FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY
Bachelor of Science in Biology
A Systematic Review on the Evaluation of the Existing
Waste-to-Energy Conversion Technologies in Southeast Asia
Proponents
Abulencia, Crizthal Mae U.
Miranda, Vinz Arnel Jr. R.
Sarmiento, Danielle Victoria Anne B.
Tag-ulo, Meredith Ysabel M.
Yulo, Dylan Francesca G.
Thesis Adviser:
Dr. Maria Lourdes Cachuela Aguirre
Department of Biological Science, Institute of Arts and Sciences
Far Eastern University
Institute of Arts and Sciences
Department of Biological Sciences
May 2023
1
This is to certify that the thesis manuscript prepared by:
Proponents
Abulencia, Crizthal Mae U.
Miranda, Vinz Arnel Jr. R.
Sarmiento, Danielle Victoria Anne B.
Tag-ulo, Meredith Ysabel M.
Yulo, Dylan Francesca G.
Entitled:
A Systematic Review on the Evaluation of the Existing
Waste-to-Energy Conversion Technologies in Southeast Asia
And submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Bachelor of Science in
Biology complies with the regulation of Far Eastern University and meets the accepted
standards with respect to originality and quality.
Signed by the following panelists:
Approved by:
Caesar Franz C. Ruiz, LPT, MSc.
Panelist 1
Cynthia B. Mintu, MSc.
Panelist 2
Jacqueline Marjorie R. Pereda, MSc.
Panelist 3
_________________________
Dr. Dulce Marie P. Nisperos
Program Head, Department of Biological Science
________________________
Rowena C. Reyes, PhD
Dean, Institute of Arts and Sciences
Institute of Arts and Sciences
Department of Biological Sciences
2
DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY
We hereby declare that this thesis is a product of our own work to the best of our
knowledge and belief. It contains no material previously published or written by another
person nor material which to a substantial extent has been accepted for an award or any
other degree or diploma from a university or other institute of higher learning, except
where due acknowledgment is made in the text.
We also declare that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of our
work, even though we may have received assistance from others on style, presentation,
and language expression.
Proponents
Abulencia, Crizthal Mae U.
Miranda, Vinz Arnel Jr. R.
Sarmiento, Danielle Victoria Anne B.
Tag-ulo, Meredith Ysabel M.
Yulo, Dylan Francesca G.
Dr. Maria Lourdes Cachuela Aguirre
Adviser
3
( TURNITIN similarity index 15%: print and attached it here )
4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First, we would like to thank the faculty and staff of the Far Eastern
University’s Biological Sciences Department who nurtured our curious minds and
molded us into the learners that we are now. The formulation of this study paved a way
for us to discover newfound knowledge which will allow us to become better researchers
in the field of Biology.
We would also like to express our special thanks to our thesis adviser Dr. Maria
Lourdes C. Aguirre for her incomparable brilliance and unyielding support. To Caesar
Franz Ruiz LPT, MSc. and Minerva C. Arenas, LPT, MSc. who patiently guided us
through the duration of our thesis writing journey.
Our gratitude is also extended to our friends and family who have served as our
support system in this tedious yet fruitful journey. In addition, we are grateful for the
Department of Science and Technology - Science Education Institute (DOST-SEI)
for providing necessary financial assistance.
Lastly, our eternal thanks to God Almighty for without His constant guidance,
completing this study would not have been possible.
5
ABSTRACT
The rapid increase in municipal waste has been a worldwide observable
phenomenon directly related to economic progress. Majority of Southeast Asian countries
are categorized as “developing” countries, indicating ongoing economic advancement.
However, despite the evident increase in waste generation, waste management in
Southeast Asia is among the least prioritized public service due to poor policy making
resulting in substandard waste management and waste collection framework. One of the
ways to remedy this is through Waste-to-Energy technologies which reduces the amount
of solid waste sent to landfills. In the context of Southeast Asia, Waste-to-Energy
conversion technology options are limited because of high cost, political conflict, and
land scarcity. Despite these adversities, a select few are already functional although
operating on a small scale. Thus, this study aimed to assess the existing Waste-to-Energy
conversion technologies in Southeast Asia through a systematic analysis of data present
in prevailing studies. Results were categorized into Current and Projected electrical
power generation using units of MW and MWh. The thermal conversion process of
incineration in Singapore proved to be the most efficient Waste-to-Energy technology
under the categories of Current MW and Current MWh with 7,704 MW/month and
104,040 MWh/month, respectively. The Philippines, on the other hand, led the Projected
category with biomass in Projected MW and incineration in Projected MWh.
6
Keywords: Southeast Asia, ASEAN, Waste-to-Energy, Renewable Energy,
Waste-to-Energy technologies
7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page …………………………………………………………………….……………i
Approval Sheet…………………………………………………………………...……….ii
Certificate of Originality…………………………………………………...…………….iii
Acknowledgments…………………………………………………………...…..….….….v
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………….….….vi
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………...…..viii
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION …………………………………………..……. 1
1.1 Background of the Study………………………………...……………………...…… 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem ………………………………………………………...….. 2
1.3 General Objective ………………………………………………………………...….. 3
1.3.1 Specific Objectives………………………………………………………… 3
1.4 Significance of the Study …………...………………..……………………………… 4
1.5 Scope and Limitations ……………………………….……………………………… 5
CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE…………..……………...6
INTRODUCTION……………………..………………………………………………….6
2.1 Waste-to-Energy Technologies…………………..……………………………………7
2.1.1 Chemical Conversion Process……………………………………………...7
2.1.1.1 Esterification……………………………………………………... 7
2.1.2 Biochemical Conversion Process………………………………………….. 8
8
2.1.2.1 Fermentation………………………………………………..……..8
2.1.2.2 Anaerobic Digestion…………………………………...………….8
2.1.2.3 Landfill with Gas Capture……………………………………..…..9
2.1.2.4 Microbial Fuel Cell…………………………….………………….9
21.2.5 Biomass……………………………………...….………………….9
2.1.3 Thermal (Thermo-chemical) Conversion Process…………………....……10
2.1.3.1 Incineration………………………………………………………10
2.1.3.2
Gasification (Conventional
Air Gasification and
Plasma
Gasification)................................................................................10
2.1.3.3 Pyrolysis………………………………………………………….11
2.2 Sustainability and Efficiency of Waste-to-Energy Conversion Technologies……….11
2.3 Analysis of Waste-to-Energy in Southeast Asia……………………………………..12
2.3.1 Status of Waste-to-Energy in Southeast Asia…………………………...…12
2.3.2 Challenges of Waste-to-Energy in Southeast Asia……...…………………13
2.3.3 Opportunities of Waste-to-Energy in Southeast Asia………………...……15
2.3.4 Existing Policies of Waste-to-Energy in Southeast Asia……………..……15
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY………..……………………………………...18
3.1 Literature Search…………………………………………………………………......18
3.2 Inclusion and Exclusion …………………………………………………………..…19
3.2.1 Date……………………………………………………….……………..…19
3.2.2 Geographic Setting ………………………………………………….…..…19
3.2.3 Language………………………………………………………………...…20
3.2.4 Study Design………………………………………...…………………..…20
3.2.5 Type of Publication……………………………………………………...…20
3.2.6 Type of Comparison……………………………………...……………...…20
3.3 Assessment of Risk of Bias in Chosen Studies ………………………………......…22
9
CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION………..……………….……….23
4.1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Biochemical Conversion Process in Accordance
with the Selected Journals………………………………………………………………..36
4.1.1 Technological………………………………………………………………36
4.1.2 Financial……………………………………………………………………37
