Mercury and dioxin
removal is enhanced through the addition of activated carbon to the
lime prior to scrubbing [66]. APC technologies are separated into wet,
dry and semi-dry systems. ESPs, cyclones and baghouse filters are
highly effective systems for the removal of particulate matter in flue
gas. Simple wet and semi-dry systems are capable of neutralizing most
of the HCl with low formation of solids. However, operators with these
systems have to deal with the high risk of corrosion to quenching and
scrubbing equipment surfaces as well as additional cost of treating the
wastewater arising from the wet process [12,66]. Additionally, unless
re-heating is done to the flue gases before discharging through the
stack, a white plume is visible from modern MSWI stacks [8]. Despite
the APC systems being capable of cleaning flue gases to meet strict
emission requirements, often, it is this white plume that keeps the
public suspecting that the WtE power plant is discharging highly toxic
pollutants.
Over the years, air emission control technology dealing with MSWI
flue gas treatment had to cope with the fluctuations in particulate
matter loading and variations in gas flow rates because the feed ma-
terial in the combustion chamber is non-homogeneous. As a result,
modern APC systems involve both combustion control and post-com-
bustion control to both limit formation of conventional and trace con-
taminants and improve the quality of the flue gas exiting the stack.
Combustion control now includes the use of heat release sensors in the
furnace in order to systematically adjust air supply so as to ensure
optimal combustion- a condition necessary to ensure near complete
burnout of flue gases [64,69]. Another technique is re-circulation of
flue gases which leads to an increase in thermal capacity by about
1–3%, reduction of NOx by 20–40% and suppression of dioxin gen-
eration thereby making post-combustion treatment of flue gases easier
[45,66]. Modern flue gas treatment has additionally incorporated the
use of catalysts in suppressing the formation of dioxins during and after
the combustion process. For example, SCR and selective catalytic oxi-
dation (SCO) involving NH3-SCR (An ammonia-based catalyst) can ef-
fectively reduce dioxins emission to below 0.1 ng I-TEQ/m3 and injec-
tion of Thiourea can inhibit formation of dioxins by 95% without
disruption of normal incineration conditions as has been shown in re-
cent laboratory experiments and pilot studies [36,70]. Tremendous
effort has been made towards finding the most cost-effective treatment
technologies especially in dealing with acid gases and dioxins.
MSWI across the regions of the world have recorded varying degrees
of success in flue gas treatment. So far, the EU has the lowest emission
factors for the bulk of monitored parameters (Table 1).
As can be seen in Table 1, China and Japan's emissions are above the
L. Makarichi et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 91 (2018) 812–821

Table 1 estimated to be worth approximately USD 24 billion as at 2013 [62]

Emission factors for major MSWI pollutants for selection countries and regions. and is expected to reach USD 37.6 million by 2020 (Fig. 4) [20]. As at
Emission factors as daily averages (mg/Nm3) 2014, at least 80 WtE incinerators were operational in the US [35,63].
These had the capacity to process in excess of 96,000 t of MSW per day,
Region/country Particulate matter CO SO2 HCl NOx generating 2769 MW h sold daily to the national grid and recovering
730,000 t of ferrous and non-ferrous metals for recycling [35].
EU 10 50 50 10 200
US 19 89 60 32.5 270 Denmark, Sweden, Estonia, and Finland seem to be among the
Japan 44 38.2 – 77.7 522.6 global leaders in the WtE industry, incinerating at least 50% of their
South Korea 20 57.3 78.5 29.9 131.7 MSW (Fig. 5). Consequently, they have reduced landfilling to less than
China 20 80 80 50 250 10% of the generated MSW (with the exception of Finland which still
Average 22.6 62.9 67.13 40.02 274.86
landfills 17% of its total MSW throughput). In East Asia, Japan is
Adapted from [33]. equally a competitive player. 67% of 65 million tonnes of MSW gen-
erated in Japan are treated thermally [31,33]. By 2013, Japan had 1172
global average for most of the parameters. Lu et al. [33] cites that even MSW thermal treatment plants with capacity to process 182,683 t per
though China has rapidly increased the capacity of MSWI, its lack of day of MSW [33,68]. Of these, 778 plants make use of residual heat
operating experience as compared to the developed world as well as the while 328 plants have CHP systems with a generating capacity of ap-
low energy content of MSW being treated in China are major stumbling proximately 1.8 GW [68]. By 2010, Europe had more than 452 opera-
blocks towards achieving higher APC effectiveness. tional MSWI plants with the capacity to treat both MSW and hazardous
In the EU and the US, significant progress in developing technology waste amounting to an estimated 73.4 million tonnes per year. By 2014,
for the reduction of dioxin emissions from MSWIs has been made over the UK alone incinerated 35% (6.72 million tonnes) of the total MSW
the years. Reviewed literature shows that environmental concentrations stream generating 3.94 TWh of electricity (representing 1.1% of UK's
of known dioxins in the US for example, have reduced by over 90% overall energy supply as at 2014) [27]. China started WtE incineration
between 1980 and 2000 [15,18] which confirms the efficacy of both almost a century later than the EU and the US (Fig. 6) yet to date, China
policy and technical instruments in addressing MSWI emissions in these has the largest MSWI capacity [33].
regions. By 2015, at least 1179 incinerators have been built globally and
have a total capacity exceeding 700,000 MT/d (Fig. 7). Enabling leg-
islation is likely to influence further increase in the global MSWI ca-
4. The business case of Waste-to-Energy systems pacity in the next 1–2 decades.

