2. WASTE TO WEALTH SIVAPALAN KATHIRAVALE sivapalan@nuclearmalaysia.gov.my

3. Introduction The need to understand waste Waste generation rates Waste management trends Effect on the Environment Waste to Wealth Conclusion

4. Global Perspective of Municipal Solid Waste Generation Rates and The Respective Management Costs UnitsLow IncomeMiddle IncomeHigh Income Mixed Urban Waste – Large Citykg/cap/day0.50 to 0.750.55 to 1.100.75 to 2.20 Mixed Urban Waste – Medium Citykg/cap/day0.35 to 0.650.45 to 0.750.65 to 1.50 Residential Waste Onlykg/cap/day0.25 to 0.450.35 to 0.650.55 to 1.00 Average Income from GNPUSD/cap/yr3702,40022,000 Collection CostUSD/ton10 to 3030 to 7070 to 120 Transfer CostUSD/ton3 to 85 to 1515 to 20 Open Dumping CostUSD/ton0.5 to 21 to 35 to 10 Sanitary Landfill CostUSD/ton3 to 108 to 1520 to 50 Tidal Land Reclamation CostUSD/ton3 to 1510 to 4030 to 100 Composting CostUSD/ton5 to 2010 to 4020 to 60 Incineration CostUSD/ton40 to 6030 to 8070 to 100 Total cost without TransferUSD/ton13 to 4038 to 8590 to 170 Total cost with TransferUSD/ton17 to 4843 to 100105 to 190 Cost as % of Income%0.7 to 2.60.5 to 1.30.2 to 0.5

5. Socio-economic data, generation rates and major waste components in some countries CityCountrySocio-economic factors W T PD P/DW GNP POP Municipal Waste MW Major waste components (% by weight) Paper Plastic Food Metal Glass High Income New York Sydney Tokyo Paris Rome USA Australia Japan France Italy 1000 15 450 4.2 12 800 9.12 620 25 30 4.2 4 100 3.23 700 15 40 694 7.0 4 910 11.60 1250 10 4 000 2.5 18 400 2.18 580 14 700 4.9 7 000 2.88 720 690 400 590 460 35 10 22 13 9 38 0.1 13 11 18 38 11 23 4 7 30 1 30 4 4 18 4 50 3 4 Medium Income Madrid Singapore Manila Taipei Kano Spain Singapore Philipines Taiwan Nigeria 410 14 290 4.2 5 000 3.19 440 29 26 472 3.9 4 000 2.44 64 27 983 5.0 807 1.63 220 22 1 250 4.2 - 2.50 70 30 200 4.5 2 000 1.00 390 - 21 - 45 3 4 43 6 5 3 1 17 4 43 2 5 8 2 25 1 3 17 4 43 5 2 Low Income Banglore Dacca Karachi Jakarta Rangoon India Bangldeh Pakistan Indonesia Burma 50 24 1 300 7.0 320 2.91 25 26 3 750 6.0 200 1.31 340 29 1 300 5.5 1 890 5.10 45 24 700 8.0 474 6.50 32 26 200 6.0 120 2.60 ---------- 3 0.5 65 0.4 0.2 2 1 40 1 9 0.5 0.5 56 0.5 0.5 2 3 82 4 0.5 1 4 80 3 6

6. Composition of MSW generated in Kuala Lumpur

7. Solid Waste Management Problem in Malaysia MSW Generation 17,000 t/day (2003), 30,000 t/day (2020) Kuala Lumpur Generates 2,500 t/day 95 – 97% of MSW is Land filled Currently 112 Disposal Sites (2002) 43% Open Dump, only 6.3% Sanitary Landfill (SLF) 50% Remaining Lifespan < 5 yrs

9. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Environmentally Sustainable Reduce the Environmental Impact Reduce Energy Consumption Reduce Pollution of Land, Air & Water Reduce Loss of Amenity Economically Sustainable Balance between Cost versus Env. Impact BATNEEC, BPEO LEADING TO IWMS

10. ROLE of INTERGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM(IWMS) I.W.M Energy Recovery Material Recovery Landfill Energy Raw Material

11. Amount of waste collected and the management methods CountryData latest year available Municipal waste collected (1000 tonnes) Population served by municipal waste collection (%) Municipal waste collected per capita served (kg) Municipal waste landfilled (%) Municipal waste incinerated (%) Municipal waste recycled/ composted (kg) Europe Sweden2001 3 930... 22.438.238.7 United Kingdom2001 34 851... 79.97.312.3 Bulgaria2002 3 19981.149599.7... Czech Republic2002 2 845100.027870.314.0... Denmark2002 3 587100.06708.358.334.6 North & Central America Belize2000 6248.6532100.0... Canada2000 10 870... 32.2 Costa Rica2000 71... Mexico2002 32 17486.036797.60.02.4 United States2001 207 957100.072255.714.729.7

12. South America Bolivia2002 662... Chile2002 5 558... 41.0... Colombia1998 7 430... Peru2001 1 444100.0…64.6... Uruguay2000 910…………… Africa Algeria2003 8 500... 99.9...0.1 Benin2002 98623.06540.0... Egypt2000 15 000... Madagascar2002 151100.0… 0.0 Mauritius2003 35195.0303100.0... Asia China, Hong Kong SAR 2002 5 399100.077363.7...36.3 Japan2000 52 362100.04125.977.015.0 Cyprus2002 500...70990.00.0 Singapore2002 4 402... 3.755.041.3 Thailand2000 13 972... 0.814.3 Oceania Australia1999 13 200... 95.00.07.3 New Zealand1999 1 541... 84.7...15.3 Cont’