4.1.3 Environmental……………………………………………………………...38
4.1.4 Economical………………………………………………………………...39
4.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Thermal Conversion Process in Accordance with
the Selected Journals…………………………………………………………………….40
4.2.1 Technological………………………………………………………………40
4.2.2 Financial……………………………………………………………………42
4.2.3 Environmental……………………………………………………………...42
4.2.4 Economical………………………………………………………………...44
4.3 Status of Waste-to-Energy Technologies in Accordance with the Selected Journals..45
4.3.1 Brunei Darussalam…………………………………………………………45
4.3.2 Cambodia…………………………………………………………………..46
4.3.3 Indonesia…………………………………………………………………...47
4.3.4 Lao PDR…………………………………………………………..………..48
4.3.5 Malaysia………………………………..…………………………………..49
4.3.6 Myanmar……………………………………………………………..…….51
4.3.7 Philippines………………………………………………………….……...52
4.3.8 Singapore………………………………………………………….……….55
4.3.9 Thailand…………………………………………………………….……...56
4.4 Ranking of Waste-to-Energy Solid Waste Conversion Technologies in Accordance
with the Selected Journals………………………………………………………………..61
4.4.1 Current MW………………………………………………………………..62
4.4.2 Projected MW……………………………………………………………...63
4.4.3 Current MWh……………………………………………………………....65
10
4.4.4 Projected MWh…………………………………………………………….66
4.5 Proposed Improvements for the Refinement of Existing Waste-to-Energy
Technologies in Southeast Asia…………………………………………….……………68
CHAPTER V: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS…..70
5.1 Summary……………………………………………………………………………..70
5.2 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………...70
5.2.1 Methods and Findings……………………………………………….……..70
5.2.2 Assessment of the Advantages and Disadvantages of Waste-to-Energy
Technologies…………………………………………………………………..…71
5.2.3
Assessment
of
the
Ranking
of
Waste-to-Energy
Technologies…………………………………………………………………..…73
5.3 Recommendations…………………………………………………………....74
REFERENCES ………………………………………………………………...………..76
APPENDICES………………………………………………………………………...…86
A. Researcher(s)’Profile…………………………………………………….86
11
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
The World Bank (n.d.) stated that, worldwide, waste generation averages a range
of 0.11 to 4.54 kg/person, thus, global waste generation is projected to amount to 3.40
billion tons by 2050. Two of the most significant contributing factors behind waste
generation are population growth and urbanization (Khan et al., 2022). Southeast Asian
countries are among the fastest-growing countries in terms of both population growth and
urbanization. However, the majority of countries in Southeast Asia are categorized under
‘developing countries’ where economic output does not have a direct relationship with
urbanization (Florida, 2017).
One of the latest methods to manage solid waste is through Waste-to-Energy (WtE)
waste conversion technologies. While it is possible to treat a wide array of waste types
using this technology, the Energy Information Association (2021) emphasized that the
current and most commonly treated type of waste by existing WtE plants are Municipal
Solid Wastes or MSWs which are considered to be the generated waste caused by rapid
urbanization (Jain, 2017). WtE technologies and methods are one of the most relevant,
effective, and beneficial alternative waste management approaches. Fetanat et al. (2019)
stated that this type of waste treatment generates electricity, reduces the rate of waste that
1
enters landfills thus lessening greenhouse gas emissions, and, more importantly, is
sustainable. However, despite WtE benefits, sanitary landfill site disposals and open
dumps (both of which have adverse environmental and health effects) remain as the
primary practice for discarding MSWs in Southeast Asia. The implementation of WtE
methods remains limited because WtE projects in Southeast Asian countries face
technical, financial, environmental, social, and political difficulties (Tun et al., 2020).
This, in turn, severely limits further implementation of WtE generation technologies.
Assessing the advantages and disadvantages of Chemical, Biochemical, and
Thermal (Thermo-chemical) WtE solid waste conversion methods is among the objectives
of this study. The gathered related literature included in this systematic review would
pave the way in assessing the most suitable WtE MSW treatment approach in specific
Southeast Asian countries.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Some of the world's greatest municipal waste-producing countries are a part of
Southeast Asia including the Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Thailand wherein a
significant increase in urbanization and purchasing power have been observed in the last
three decades (Pei Ying Loh, 2020).
With the rapid accumulation of municipal waste in Southeast Asian countries,
consequences such as health issues and environmental pollution are inevitable. Proper
2
waste management through the utilization of WtE technologies is an efficient method of
reducing waste to avoid such negative outcomes. Despite the challenges behind WtE
technology implementations, Southeast Asian countries have started taking significant
steps to progress towards the aforementioned waste treatment option.
1.3 General Objective:
The general objective of this study was to evaluate the existing Waste-to-Energy
conversion technologies in Southeast Asian countries.
1.3.1 Specific Objectives:
The study specifically aimed to:
1. assess the advantages and disadvantages of Waste-to-Energy solid waste
conversion methods in the context of Southeast Asian countries.
2. rank and categorize Waste-to-Energy solid waste conversion technologies based on
predetermined feasibility criteria.
3. propose appropriate improvements for the refinement of existing Waste-to-Energy
technologies.
3
1.4 Significance of the Study
The evaluation of existing literature regarding Waste-to-Energy conversion of solid
waste will benefit the following:
Energy consumers. The evaluation of existing literature allows energy consumers
to obtain knowledge on the process and different technologies involved in WtE conversion
as well as understand that WtE conversion is an economic investment of public funds that
positively contributes to the improvement of air quality, sustainability, and energy security.
Waste-to-Energy facilities. The evaluation of existing literature enables WtE
facilities to efficiently operate their facility; tools and equipment, further saving them
financial and energy expenses.
Department of Energy & Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
The evaluation of existing literature will provide more reliable analysis and overview of
existing data which aids in DOE and DENR's future project planning, implementation, and
regulation.
Future researchers. The evaluation of existing literature allows future researchers
to have reliable research to use as literature or reference, and allow the development of
new processes that will further advance the field.
4
1.5 Scope and Limitations
This study focused on finding the most suitable technology for Waste-to-Energy
conversion in Southeast Asia. The study ranked the chemical, biochemical, and
thermo-chemical conversion technologies, which determined the most to least fitting in
the context of Southeast Asia.
This study encountered limitations due to publication bias, circumstances of the
studies collected, and lack of available data. Hence, not all Southeast Asian countries and
methods of WtE conversion were covered. Another factor was the availability of articles
and the researchers’ lack of immediate access.
5
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Introduction
The World Energy Council (2013) defined Waste-to-Energy (WtE) Technologies as
the process of treating waste to produce an energy yield. This energy yield can manifest as
heat, electricity, or fuels. The rapid increase in Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) rates along
with the search for sustainable waste management options are some of the contributing
factors to the emergence of a variety of WtE technologies. Developed countries are
already implementing the practice of a WtE thermochemical conversion process called
incineration (Kumar & Samadder, 2017).