Having seemed to have overcome most of its limitations, and more

so because of the dwindling space for constructing new landfills as well
as concerns over continued dependence on fossil fuels, thermal treat-
ment of waste with energy recovery has become the best alternative to
landfilling in Europe, the US and most recently in Asia [1,58]. MSWI
has evolved to be an important strategy helping local and regional
authorities in achieving their environmental protection goals [4,5].
Whereas in the past WtE programs targeted environmental protection
alone, the current approach has now been for the benefit of both the
economy and society as a whole. Today, the WtE industry (inclusive of
other thermal and biochemical technologies) is a vibrant industry,
5. Current concerns and future prospects
5.1. Rapid increase in global MSW generation
Despite all the developments discussed so far, increasing urban
population densities and the associated consumption pattern char-
acterizing modern societies have kept waste volumes on a rapid in-
crease [17,43]. In the US for example, by 1980 waste volumes that had
to be landfilled had risen to over 100 million tonnes [43]. Today, it is
estimated that globally, MSW generated per day has risen to 3.5 million

Fig. 4. Global WtE market revenue estimate by technology, 2014–2024 Adapted from [20].

816
L. Makarichi et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 91 (2018) 812–821

Fig. 5. MSW treatment and disposal options in the EU Adapted from [11].

Fig. 6. MSWI capacity for various countries between 1960 and 2015. Adapted
from [33].
tonnes and will reach 6.1miilion tonnes by 2025 [25,67] (Table 2).
Perhaps the most outstanding question that must be answered in the
global solid waste management fraternity is whether this trend in MSW
generation will ever be reversed. The present review has shown that
initially, solid waste management was not an issue to worry about be-
cause then, the volumes generated were too low to warrant any sig-
nificant health impacts. It did not take very long to have that per-
spective changed. Today, solid waste management has emerged to be
one of the most pressing issues governments are faced with [25,67]. As
Table 2 shows, the global volume of MSW generated from urban areas is
likely to double by 2025 [67]. The ability of responsible authorities to
provide resources necessary to manage the growing problem is over-
whelmed particularly in the developing countries where some countries
lack even the basic sanitary landfills for the safe disposal of MSW [44].
This is happening while at the same time governments are making
waste disposal regulations more stringent in order to strengthen public
health protection systems. Clearly, unless an exhaustive approach is
taken with regards to the waste management hierarchy, responsible
authorities are unlikely to cope with this rapid increase in MSW gen-
eration. Indications are that a point will be reached in the future where,

Fig. 7. Growth of MSWI between 1980 and 2015. Data sources [33,35,56,58].