13. Waste Management/Thermal Treatment Trends Dumping Sanitary Landfill Mass Burn Gasification Pyrolysis Hydrogen Economically the bestEnvironmentally the best

14. Global New Approach MRF/ RDF Plant Organics MSW 2. Recycle Materials 3.A.D/ Composting 4.RDF Burn /GAM Electricity ? MW Export Compost Electricity ? MW Export 1.Reduction SLF Ash Digestate

15. Selection is not simple, depends on: Waste Size, Composition and Need for Re- Processing Choice of Recycling Options-Energy, Chemicals, Slag Regulation Local Conditions Flexibility with Regards to Waste Stream Technology Maturity and Track Record Economics Issues Public Acceptance

16. Greenhouse gas emissions of different waste management systems LandfillEnergyRecyclingTotal + - CO2 equivalents per annum Landfill + Gas recovery + Power Production Mix waste combustion plant + power production SRF production co- gasification in coal boiler SRF and paper fibre recovery + co- gasification in coal boiler

17. GHG emissions from the MSW incineration and landfill (Germany) Emission in 2002 [million t CO 2 eq] Total EmissionsLandfillMSW Incineration Carbon dioxide CO2863.5-6.45 Methane CH474.513.7- Nitrous oxide N2O49.5-0.03 HFCS8.2-- PFCS0.7-- SF64.1-- Total1000.513.76.49

18. Greenhouse gas emissions from electricity production 1 tonne MSW 1 tonne MSW Coal592 kg CO 2 1100 kg CO 2 (220 kg fossil and 880 kg biogenic) 1610 kg CO 2 MSW Incineration 600 kWhe Coal Combustion 600 kWhe equivalent Landfill With out gas utilization Net reduction in CO2 = 220-592-1610 = -1982 kg

19. What is Dioxin A Common Name for a Group of Chemicals called Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDD), furans(PCDF) and certain PCBs As its name suggests, it forms from a chemical combination of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and Chlorine Pure dioxins are colorless solids or crystals

20. Source of Dioxin In Japan, more than 80% dioxin comes from incineration In the USA, about 38% comes from incineration In the Ireland, only 0.32% comes from incinerators whereas the biggest sources are from accidental fires and illegal domestic waste combustion (58%). Note: Ireland produces about 38 g TEQ/yr compared to other European countries ranging from 50 – 1123 g-TEQ/yr. I.e depends on the industrialization and the use of many old incinerators

21. Dioxin Level in Environment MalaysiaGermanyJapan Std Air (pg/Nm3)0.1- 0.17 (MINT,2003) 0.1 (Vehlow,2000) 0.6 (Sakai, 2000) Soil (pg/g)2-5 (MINT, 2003) 1-10 (Vehlow, 2000) 1000 (Sakai, 2000) MSW (pg/g)11-25 (MINT, 2003) 20-100 (Vehlow, 2000) NA

22. Pathways for processing of municipal solid waste

23. Cost comparison between land filling and incineration

24. Amount of Energy Recoverable from MSW by Various Treatment Technologies [15] MaterialTreatment Technology Conversion EfficiencyCalorific Value of Fuel Energy Recoverable / ton of Fuel Total Energy Recovered (based on 1500 tons/day Energy Recoverable (Normalized to per ton of MSW Input) MSWIncinerationWTE - 25 %2200 kcal/kg639 kW.hr960 MW.hr639 kW.hr MSWIncinerationWTE - 25 %1500 kcal/kg436 kW.hr655 MW.hr436 kW.hr MSWIncinerationWTE - 25 %800 kcal/kg233 kW.hr350 MW.hr233 kWhr RDFIncinerationMSW to RDF - 30%, WTE - 25% 3500 kcal/kg1017 kW.hr458 MW.hr305 kW.hr MSWAnaerobic Digestion, MSW to Digester – 60%, Biogas to energy – 25% 5000 kcal/m 3 218 kW.hr196 MW.hr131 kW.hr MSWAnaerobic Digestion, MSW to Digester – 60%, Biogas to energy with steam recovery 80% 5000 kcal/m 3 697 kW.hr627 MW.hr418 kW.hr MSWAnaerobic Digestion and Fuel Cell MSW to Digester – 60%, Biogas to energy by Fuel Cell – 50% 241.83 kJ /mol H585 kW.hr526 MW.hr351 kW.hr

25. Conclusion Waste generated and managed in a proper manner – could be advantageous to the environment The environment has already suffered enough from the actins of it’s inhabitants Education and realization is necessary to ensure sustainability The Challenges is how and what action should be taken?

26. Matters to ponder! Most of current technology is focused on treating waste that has already been generated What about reducing the need to manufacture less for less consumption? Ensuring manufacturing processes are 110% efficient and do not produce waste at all. How to contain the huge appetite for modern lifestyle? Ensuring zero waste production by the general population?

27. Thank You THANK YOU AND HELP PRESERVE THIS