Although there are a multitude of factors affecting the surge of MSWs, the most
apparent of all is its direct relation to socio-economic factors (e.g. economic growth,
urbanization, and population). A study conducted by Adeleke et al. (2021) resulted in
findings that implied that developing areas are more than capable of producing a
threateningly high proportion of waste. The same principle can be applied in the context of
the developing Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) as economic growth
greatly influences the rate of MSW generation (Liu & Wu, 2010). Furthermore, economic
growth is directly linked with urbanization and Southeast Asia has been reported to have
an approximate 6-8% rate of urban growth per year (Ngoc & Schnitzer, 2009). Jain (2017)
6
reported a 1.14 kg/capita/day waste generation in the entire ASEAN with Indonesia being
the largest contributor (64 million tons/year) and Lao PDR being the lowest (0.07 million
tons/year).
Thus, the researchers aim to evaluate the current WtE treatment processes as a
possible energy source as well as an alternative to the traditional landfill waste treatment
method practiced in developing nations in Southeast Asia. Countries involved are Brunei,
Indonesia, Myanmar, Singapore, Philippines, Lao People's Democratic Republic,
Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, Timor Leste, and Vietnam. In the selected ASEAN
nations, common Wte methods applied by plants are dominated by thermal
(thermo-chemical) processes, specifically, incineration, pyrolysis, and gasification. These
methods are under implementation and development to mitigate greenhouse gas
emissions, eventually, replace landfills, and drive economic growth.
2.1 Waste-to-Energy Technologies
Waste-to-Energy generation technologies are divided into three main conversion
processes: chemical, biochemical, and thermal (thermo-chemical).
7
2.1.1 Chemical Conversion Process
2.1.1.1 Esterification
The chemical WtE conversion process is conducted primarily
through esterification. According to “Esters” (2014), this occurs when a
reaction between an alcohol and an acid occurs, forming an ester. This
process yields a biofuel (ethanol biodiesel), a renewable fuel source.
2.1.2 Biochemical Conversion Process
Biochemical WtE conversion process can be done through fermentation,
anaerobic digestion, landfill with gas capture, and microbial fuel cell. According to
The State of Victoria Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning
(2017), the four technologies under biological, chemical, or biochemical
conversion processes are differentiated as follows:
2.1.2.1 Fermentation
In the absence of oxygen, the process of fermentation breaks down
organic matter with alcohol-yielding microbial activity. Fermentation
process could be light or dark (presence and absence of light, respectively).
These produce ethanol, hydrogen, and biodiesel (The State of Victoria
Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, 2017).
8
2.1.2.2 Anaerobic Digestion
This method is more on the biological side where waste is treated
with microorganisms that break down organic material for biogas
production in an oxygen-free environment.
2.1.2.3 Landfill with Gas Capture
Decomposing waste generates methane, carbon dioxide, and other
trace elements. This gas yield from naturally decomposing waste materials
is called landfill gas and these emissions can be captured by using gas
extraction systems. The gas yield will then be converted to electricity. In
this method, landfills are still utilized, but have to be properly managed.
2.1.2.4 Microbial Fuel Cell
Utilizing microorganisms to convert the chemical energy of organic
substances into electricity is the concept behind this technology. Similar
with anaerobic digestion, this is more on the biological aspect of waste
treatment.
2.1.2.5 Biomass
Generally, biomass or bioenergy is not included under the WtE
technology scheme because the energy yield comes from crops that were
9
grown for the purpose of generating fuel, heat, or electricity as opposed to
WtE utilizing organic waste exclusively. However, some studies use the
term ‘biomass’ for the usage of organic waste and will, thus, be included in
the literature search.
2.1.3 Thermal (thermo-chemical) Conversion Process
Thermal conversion processes involve heating waste materials in high
temperatures to produce biofuel or energy, it usually involves minimal to no
oxygen.
2.1.3.1 Incineration
Incineration is a thermal conversion process wherein waste is
subjected to mass burning at temperatures greater than 1000°C to combust
solid waste, thus producing flue gas, ash, and heat, drastically reducing the
quantity of waste during each process. Can either be classified as mass
burning or refuse-derived fuel (RDF).
2.1.3.2 Gasification (Conventional Air Gasification and Plasma
Gasification)
Conventional air gasification produces synthetic gas or ‘syngas’,
composed of carbon monoxide, methane, and hydrogen, by heating waste
10
in a low-oxygen environment. Plasma gasification, on the other hand, is
basically the same process but utilizes a plasma arc as the main heat source
(Sesotyo et al., 2019).
2.1.3.3 Pyrolysis
Pyrolysis produces biomass energy through heating (rather than
burning)
under carefully regulated
conditions, including
a high
temperature, minimal or no oxygen, and specific pressure. Such a process
results in charcoal, bio-crude, and other gaseous products (carbon
monoxide, hydrogen, and methane).
2.2 Sustainability and Efficiency of Waste-to-Energy Technologies
The most common waste management disposal practice in Southeast Asian
countries is the utilization of open landfill sites or dump sites which is a problematic
practice due to detrimental effects to the environment and health (Curea, 2017). Albores et
al. (2016) stated that WtE is recognized as a high ideal solid waste management solution,
and incineration is one of the most prevalent WtE methods that have been effectively
deployed across the world. In fact, two of the most popular WtE technologies that have
been successfully applied globally are incineration and gasification (Liu & Liu, 2005).
According to Cheng and Hu (2010), an annual estimate of 181 million tons of MSW are
combusted in 600 WtE facilities worldwide. Despite the challenges (which will be
11
discussed further in the paper), Agaton et. al, (2020) firmly stated that investing in WtE
technology, rather than remaining with the landfill-based method, remains the preferable
alternative, as it will considerably bring about improvements in the long run.
2.3 Analysis of Waste-to-Energy in Southeast Asia
Southeast Asian countries are mostly composed of developing countries; thus, an
acceptable solid waste management framework has yet to be fully implemented and WtE
technologies are still alternatives waiting to be further explored. Analyzing WtE in
Southeast Asia involves assessing the current status of the technology, the challenges that
its implementation faces, as well as the opportunities it presents, and the existing policies
brought forth by individual Southeast Asian governments concerning WtE technologies.
2.3.1 Status of Waste-to-Energy in Southeast Asia
The status of WtE technologies as described by Tun et al. (2020) is either:
emerging, developing, or mature. Four countries are at an emerging stage (Brunei
Darussalam, Cambodia, Lao PDR, and Myanmar), five countries at the developing
stage (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam), and one country
in the mature stage (Singapore). Currently, the energy capacity of functional
technologies from developing and mature countries is 43.324 MW and is projected
to rise to 160 MW by 2021. Moreover, according to Tun et al. (2020), countries
12
under the developing stage are expected to achieve significant generational
potential from WtE technologies by 2030 (17.26 TWh).
2.3.2 Challenges of Waste-to-Energy in Southeast Asia
One of the main challenges faced by WtE implementation in Southeast
Asian nations is the quality of waste originating from the involved countries.
Findings from Tun et al. (2020) stated that Southeast Asian countries have
low-quality waste because of low calorific values and high moisture content, these
factors make it difficult for thermal-based technologies to take place. Weatherby
(2020) claimed that the main culprit for the high moisture content of waste are
poorly implemented segregation techniques. Thus, a country must first have
pre-treatment processes that will heighten the quality of waste in positive
proportion with the energy yield.