817
L. Makarichi et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 91 (2018) 812–821

Table 2
Current and projected urban waste generation by region. Data source [67].
Region Current available data Projections for 2025

Total Urban Population Urban waste generation Projected population Projected urban waste generation
(millions)
Per Capita (kg/ Total (tons/day) Total Urban Population Total (tons/ Per Capita (kg/ Total (tons/day)
capita/day) (millions) day) capita/day)

AFR 260 0.65 169,119 1152 518 0.85 441,840

EAP 777 0.95 738,958 2124 1229 1.5 1,865,379
ECA 227 1.1 254,389 339 239 1.5 354,810
LCR 399 1.1 437,545 681 466 1.6 728,392
MENA 162 1.1 173,545 379 257 1.43 369,320
OECD 729 2.2 1,566,286 1031 842 2.1 1,742,417
SAR 426 0.45 192,410 1938 734 0.77 567,545
TOTAL 2980 1.2 3,532,252 7644 4285 1.4 6,069,703

AFR = Africa; EAP = Europe Asia Pacific; ECA = Europe and Central Asia; LAR = Latin American and the Caribbean Region; MENA = Middle East and North Africa;
OECD = the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development; SAR = Special Administrative Region.

in the same way as landfills failed to cope with rising waste volumes,
MSWI will equally fail to cope. Therefore, the long-term solution should
be genuine effort by governments to deal with the root problem. The
interim measure would be to aim for a zero growth in per capita waste
generation. Once this is achieved, the ultimate goal would be achieving
an infinitely-declining per capita waste generation. The EU has already
set the tone for the necessary transition towards a circular economy.
Until, the global per capita solid waste generation is on an infinite
decline, the consequences of the ‘Throw Away society’ will continue to
haunt the global community.
5.2. Difficulty in repelling public phobia for dioxins
By 2004, there was a wide acceptance that MSWI was the source of
dioxins [34]. Despite tremendous progress in reducing MSWI emissions
as has been discussed in previous sections, there still exists public
skepticism in so much that thermal treatment of MSW for energy re-
covery remains a subject for widespread debate. The major issue
around the debate is that since the late 1980s, MSWI plants have been
proven to be a significant source of dioxins (a family of at least 75
chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins), polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs)
and poly-brominated compounds such as poly-brominated diethyl
ethers which are toxic, carcinogenic and known endocrine disruptors
[8,34,40]. Additionally, dioxins are hydrophobic, lipophilic, stable and
resistant to metabolism making them difficult to excrete from the body.
As a result, they are bio-accumulative [40]. They are present in MSW,
and even though they may be destroyed during combustion at high
temperatures, they are capable of reforming in post-combustion flue
gases [8,70]. As a result of their long half-life which ranges from years
to decades, they are highly persistent in the environment hence the
term persistent organic pollutants (POPs) [59]. Control of these com-
pounds in flue gases is mainly by maintaining conditions for their op-
timum destruction in the combustion chamber and preventing condi-
tions that favor their reformation in post-combustion gases as has been
explained in Section 3.2. Flue gas treatment is a very expensive process
and is usually what pushes the overall initial investment cost beyond
the reach of many urban local authorities [39]. Strict emission stan-
dards only make incineration more expensive than landfilling which
may explain why the US halted further expansion of MSW incineration
since the late 20th century [33]. In many countries, challenges arising
from control of WtE emissions are among the key factors that agitate
public opposition and lead to MSWI plant closure. Thus, accurate in-
formation about the environmental performance of MSWI plants,
especially with respect to air emissions is crucial in order to dispel
public fears and transform MSWI from a controversial technique to an
acceptable option [33]. Waste recovery should be supported by sound
policy and functional markets for secondary products. Likewise, social
acceptance of the technology should continue to be promoted through
transparent sharing of accurate information aimed at improving public
perception on MSWI.
5.3. Unpredictability of MSW characteristics as a feedstock for energy
power plants
The volume of waste generated and its composition is tied closely to
a country's national GDP, a variable which is not static [10,25]. Less
developed countries tend to have a higher proportion of biodegradable
organic waste than more economically developed countries (Fig. 8a).
Generally, MSW is extremely diverse in its composition which in turn
directly determines its combustibility in MSWI furnaces. The Tanner
triangle is often used to determine combustibility of MSW by con-
sidering the proximate values of moisture, ash and the combustible
fraction (Fig. 8b). The shaded region of the triangle represents prox-
imate values which permit combustion of the waste feedstock without
supplementary fuel. Fig. 8b shows the tanner triangle with data for
selected countries superimposed. As can be seen in Fig. 8b, the com-
bustibility of MSW differs significantly from one area to another. There
are some areas like China where the energy content of the waste is so
low that co-combustion with other fuels is the most economical option.
With the rapidly evolving consumption patterns, predicting the exact
characteristics of MSW as plant feedstock remains a challenge. In-
cinerating waste with huge variations in proximate composition and
energy content leads to fluctuations in heating characteristics, uneven
boiler firing, complexities in managing flue gases and frequent down-
times. Moisture content (MC) is one of the most difficult parameters in
MSWI systems as it increases the weight of the waste without increasing
the net energy yield obtainable from thermal treatment of the waste
[9,50]. Effective incineration requires MC of less than 30% [48]. Failure
to maintain MC at the right levels negatively affects the process, re-
duces overall heat yield and makes the entire system economically in-
efficient [47]. As has already been shown, recent technological ad-
vancement has improved waste pre-treatment significantly. The major
limitation around modern waste pre-treatment prior to MSWI is that the
overall cost of treatment when these features are added in system de-
signs increases, which pushes the initial investments costs beyond the
reach of many urban local authorities [53]. The World Bank Guide on
MSWI recommends that for WtE incineration to be cost-effective, the
average low heating value of the MSW throughout the year should be at
least 7 MJ/kg and in no cases should it be less than 6 MJ/kg [55,65].
The low heating value of MSW has forced many operators to co-in-
cinerate with coal in order to keep the WtE business at even [7]. The
resulting problem is that the systems may experience technical pro-
blems and the resulting emissions may be more difficult to manage
especially if the system was originally designed for MSWI alone [71].