The financial aspect is also one of the challenges faced by the
implementation of WtE in Southeast Asia. While
WtE investment is an
economically-sound option, it has high investment costs and public funds can only
do so much to meet the costly demands of this sustainable technology. Thus,
informal private investors play an important role not just in the funding for WtE
technologies, but also in the collection, transportation, and disposal of waste in
various areas aside from urban regions (Agaton et al., 2020). This implies that the
13
financial aspect is entangled with the social and political aspect in terms of WtE
implementation challenges.
One of the most glaring political challenges in Southeast Asia are laws that
ban thermal WtE technologies such as incineration (mass burning). In the
Philippines, Section 30 of RA 8749 or the Clean Air Act of 1999 mandates a ban
on mass incineration, making the Philippines the only country, not just in
Southeast Asia but in the world, to have enacted this law. According to Zhao
(2017), this warps the general perception and attitude of the public towards WtE
options because it is mistakenly equated with mass burning incineration thus
disregarding other types of WtE technologies.
Health and environmental impacts are also among the concerns with
regards to the current largely-employed WtE technology: incineration. Dioxins and
furans are considered harmful gaseous emissions by incinerators (Mukherjee et al.,
2016). Incineration plants have to be well-maintained to ensure that the
particulates remain to an acceptable standard. However, Ni et al. (2009) conducted
a study in China using 19 fully-functional incineration plants which showed that
16% of incineration plants did not meet national standards for dioxin emissions
and 78% did not meet European standards. Thus, this is considered a WtE
challenge because there is a need to consistently monitor WtE plants to avoid
health and environmental issues.
14
2.3.3 Opportunities of Waste-to-Energy in Southeast Asia
Establishing
alternative renewable
energy sources
such as WtE
technologies in developing countries has the potential to provide more economic
opportunities. A study conducted by Gabriel and Kirkwood (2016) stated that
businesses of consulting, distributing, and integrating nature are the type to
flourish under proper implementation of renewable energy. Furthermore, Sen and
Ganguly (2017) discussed that WtE opportunities goes beyond the economic
aspect because renewable energy may support and provide various opportunities
for improvement in sectors such as socioeconomic development, energy access,
and energy security.
2.3.4 Existing Policies of Waste-to-Energy in Southeast Asia
Southeast Asian countries or, at least, those that are members of the
ASEAN, have implemented several policies with regards to utilization of
renewable energy or WtE technologies as opposed to the traditional
non-renewables.
In Indonesia, the government has established a 2006 National Energy Policy
which aims to increase the country’s dependency on renewable energy sources
(such as biofuel, biomass, geothermal, wind, solar and hydropower) from the
initial 4% to 17% (Mujiyanto & Tess, 2013).
15
At present, Myanmar is working towards renewable energy development
technologies. According to Kyaw et al. (2011), renewable energy sources would be
largely based on the natural resources found in the country such as rivers and
coastlines which power hydro- and tidal energy, respectively.
In the Philippines, the recent policy implementation that involves WtE
technologies is the Renewable Energy Act of 2008 or Republic Act No. 9513
which affirms the government’s commitment to exploring and promoting
renewable energy sources for the reduction of MSWs, economic acceleration, and
protection of health as well as the environment (Aquino & Abeleda, 2014).
Thailand, on the other hand, has an existing policy termed as the Energy
Conservation Promotion Act (ENCON) which aims to promote more renewable
energy sources (Department of Alternative Energy Development and Efficiency,
2009).
Singapore was the only country described by Tun et al. (2020) under the
mature stage in terms of WtE and the existing policy this ASEAN country
practices is BAU or ‘business-as-usual’ where emission via conventional waste
disposal methods is projected to be reduced by 7-11% (Erdiwansyah, 2019).
Countries such as Brunei Darussalam (Ahmed et al., 2018), Lao PDR,
Cambodia, and Vietnam (Quirapas et al., 2015) are currently undergoing further
16
research or are non-pursuant, in terms of comprehensive plans or specific policy
implementations regarding renewable energy or WtE technologies.
17
CHAPTER III
MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 Literature Search
The researchers individually performed a literature search with publication years
within 2012-2022 to ascertain that the materials to be assessed in the systematic review
coincided with the current state of ASEAN countries’ Waste-to-Energy technologies.
Current editions of relevant journal articles, research reports, and scholarly journals were
retrieved from web and electronic database searches such as EBSCOhost, Google Scholar,
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI), PubMed, and ResearchGate. In
addition to the aforementioned web and electronic databases, reference list reviews were
also assessed. The following search strategies were used:
a. Articles were gathered and considered for review regardless of study
design.
b. Web and electronic databases were searched using the following general
keywords:
Waste-to-Energy,
Waste-to-Energy
Technologies,
Waste-to-Energy Conversion, Solid Waste Management, Southeast Asia,
Association of Southeast Asian Nations, ASEAN, and Developing
Countries.
18
c. For more specific results, countries from Southeast Asia were also used as
search terms merged with the general keyword Waste-to-Energy.
Furthermore, the following keywords were used: Waste-to-Energy Brunei
Darussalam, Waste-to-Energy Cambodia, Waste-to-Energy Indonesia,
Waste-to-Energy Laos, Waste-to-Energy Lao PDR, Waste-to-Energy
Malaysia,
Waste-to-Energy
Waste-to-Energy
Myanmar,
Singapore,
Waste-to-Energy
Waste-to-Energy
Philippines,
Thailand,
and
Waste-to-Energy Vietnam.
3.2 Inclusion and Exclusion
3.2.1 Date
Chosen studies qualified for inclusion in this systematic review were dated
from 2002-2022. Any dates that do not fit in the mentioned criteria were removed
and excluded.
3.2.2 Geographic Setting
Studies from selected ASEAN countries located in Southeast Asia were
eligible for inclusion in this systematic review. Studies that were conducted outside
ASEAN and Southeast Asia were excluded/eliminated.
19
3.2.3 Language
Studies, journals, and articles that fit the criteria for inclusion must be
published in English. Any language aside from English was excluded from this
systematic review.
3.2.4 Study Design
Studies that were formulated in a qualitative, quantitative, etc. type of
research design were included in the systematic review. Moreover, peer-reviewed
articles were excluded.
3.2.5 Type of Publication
The types of publications that were included in this criteria were Journal
Articles, Research Reports, and Scholarly Journals. In contrast, studies extracted
from social media platforms such as YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook, as well as
online blog articles were excluded from this systematic review.
3.2.6 Type of Comparison
A total of 26 articles were analyzed in this systematic review. Out of the 26
articles, 16 were chosen as the supporting journal articles for the formulation of the
research. Ten (10) articles were excluded due to the fact that those published
articles have no correlation with the objectives of the research.
20
Figure 3.1. PRISMA flow diagram of selection of literature in the systematic review
21
3.3 Assessment of Risk of Bias in Chosen Studies
Assessment. The researchers assessed the chosen studies for evidence
synthesis following the protocol of Environmental Science Organization (2021)
which is based on Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) Evidence
Synthesis
Each study was based on the proposed scheme for interpreting the
precision of estimates of the result.