818
L. Makarichi et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 91 (2018) 812–821

Fig. 8. a & b: Variations in MSW composition and proximate characteristics in different regions. Data sources: 8a-[67], 8b(i-v)-[14,33,52].

Corrosion of MSWI plant components especially flue ducts and scrubber

surfaces due to acid gases is still a challenge many MSWI plant opera-
tors are faced with [47].
Plastics have a very high calorific value which may be in excess of
40 MJ/kg [21,72]. MSW Characterization data indicates that the global
proportion of plastics averages 10% and can be higher for middle and
high-income countries [67,72]. Effectively collecting all plastic waste
and ensuring they form a significant proportion of the incineration
plant feedstock can improve the combustibility of MSW. Sadly, a huge
proportion of plastic waste is not being channeled towards MSWI. ISWA
[25] reported that in 2015, approximately 7million tonnes of plastic
waste ended up in the sea which is a loss of approximately 280 TJ if
average values observed by Zhou et al. [72] are considered.

5.4. Evolving policy favouring transition to more recycling, reuse and

reduction of waste

Transition in policy and legislation in favor of MSW pre-treatment

has undoubtedly been one of the most significant drivers for the growth Fig. 9. World Bank projection on the contribution of WtE in future primary
of MSWI particularly in the EU where the EU waste framework directive energy share for various regions. Adapted from [67].
(2008/98/EC) has intensively promoted WtE [24,46]. Apart from
concerns arising from air pollution, the debate around thermal treat-
[33] highlighted that as countries approach their targets for the re-
ment of MSW is also centered on the opinion that incineration (and
duction of MSW managed by landfilling, further expansion of in-
associated thermal-based technologies) promotes wastefulness, ham-
cineration may decelerate and eventually stop. This presents a complex
pers waste minimization efforts and works indirectly against recycling
arrangement and a lot of uncertainty for the future of MSWI. Germany,
and waste prevention goals [9]. The World Bank projected in 2012 that
for example, has already banned landfilling of untreated MSW since
by 2050, WtE will have potential to provide 11 Exajoules (EJ) of pri-
2009 [46]. Other countries like Sweden, Denmark, France, Norway,
mary energy in various regions of the world (Fig. 9). Policy direction
Belgium and others in the US have imposed similar bans with mixed
around waste management in various regions of the world will de-
results [28]. While the effect of such bans may not be accurately pre-
termine the actual contribution. The EU has already formulated the
dicted, these changes demonstrate how policy transition can impact on
2012–2020 Environmental Action Program with the philosophy of
the long-term economic viability of MSWI.
‘Living well within the limits of our planet’ [31]. Under the revised policy,
For example, Taiwan's 24 operational MSWI plants have a utiliza-
the EU planned that by 2020, waste is managed as a resource, the per
tion capacity of approximately 49% which is just half of that of the EU,
capita waste generation is on an absolute decline, and re-use and re-
the US and China [33,52]. Taiwan's policy which favors more waste
cycling are made economically attractive by developing widespread
recycling could be an explanation behind its depressed MSWI plant
collection systems and functional markets for secondary products. Ad-
utilization capacity [33].
ditionally, the policy aims that by 2020 there will be zero landfilling
In spite of these arguments, it is important to note that more than
and energy recovery is restricted only to non-recyclable materials [31].
75% of the global MSW stream is still being landfilled. As such, the
Latest development suggests that the EU has since adopted the planned
world cannot afford to abandon MSWI for now [56]. History has proven
Circular Economy Package which aims to promote more waste pre-
the inadequacy of recycling alone in managing the expanding volumes
vention, re-use, and recycling [26,31]. This was expected and it shows
of MSW [31]. Until there is a radical transition away from the ‘Throw
the influence of policy on the future prospects of MSWI [60]. Lu et al.