Table 3.1 The basis for rating overall confidence in the results of the studies.
Low Risk
Precise estimate of correct answer: the individual study provided a precise
estimate of the correct answer and presented with little to no risk.
High Risk
Imprecise estimate of the incorrect answer: the individual study provided an
imprecise estimate of the incorrect answer and presented with little to no risk.
Unclear
Risk
Imprecise estimate of the correct answer or precise estimate of the incorrect
answer: the individual study provided an imprecise estimate of the correct
answer or precise estimate of an incorrect answer, therefore presented with
unclear risk.
22
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Summary of Journal Characteristics
A total of sixty-six articles were screened during the initial evaluation process.
Sixteen out of sixty-six articles from web and electronic databases such as EBSCOhost,
Google Scholar, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI), PubMed,
ResearchGate, and reference list reviews were included in the results and discussion
portion of the systematic review. The key findings and research design of the accepted
sixteen articles are summarized in Table 4.1 and Table 4.2. The table of journal
characteristics was divided into three methods of Waste-to-Energy (WtE) technologies:
Chemical, Biochemical, and Thermo-chemical (Thermal). However, all articles on the
chemical conversion process were not included due to non-compliance with the set criteria
and lack of journal articles regarding the method.
Of the selected sixteen studies, eight studies authored by different researchers were
under the biochemical conversion process and ten were under the thermal conversion
process. Quantitative inconsistencies were due to two studies (Tong et al., 2019; Zhao,
2017) discussing both biochemical and thermal processes. Out of eleven Southeast Asian
countries, only nine countries had published articles which suited the criteria for the
23
systematic analysis namely, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR,
Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand.
Of the eight studies under the biochemical conversion process, four studies used
Biomass, two studies used Landfill with Gas Capture (LFG), and two studies used
Anaerobic Digestion (AD). Furthermore, in the ten studies under the thermal conversion
process, five studies used incineration, two studies used incineration (RDF), one study
used air/plasma gasification, one study used incineration, gasification, and pyrolysis, and
one study used gasification only.
24
Table 4.1: Characteristics of Journals used (Biochemical Conversion Process)
Country
Type of Waste-to-Energy
Technology
Results
Significance of Waste-to-Energy
Technology
Author/s
Brunei
Darussalam
Biomass (Waste sawdust)
Briquetting is already being practiced in
Brunei Darussalam as a fuel and cheaper
energy source. Briquettes made from tropical
hardwood species with sawdust as a binding
agent yielded the best calorific value.
Wood combustion or wood Yazdani et al.
biomass has the lowest greenhouse (2012)
gas emission and acid precipitation
per unit of generated heat, making
the results from this study
environment-friendly,
Out of the seven sawdust waste samples economically-sound, and viable.
retrieved from tree species native and readily
available in Brunei Darussalam’s rainforests,
Upuna borneensis was the best species to
use as a possible energy source. Factors such
as density, calorific value, ash content,
nitrogen, and sulfur were taken into account
to arrive at this conclusion.
Brunei
Darussalam
Biomass (Waste sawdust Nine briquette samples (labeled A-I) with All
nine briquette samples Yazdani & Ali,
and rice husks)
different biomass-binder ratios of sawdust examined had low sulfur content. (2010)
and rice husks were used in this study.
The briquettes also do not produce
additional carbon dioxide due to its
Briquette E, which was made of Fine Hilly biomass content of sawdust and
Sawdust and Fine Rice Husks with a ratio of rice husks.
52.5:22.5:25 and incubated at 90℃, was the
most combustible.
Malaysia
Biomass
Malaysia is a country focused on harnessing Malaysia produces 160 million Ozturk, (2017)
biomass-based energy as a renewable energy tons of biomass annually. As
25
source. The country is more adaptable to
policy
changes and efficiency-based
strategies making it more advanced in terms
of biomass technologies compared to the
Western Asian country (Turkey) it was
contrasted with.
Malaysia
Landfill with Gas Capture The Bukit Tagar Sanitary Landfill (BTSL)
(Methane Gas)
collects 2500 tons of MSW/day. Worldwide
Landfills Park (WLP), on the other hand,
contains 6.2 metric tons of MSW collected
from a decade of operations. Both BTSL
and WLP practice methane gas capture.
electricity
consumption,
population, and the economy
grows, renewable energy stays
only at 2.1%.
Biomass-based renewable energy
has the potential to increase the
current percentage of renewable
energy reliance.
BTSL is one of the largest WtE Yong et
projects in Malaysia which has the (2019)
10.5 MW engine capacity which is
able to generate electricity from
LFG.
al.,
WLP has continued to supply
The author proposed that it would be electricity for 16 years since its
conducive for Malaysia to attempt the rehabilitation in 2006.
conversion of dumpsites into LFG capture.
Philippines
Anaerobic Digestion (AD)
From the modeled 2012-2098 time period, Three biochemical treatments were Zhao, (2017)
scenario one of LFG utilization is expected proposed in this study by Zhao
Landfill with Gas Recovery to recover a total of 9,059 GWh of energy.
(2017), but only two utilized
(LFG)
biochemical processes. Scenario 1
Scenario three, which is a combination of used LFG and Scenario 3 proposed
RDF and AD, on the other hand, will have a a combination of LFG and AD.
yield of 34570 GWh.
This WtE framework has the
highest power generation potential
out of three proposed scenarios in
the study.
26
Philippines
Landfill with Gas Capture A landfill with gas capture project in Payatas
(Methane Gas)
Landfill which was found to reduce carbon
dioxide emissions by 427,000 tons in a span
of 10 years (2005-2014).
The landfill gas capture generator Serrona & Yu,
currently produces an energy yield (2009)
enough to supply electricity to 20
families as well as streetlights in
Quezon city are also powered by
this landfill gas capture generator.
Philippines
Biomass
Using the equation formulated by the
researchers, the study concluded a desirable
positive feasibility trend in three Luzon
regions namely, NCR, CALABARZON, and
MIMAROPA.
The combination of assessment of Co, R.A., &
biomass energy potential from Paringit,
E.
solid waste development using a (2020)
model equation to be used as an
assessment tool, which can be
utilized by Philippine local
government,
particularly
the
existing sanitary landfills, as well
as
WtE
technology
and
infrastructures that are shortly to
be installed.
Thailand
Anaerobic Digestion
Rayong municipality in Thailand houses a Anaerobic digestion produces both Jutidamrongph
biogas plant that has been fully-operational sludge and gas. The former is an, (2018)
since 2004.
fertilizer material and the latter for
generation of electricity. The
The WtE plant treats MSWs in two ways: (1) recovered biogas (CH4) from the
source sorted organic waste (SSOW), which treatment process was used for
treats 12 tons of MSWs/day,
and (2) electricity
generation
which
mechanically-sorted organic fraction of reduced
GHG
emissions
MSW (OFMSW), which treats 3.3 tons of amounting to 0.34 Gg of CH4 and
MSWs/day. In a span of three years, the two 7.15 Gg of CO2.
streams averaged treatment of 20.5 tons of
MSWs/day.
27
Table 4.2: Characteristics of Journals used (Thermal Conversion Process)
Country
Cambodia
Type of
Waste-to-Energy
Technology
Gasification
Rice husk
gasification
Results
Significance of Waste-to-Energy
Technology
Author/s
There are currently 55 fully-operational rice
husk biomass gasifier power plants in
Cambodia. However, the energy yield is
only at 200 kW and can only power
small-scale projects.