819
L. Makarichi et al.
Away society’, MSWI will still be relevant and should be part of the
integrated solid waste management system. On the other hand, it is
important to realize that this relevance will not be indefinite. Just like
landfilling, in the future, WtE is likely to be less attractive over waste
minimization as the direction in policy shift is already suggesting.
6. Conclusion
The trend in MSW generation globally suggests that waste volumes
requiring MSWI will continue to rise as this is an effective way of re-
ducing residual waste that needs landfilling, with the added benefit of
providing renewable energy to supplement conventional supplies. With
land for building new landfills becoming scarce in most urban settle-
ments, there is need to increase the capacity of MSWI further. As such,
the number of MSWI plants is likely to increase in the next couple of
years to match the growing demand for waste diversion with energy
recovery. The present review has shown that since the late 19th cen-
tury, significant progress has been made in the development of MSWI,
particularly in optimizing the efficiency of combustion systems and in
improving flue gas treatment. Considering that at least 1179 MSWI
plants have been built around the world with a total capacity exceeding
700,000 MT/d, the relevancy of MSWI is still apparent. However, some
key problems remain unsolved. Firstly, MSW volumes continue to be on
the rise which suggests that the world is still one huge ‘Throw Away’
society and there has been very little success in reversing the trend in
MSW generation. While MSWI contributes significantly to waste vo-
lume reduction, a circular economy that will ensure the per capita
waste generation is on an infinite decline is the only long-term solution
to the global waste problem. Secondly, despite major achievements
made in the development of MSWI APC systems, public phobia against
pollutants particularly dioxins has not been abated. The current review
has demonstrated that MSWI is still a relevant MSW management op-
tion and as such, there is now a greater need to work towards dispelling
negative public perception and make incineration a more acceptable
technology. MSWI has grown to be a vibrant industry whose competi-
tive edge on the market matches that of conventional solid fuels and
players can take advantage of the current status for further promotion
of MSWI. The policy transition towards a circular economy which has
been already shown by the EU suggests that the relevance of MSWI is
not indefinite. While increasing MSWI capacity is a necessary course of
action in the interim, industries and governments should nurture pre-
paredness to fully embrace other options within the waste management
hierarchy.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the Graduate School, Prince of Songkla
University, Thailand under whose banner the present review was done.
Dr. Wattana Ratismith is appreciated sincerely for the preliminary
guidance and review. The work was granted by the Higher Education
Research Promotion, the Thailand's Education Hub for Southern Region
of ASEAN Countries (TEH-AC 16/2016) Project Office of the Higher
Education Commission.
References
[1] BP. BP statistical review of world energy 2016. 2016.
[2] BP. BP statistical review of world energy june 2016. Technical report. 65th ed. BP;
2016 (accessed 11/01/2017). https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/energy-
economics/statistical-review-2016/bp-statistical-review-of-world-energy-2016-full-
report.pdf.
[3] Brown RC. Thermochemical processing of biomass: conversion into fuels, chemicals
and power. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley; 2011. p. 1–330. Wiley Series in
Renewable Resources.
[4] Brunner PH, et al. Thermal waste treatment – a necessary element for sustainable
waste management. Waste Manag Ser 2004;4(2004):783–806. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S0713-2743(04)80033-3.
[5] Brunner PH, Rechberger H. Waste to energy – key element for sustainable waste
820
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 91 (2018) 812–821
management. Waste Manag 2015;37(2015):3–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2014.02.003.