Cambodia is an agricultural country where Pode et al.,
residues or waste from agricultural activities (2015)
are abundant. Since small-scale rice husk
power plants have already been established,
bigger efforts must be done by the
government for this technology to be more
inclusive and large-scale, especially in rural
areas.
Indonesia
Incineration
Gasification
and The Piyungan landfill in Yogyakarta
Province served as the source of data in this
study. Gasification,
specifically air
(Air gasification gasification
followed
by
plasma
and
Plasma gasification, is the best WtE option due to
gasification)
factors such as volume reduction, net power
produced, initial investment, environmental
impact, economic feasibility, technology
maturity, and social involvement.
The use of air and plasma gasification not Sudibyo et al.
only benefits environmental factors, it is (2017)
also beneficial in terms of economics
because these WtE schemes are able to
consume MSWs at a high rate which
produces electricity and, in turn, gain
profits. In addition there is no need for space
expansions.
Lao PDR (Laos)
Incineration
Provides an overview of the WtE sector in Tun et
Southeast Asian nations, detailing the status, (2020)
difficulties, prospects and WtE options
appropriate for each country.
Lao PDR, despite being under the
“emerging” status, has been testing the
wastes with incineration technologies.
Currently, incineration only contributes to
2% of the country’s waste management due
28
al.
to lack of comprehensive governmental
policies.
Malaysia
Incineration
Hybrid solar, flue
gas,
chimney
power
plant
(HSFGCPP)
Because Malaysia has few incinerators that
release the exhaust/flue gas into the
environment
without
heat,
hence
HSFGCPP is the ideal way to utilize waste
heat and provide night operations despite
being reliant on solar energy.
Malaysia is dealing with an overwhelming Aja et
increase in production of MSW as a result of (2013)
increase of population, industrialization, and
notability, the current problem of landfilling
which is the most typical waste disposal
practice which is not sustainable. The study
focused on the usage of combustible MSW
components as fuel to generate heat for
HSFGCPP.
al.
Malaysia
Landfill
biogas Malaysia is considered as one of the
plants
and Southeast Asian countries with a
Incineration
“developing” status in terms of adapting a
widespread
schematic
of
WtE
technologies.
Provides an overview of the WtE sector in Tun et
Southeast Asian nations, detailing the status, (2020)
difficulties, prospects and WtE options
appropriate for each country.
al.
Malaysia
Incineration
A total of 80%–95% of MSW volume can Yong et al.,
be reduced by incineration. Malaysia has the (2019)
potential to generate 640 kW/day if the
small-scale incineration plants were utilized
appropriately and expanded.
Five small-scale mass incinerators were
established in 2011 and these were located
Mass incineration in tourism spots namely, Pulau Langkawi
and
(100 ton/day; 80-90% efficiency), Pulau
Refuse-Derived
Labuan (60 ton/day), Cameron Highlands
Fuel (RDF)
(40 ton/day), Pulau Pangkor (20 ton/day),
and Pulau Tioman (10 ton/day).
So far only Pulau Langkawi is able to
generate electricity. The other four
incinerators are used purely for MSW
reduction.
29
Myanmar
Incineration
Myanmar is under the “emerging” tier since Provides an overview of the WtE sector in Tun et
the country is heavily reliant upon its Southeast Asian nations, detailing the status, (2020)
recycling sector for waste management.
difficulties, prospects and WtE options
appropriate for each country.
However, the first WtE plant in the country
has been able to yield a total of 0.76 MW of
electricity.
Philippines
Incineration,
gasification,
pyrolysis
Pyrolysis is the most profitable and aids in Covers an economic analysis of WtE Agaton et al.
and the improvement of air quality, energy investment and determines
the most (2020)
security
and
waste
management profitable option among the three methods.
sustainability. In addition, although there is
data that prove its significance, it cannot be
implemented successfully because it is
unfavorable to potential investors. In
addition, the Philippines' underdeveloped
infrastructures and logistics.
Philippines
Incineration
Refuse-Derived
Fuel (RDF)
Philippines
Incineration
al.
RDF technologies is a sustainable waste
management option implemented in large
cities in Metro Manila such as Quezon and
Pasig City can operate large-scale with the
proper amount of environmental guidelines
and consistent monitoring.
RDF pellets are used in Bulacan and Rizal Sapuay, (2016)
provinces as a substitute for coal. According
to this paper, a ton of RDF replaces 600-kg
of coal in cement plants. In addition, RDF
from waste reduces 40% of garbage disposal
truck transports.
From the modeled timeline of 2012-2035,
RDF incineration is projected to generate a
total of 29,700 GWh of electricity from
MSWs.
In 2015, the country’s largest RDF treatment Zhao, (2017)
plant was established in Pasig City,
Philippines. Resulting fuel pellets are
currently being used to provide energy in the
cement, power, and paper industries.
30
Singapore
Singapore
Incineration and
Gasification
Incineration
There are four MSW incineration plants
(IP) currently in operation in Singapore,
capable of electricity generation: Tuas IP,
Senoko IP, Tuas South IP, and Keppel
Seghers which can process 2000, 2400,
3000, and 800 tons of MSW/day. It was
determined that these plants can generate a
higher electrical output if moist waste were
separated.
In the more than 30 years that WTE plants Tong et al.,
have been in operation in Singapore, the (2018)
amount of waste that is dumped in landfills
has significantly decreased in the nation
because there is a much bigger volume of
waste that can be recycled in WtE facilities
than there is at landfills.
Singapore is the only Southeast Asian
country under the highest tier of “mature”.
This is largely owed to the four incineration
plants, all of which are capable of
generating electricity.
Provides an overview of the WtE sector in Tun et al.
Southeast Asian nations, detailing the status, (2020)
difficulties, prospects and WtE options
appropriate for each country.
The option of gasification is also helpful.
Although, still at an emerging stage, certain
plants are already capable of generating
electricity from this method.
According to this study, the energy yield
could be furthered if a mixture of WTE
technologies
and renewable energy
methods are to be considered (biomass +
solar power).
Thailand
Incineration and Electricity generation via both incineration
Gas turbine hybrid and hybrid power plants can make
dual-fueled cycles Bangkok’s power usage reduced to 2.5%
and 8% correspondingly.
Reduction of organic waste through Udomsri et al.
incineration and hybrid technologies. (2010)
Reduction of CO2 up to 3% compared to
other existing thermal power plants in
Thailand.
31
4.1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Biochemical Conversion Processes in
Accordance with the Selected Journals
4.1.1 Technological
Significant technological implications were discovered in the SEA region
during the long-term sustainable use of the biochemical conversion process. In the
study of Serrona and Yu (2009), a WtE project in the form of a landfill gas capture
generator in Payatas, Philippines, was studied and found to be able to yield ample
amount of power which could supply electricity to twenty families where each
family or household can simultaneously use one refrigerator, television set, and
electric fan. Additionally, streetlights in Quezon city are also powered by this
landfill gas capture generator (Serrona & Yu, 2009).
In another study conducted by Zhao (2017), biochemical treatments
modeled in the 2012-2098 time were investigated in terms of the LFG utilization
expectation. According to Zhao (2017), two scenarios can be taken in this model,
scenario 1 and scenario 3 which are able to produce significant amounts of energy
within the given timeframe. Likewise, in a latter study of Yong et al. (2019), it was
discovered that the Bukit Tagar Sanitary Landfill (BSTL) is one of the largest WtE
projects in Malaysia today, consisting of a total of 10.5 MW gas engine that, if
combined, has the ability to generate electricity from LFG.
32
4.1.2 Financial
Anaerobic digestion (AD) is the technique that best suits the economic
capability and financial strength of most Southeast Asian countries. According to
an analysis of the financial climate in most Asian countries (including the SEA)
conducted by Yong et al. (2019), it was established that among all the WtE
technologies examined in their study, AD's initial capital expenditure (CAPEX)
and operational expenditure (OPEX) are the least expensive. Lastly, according to
research done by the same author, revenue generated in Malaysia in 2006
amounted to about RM 5440 million a year. By 2030, this figure may rise to RM
2550 million annually. In addition, Zhao (2017) has pointed out several AD
financial disadvantages which hinders it from being fully utilized. For instance, the
technology requires high investment and high operation cost, proven by the first
AD project planned in 2014 that had a project budget of estimated $47 million.
Although the financial benefits of WtE technologies may be motivating in
the ultimate goal of lowering waste material in a country, potential projects
concerning these technologies may suffer from a lack of funding for the
construction of sanitary landfills. Sustainable sanitary landfill procedures are weak
in Malaysia, according to Yong et al. (2019), because there is a shortage of
government financing and bank loans for waste management.
Due to a shortage of funding, there are fewer WtE technology operators
who can run sanitary landfills that can accommodate the resource needs of a
33
particular area (Yong et al., 2019). Lack of funding prevents small-scale garbage
producers from constructing and expanding their landfills for LFG applications.
Also, when land costs rise, it will significantly affect both governments and private
businesses' abilities to open new landfills for LFG activities.
Finally, although WtE plants increase overall resource efficiency, they can
experience reduced profit margins due to high equipment and operation costs.
Hence, WtE systems that are ecologically friendly may not be economically sound.
For instance, Yong et al. (2019) stated that A 150 kilo-tonne (kt) facility with
electricity configuration generates 25.4 Euro/kt of treated trash, compared to 4
Euro/kt for a 300 kt co-generative plant.
4.1.3 Environmental
Due to the main purpose of the biochemical conversion process of turning
waste into energy, there is no doubt that it will yield a lot of environmental
advantages. Studies have shown that through the years of research in this field, the
production of biomass and WtE technology has effectively helped in reducing
overall carbon emissions, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
For instance, Yazdani et al. (2012) concluded that the wood combustion
type of biomass has the lowest greenhouse gas emissions and acid precipitation per
unit of heat generated. This can also be seen to be proved by an earlier study by
Yazdani & Ali in 2010—where they examined nine briquette samples from
sawdust and rice husks and came up with a conclusion that they do not produce
34
additional carbon dioxide—and a latter study by Hossain et al. (2020) where they
found out that microbial fuel cell WtE effectively reduces the overall greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions.
4.1.4 Economical
According to Jutiamrongphan (2018), the benefits of Anaerobic Digestion
(AD) systems point to the generation of biogas and sludge to produce electricity
and fertilizer. In tropical countries like Thailand, where the majority of their
economic revenue comes from agricultural practices, most of the municipal solid
waste is primarily food waste which accounts for 40-60% of total waste in the
country. Due to its high moisture content, organic waste has great potential as a
raw material for creating biogas. Regardless of how beneficial AD systems are in
the country, some factors are needed in consideration: (1) a need to modify AD
technologies in order to e suitable for small-sized facilities, (2) extensive
investigation of methanogenic microorganisms, and (3) a need for professional
workers to maintain AD plants.
4.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Thermal Conversion Process in Accordance
with the Selected Journals
4.2.1 Technological
The thermal conversion process gathered by the articles is divided into the
process of pyrolysis, gasification, and incineration.
35
Incineration is among the most mentioned thermal conversion technologies
in the systematic review. The products from this process can be utilized in order to
produce a source of energy or electricity, several ASEAN countries have been
utilizing this thermal process. According to Zhao (2017), incineration generates
renewable energy while eliminating harmful and toxic waste. However, waste has
low calorific value in developing countries which is one of the hindrances to WtE
feasibility. In the study of Yong et al. (2019), countries like Malaysia have a high
calorific value of MSW, which is about 23, 000 kJ/kg, but due to MSW having an
increase of moisture because of organic waste (which sums up from about 45% of
MSW) the calorific value decreases from 1500-2600 kcal/kg, this results in the
incineration process being unfeasible. Zhao (2019) proposed that gasification is a
more effective method in terms of recovering energy because, during combustion,
it produces synthetic gas. Also, it treats wood waste and biomass fuels. Sudibyo
(2017) explained that in comparison to biological treatment, thermal treatment
could become an alternative because it can cover a large amount of waste. Even
though thermal conversion technologies are deemed advantageous, some factors
must be in consideration, like calorific value and moisture level.
Gasification is divided into two steps and is able to yield byproducts with
each step. First is pyrolysis, with CO2, water, and producer gas as byproducts, and
gasification which produces fuel gas composed of One of the most glaring
technological disadvantages are the gasification barriers mentioned by Tong et al.
(2018). The author investigated the WtE status in Singapore focusing mainly on
36
incineration and gasification. Compared to gasification, incineration is more
advanced in Singapore. The complexity of gasification plant control as opposed to
incineration’s combustion process gives incineration an edge over gasification.
Moreover, gasification plants are more sensitive to factors such as gasifying
agents, gasifying agent-biomass ratio, air-fuel ratio, equivalent ratio, reaction
temperature and pressure (Ruiz et al., 2013). These factors lead to the instability of
the gasification process which may cause potential failure.
4.2.2 Financial
Tun et al. (2020) stated that thermal conversion WtE technologies are not
widely implemented in developing countries, and financial resources could
improve results. The finances needed in order to implement such technologies are
maintenance costs and operational costs. The study of Agaton et al. (2020) also
mentions that financial resources are needed and only depend on private investors
in terms of funding. Also, in another study by Yong et al. (2019), WtE
technologies such as incineration are yet to be feasible due to the cost needed for
frequent maintenance, increased fuel consumption, and the requirement for
qualified staff to manage and upkeep the facilities. Therefore, the need for sources
of funds is a way to manage and implement WtE technologies in developing
countries successfully. Zhao (2019), mentioned that besides incineration,
gasification is also costly even though it ensures greater efficiency.
37
4.2.3 Environmental
In the study by Tun et al. (2020), the majority of the countries in Southeast
Asia are now dealing with difficulties with waste management, which has caused a
rise in annual waste generation yearly and resulted in the mandate of new waste
disposal sites, land scarcity, and especially pollution to the environment. The
author also mentioned that thermal conversion processes like incineration have
proven beneficial for reducing the quantity and volume of waste and reducing land
use for landfills. Accumulated waste can decrease by 80-85% in weight and
95-96% in volume once incinerated.