[6] Cesaro A, Belgiorno V. Pre-treatment methods to improve anaerobic biodegrad-
ability of organic municipal solid waste fractions. Chem Eng J
2014;240(2014):24–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2013.11.055.
[7] Chen C-C, Chen Y-T. Energy recovery or material recovery for MSW treatments?
Resour Conserv Recycl 2013;74:37–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.
2013.02.003.
[8] Chen Z, et al. Dioxins degradation and reformation during mechano-chemical
treatment. Chemosphere 2017;180:130–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
chemosphere.2017.04.004.
[9] Cheng, Hu. Municipal solid waste (MSW) as a renewable source of energy: current
and future practices in China. Bioresour Technol 2010;101:3816–24.
[10] Couth R, Trois C. Waste management activities and carbon emissions in Africa. J
Waste Manag 2010;2010:131–7.
[11] Cucchiella F, et al. Sustainable waste management: waste to energy plant as an
alternative to landfill. Energy Convers Manag 2017;131:18–31. [Jan. 2017].
[12] Dal Pozzo A, et al. Comparison of alternative flue gas dry treatment technologies in
waste-to-energy processes. Waste Manag 2016;51(Supplement C):81–90. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.02.029.
[13] Di Maria F, et al. Energetic efficiency of an existing waste to energy power plant.
Energy Procedia 2016;101:1175–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2016.11.
159.
[14] Di Maria F, Lasagni M. On line measurement of the lower heating value of waste
and energetic efficiency of an existing waste to energy plant: identification of un-
certainty associated to probes and their influence on the results. Energy Procedia
2017;126(Suppl. C):S613–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.08.235.
[15] Dioxin facts - questions and answers - Dioxins, Furans, TCDD, PCBs; 2017. 〈http://
www.dioxinfacts.org/questions_answers/#9〉. [Accessed 16 November 2017].
[16] EPA. Energy Recovery from the combustion of municipal solid waste (MSW); 2016.
URL 〈https://www.epa.gov/smm/energy-recovery-combustion-municipal-solid-
waste-msw〉 [Accessed on 26 November 2016].
[17] EPA- US. EPA history: resource conservation and recovery act (Archives); 2017.
[18] EPA-US. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2006. An inventory of
sources and environmental releases of dioxin-like compounds in the United States
for the years 1987, 1995, and 2000. Washington, DC: National Centre for
EnvironmentalAssessment; 2006. [EPA/600/P-03/002F].
[19] Fitzgerald GC. Pre- processing and treatment of municipal solid waste (MSW) prior
to incineration. Waste Energy Convers Technol 2013:17.
[20] Grandview Research Consultancy. Waste to energy market analysis by technology
(thermal incineration, gasification, pyrolysis and biological) and segment forecasts
2014-2024. Grandview Consultancy; 2016 (accessed 17/11/2016). http://www.
grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/waste-to-energy-technology-industry/
request.
[21] Gug J, et al. Processing and properties of a solid energy fuel from municipal solid
waste (MSW) and recycled plastics. Waste Manag 2015;35(Suppl. C):S283–92.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.09.031.
[22] Hernandez-Atonal FD, et al. Combustion of refuse derived fuel in a fluidised bed.
Chem Eng 2007;62(2007):627–35.
[23] IEA. World energy outlook report 2016. International Energy Agency; 2016 (ac-
cessed 01/10/2017). https://www.iea.org/media/publications/weo/
WEO2016Chapter1.pdf.
[24] Islam KMN. Municipal solid waste to energy generation: an approach for enhancing
climate co-benefits in the urban areas of Bangladesh. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2017(2017). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.053.
[25] ISWA. International solid waste association (ISWA) report, 2015. Technical Report
#2015. ISWA; 2015. www.iswa.org/fileadmin/galleries/Publications/ISWA.../
ISWA_Report_2015.pdf.
[26] ISWA. ISWA key issue paper on waste prevention, waste minimization and resource
management. International Solid Waste Association; 2017 (accessed 29/04/2017).
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/resource_efficiency/pdf/ISWA%20International
%20Solid%20Waste%20Association.pdf.
[27] Kartfoot R UK statistics on waste report. UK, Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs.
[28] Kosseva Maria R. Chapter 1 - Recent European Legislation on Management of
Wastes in the Food Industry, In Food Industry Wastes. San Diego: Academic Press;
2013. p. 3–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-391921-2.00001-9.
[29] Kuras M. Waste management and technology: thermal treatment of waste; 2017.
[30] Li Y, et al. Waste incineration industry and development policies in China. Waste
Manag 2015;46(2015):8.
[31] Liobikienė G, Butkus M. The European Union possibilities to achieve targets of
Europe 2020 and Paris agreement climate policy. Renew Energy
2017;106(2017):298–309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.01.036.
[32] Lombardi L, et al. A review of technologies and performances of thermal treatment
systems for energy recovery from waste. Waste Manag 2015;37(Suppl. C):S26–44.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.11.010.
[33] Lu J-W, et al. Status and perspectives of municipal solid waste incineration in
China: a comparison with developed regions. Waste Manag 2017. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.04.014.
[34] Martínez-Guijarro K, et al. Atmospheric concentration of polychlorinated dibenzo-
p-dioxins, polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDD/Fs) and dioxin-like poly-
chlorinated biphenyls (dl-PCBs) at Umm-Al-Aish oil field-Kuwait. Chemosphere
2017;168:147–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.10.036.
[35] Michaels T. ERC Directory of Waste-to-energy facilities in the United States; 2014.
URL 〈http://www.wte.org〉 [Accessed 10 February 2017].
[36] Mukherjee A, et al. A review on technologies of removal of dioxins and furans from
L. Makarichi et al.
incinerator flue gas. Procedia Environ Sci 2016;35(Suppl. C):S528–40. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2016.07.037.
[37] Niessen, Walter. R. 2010. Combustion and Incineration Processes: Applications in
Environmental Engineering. 4th ed. p. 798 ISBN 13:978-1-4398-7558-2 CRC Press,
Taylor and Francis Group, 6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300 Boca Raton,
FL 33487-2742.
[38] NRC. Waste incineration overview. The Academic Press.
[39] Panepinto D, et al. Economic and environmental comparison between two scenarios
of waste management: MBT vs thermal treatment. Resour Conserv Recycl
2015;97:16–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.02.002.
[40] Rawn DFK, et al. Dioxins/furans and PCBs in Canadian human milk: 2008–2011. Sci
Total Environ 2017;595:269–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.
157.
[41] Rentizelas AA, et al. Combined municipal solid waste and biomass system optimi-
zation for district energy applications. Waste Manag 2014;34(2014):36–48.
[42] REPPIE. Africa’s First Waste-to-Energy Facility. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Cambridge
Industries Energy; 2017 (accessed 11/12/2017). https://static1.squarespace.com/
static/57c7f80620099eafefefe77a/t/58dbc65a579fb3ddac6737f1/
1490798189352/Reppi+Brochure.pdf.
[43] Roberts J. A brief history of waste regulations in the United State and Oklahoma.
Office of the Oklahoma Secretary of Energy and Environment; 2015 (accessed 01/
05/2017). http://www.deq.state.ok.us/lpdnew/wastehistory/wastehistory.html.
[44] Scarlat N, et al. Evaluation of energy potential of municipal solid waste from
African urban areas. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;50:1269–86. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.05.067.
[45] Shi B, et al. Effects of internal flue gas recirculation rate on the NOx emission in a
methane/air premixed flame. Combust Flame 2018;188:199–211. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2017.09.043. [Feb. 2018].
[46] Spohn C. Potential drivers and current barriers of waste-to-energy. ITAD 2010.
[47] Staley B. Summary of waste conversion technologies. Environ Res Educ Found
(EREF) 2013.
[48] Staley B. Waste-to-Energy.pdf. Environmental research and education foundation
(EREF); 2015.
[49] Stear JR. Municipal Incineration: a review of literature. Office of Technical
Information and Publications, Environmental Protection Agency-US, National
Service Centre for Environmental Publications (NSCEP); 1971 (accessed 11/11/
2017). https://nepis.epa.gov.
[50] Stoltz G, et al. Characterisation of the physico-mechanical parameters of MSW.
Waste Manag 2010;30(8–9):1439–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.
03.016.
[51] Sun R, et al. Influence of simulated MSW sizes on the combustion process in a fixed
bed: CFD and experimental approaches. Waste Manag 2016;49(Suppl. C):S272–86.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.12.019.
[52] Suthapanich W. Characterization and assessment of municipal solid waste for en-
ergy recovery options in Phetchaburi, Thailand. Thailand: Asian Institute of
Technology; 2014.
[53] Tester JW, et al. Sustainable energy: choosing among options. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: The MIT Press; 2012.
821
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 91 (2018) 812–821
[55] Tozlu A, et al. Waste-to-energy technologies for municipal solid waste management
in Gaziantep. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015(2015).
[56] UNEP. Trends in solid waste management: management: issues, issues, challenges
and opportunities; 2010.
[57] Upstream. History of waste; 2016. URL. 〈http://upstreampolicy.org/issues/
corporate-accountability-for-waste/history-of-waste/〉 [Accessed 13 November
2016].
[58] US, EIS. A status report on energy recovery from municipal solid waste: technolo-
gies, lessons and issues. Public Technology Inc, Energy Information Service Office of
Intergovernmental Affairs, US Department of Energy to the Urban Consortium for
Technology Initiatives; 1980 (accessed 16/08/2016). https://www.osti.gov/
servlets/purl/6368527.
[59] Vane CH, et al. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) and Polychlorinated
Biphenyls (PCBs) in urban soils of Greater London, UK. Appl Geochem
2014;51(2014):303–14.
[60] Wang Y, et al. Characteristics and trends of research on waste-to-energy incinera-
tion: a bibliometric analysis, 1999–2015. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2016;66:95–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.07.006.
[61] Waste management hierarchy and homeland security incidents; 2016. 〈https://
www.epa.gov/homeland-security-waste/waste-management-hierarchy-and-
homeland-security-incidents〉 [Accessed 3 August 2017].
[62] WEC. Waste-to-Energy 2013. Report. pdf:- World Energy Council; 2013.
[63] WEC. Waste to Energy 2013 (Forum News). World Energy Council; 2013.
URL: 〈http://www.worldenergy.org〉 [Accessed 20 November 2016].
[64] Wissing F, et al. Simulating municipal solid waste incineration with a DEM/CED
method-influences of waste properties, grate and furnace design. Fuel
2017;206(2017):638–56.
[65] World Bank. Decision Makers' Guide to Municipal Solid Waste Incineration. World
Bank, Washington DC; 1999. URL 〈http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTUSWM/
Resources/463617-1202332338898/incineration-dmg.pdf〉 [Accessed 8 August
2016].
[66] World Bank. Municipal Solid Waste Incineration Technical Report World Bank;
1999.
[67] World Bank. What a waste: a global review of solid waste management; 2012. URL
〈http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTURBANDEVELOPMENT/Resources/
336387-1334852610766/Chap3.pdf〉 [Accessed 20 November 2012].
[68] Yolin C. Waste management and recycling in Japan. EU Jpn Cent Ind Coop 2015.
[69] Yufei, Q. et al. Design of combustion control systems for municipal solid waste
incineration plant. (Hunan, China, 2008), 6; 2008.
[70] Zhan M, et al. Suppression of dioxins after the post-combustion zone of MSWIs.
Waste Manag 2016;54(Suppl. C):S153–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.
2016.04.031.
[71] Zhang DL, et al. Waste-to-energy in China: key challenges and opportunities.
Energies MDPI 2015;2015:15.
[72] Zhou H, et al. Classification of municipal solid waste components for thermal
conversion in waste-to-energy research. Fuel 2015;145:151–7. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.fuel.2014.12.015.