Even though thermal conversion processes can be advantageous in
lowering the accumulation of waste, there are still setbacks when it comes to
implementing thermal conversion technologies. According to the study by Sapuay
(2016), thermal conversion technologies like incineration are considered to be the
worst in generating toxicity since it produces emission twice as much compared to
landfills. Some laws make thermal conversion processes like incineration
unfeasible due to the harmful effects they can cause on the environment. In the
Philippines, incineration is banned according to the Republic Act 9003 Ecological Solid Waste Management Act, due to toxic emissions released from
incineration facilities. Also, the implementation of the Philippine Clean Air Act
aims to prohibit incineration from treating waste as this method releases toxic and
harmful emissions. Therefore, the disadvantages of implementing thermal
38
conversion technologies are due to policy conflicts and their effects on the
environment.
There are still exceptions; an example is in the study of Sapuay (2016), in
which refuse-derived fuel (RDF) was acceptable to use by the Department of
Energy in 2013. Some refuse-derived fuel (RDF) facilities are located in the
province of Rizal, which convert MSW into pellets that can be utilized as a fuel in
replacement for coal.
4.2.4 Economical
In the economic aspects, it was stated that in some countries like Indonesia
gasification processes are economically feasible because the IRR (internal rate of
return) is above the MARR (Minimum Attractive Rate of Return), which is
13-18% while the gasification process: (Conventional Gasification - 26.88% and
Plasma Gasification - 24.23%) (Sudibyo, 2017).
In the Philippines, incineration is the most economically feasible among
other WtE options due to its low investment cost compared to other thermal WtE
technologies like gasification and pyrolysis. Incineration has an investment cost of
13.846/USD million, gasification has 18.889/USD million, and pyrolysis has
33.333/USD million (Agaton, 2020). However, due to policies in the Philippines
against incineration, gasification is the second-best approach.
Additionally, Serrona and
Yu
(2009)
mentioned an economical
39
disadvantage in the form of waste pickers and small junk shop operators whose
livelihood depends on the Payatas dumpsite. According to the data, 15.5 million
(49%) of the Philippines’ labor force belongs in the informal sector and an
estimate of 10% are in the waste non-tax paying sector. Should WtE options push
through in the Philippines, there is a need to provide this population with an
appropriate livelihood support system to ensure that their source of income will not
be severely depleted (Serrona & Yu, 2009).
Even though there are different results in some countries because of factors
such as laws, investment costs, operational costs, revenue, profit, and compliance
with the government, these factors also aid in determining which WtE technology
is best suited or has the best approach for each country.
4.3 Status of Waste-to-Energy Technologies in Accordance with the Selected Journals
In this systematic review, all sixteen journal articles conducted in nine Southeast
Asian countries presented different conversion processes and WtE technologies. These
technologies have either a current or projected electrical output measured in the unit of
MW because according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (2022) electricity
generation capacity is measured in kilowatt multiples, such as megawatts (MW).
Furthermore, MWh is also a unit used to measure provided energy in an hour
(Enerdynamics, n.d.).
40
4.3.1 Brunei Darussalam
The furthest Brunei Darussalam has come with regards to WtE
technologies is the use of biomass to form briquettes as an alternative to
conventional firewood and charcoal. Generally, the biochemical process of
briquetting involves briquettes made from tropical hardwood with a binding agent
(sawdust and rice husks). This process has the lowest greenhouse gas emission,
acid precipitation per unit of generated heat, sulfur content, and carbon dioxide
production.
In a study by Yazdani and Ali (2010) and Yazdani et al. (2012), sawdust
was the medium used for briquette formation. Since briquettes are combustible
materials, the energy production is measured in MJ/kg or the unit used to measure
the heat released during the material’s combustion. Results from both studies
showed that loose, coarse sawdust yielded higher MJ/kg values due to less
moisture content. However, factors such as density, calorific value, ash content,
nitrogen, and sulfur were taken into account, making the briquette composed of
Fine Hilly Sawdust and Fine Rice Husks the most combustible. The journals by
Yazdani and Ali (2010) and Yazdani et al. (2012) were included in the systematic
analysis because waste sawdust and rice husk for disposal from the country’s
sawdust milling industry and agricultural industry were used, however, there were
no provided results in terms of electrical generation.
41
4.3.2 Cambodia
In Cambodia, solid biomass is transformed to combustible gas by the use
of gasification, notably, rice husk gasification. This gas can then be utilized to
generate energy. Rice husk is used as the waste medium in rice husk gasification,
which still utilizes the conventional air gasification conversion process. A study by
Pode et al. (2015) showed that 1.6-1.8 kg of rice husk can provide 1 kW/h of
electricity, corresponding with the conversion ratio of rice husk to electricity.
There are 55 biomass gasification plants in Cambodia, according to Pode et
al. (2015), which have a collective capacity to generate 200 kW-600 kW or 0.0002
- 0.0006 MW of electricity per day. At present, the electricity production of 55
biomass gasification plants have replaced 75% of diesel consumption in Cambodia
provincial areas: Takeo, Kampong Speu, Kandal, and Kampong Thom.
For the rice husk gasification energy conversion process, only up to 10% of
the available rice husk resources are currently used as biomass. If efficiency were
to be increased at 100%, expected electricity generation would be 20-100 kW and
10-100 MW in small and large scale plants, respectively.
4.3.3 Indonesia
In 2014, Indonesia had a total population of 253 million people generating
an estimated 190,000 tons/day of MSW. To control this number, Indonesia is
looking into WtE as a renewable energy source option. In the study by Sudibyo et
42
al. (2017), the thermal conversion processes of Incineration and Gasification (Air
and Plasma Gasification) were mentioned as alternatives to Indonesia’s MSW
management scheme, the study was conducted in the Piyungan landfill waste
disposal facility in Yogyakarta Province.
The MSW treatment capacity of the Piyungan landfill is 480 metric
tons/day. Considering this parameter, the total power produced in kWh/ton from
incineration, conventional gasification, and plasma gasification are 355 kWh/ton,
1,160 kWh/ton, and 1,467 kWh/ton, respectively. However, deducted from these
values is the energy consumed from plant auxiliaries for the electricity to transmit
from power plant to grid, which yields the net power output (Yamamoto et al.,
2021). Thus, the resulting net power produced from incineration is 316 kWh/ton
or 0.316 MWh/ton. For conventional gasification the value is at 769 kWh/ton or
0.769 MWh/ton and for plasma gasification it’s 941 kWh/ton or 0.941 MWh/ton.
4.3.4 Lao PDR
The study published by Tun et al. (2020), highlights the utilization of
Incineration in order to convert waste into energy. The data gathered from the
study was formulated in 2015, the total waste that was collected is estimated to
reach up to 77,000 tons per year. However, the country remains in the “emerging”
stage since it is only able to contribute 2% from the total waste disposal procedures
through utilizing the incineration process. Results from the study showed that the
country’s incineration can yield a total of 200 MW of energy potential from the
43
incineration process. Moreover, Laos also has a future goal in which in the year
2025 will have a 23% non-renewable energy mix, 10% biofuel in the
transportation sector, and 30% renewable energy in all energy demand (except
hydropower).
4.3.5 Malaysia
Malaysia has numerous biomass resources available. In fact, 80 million
tons of dry biomass, produced by 423 palm oil mills, account for the majority of
Malaysia's production of more than 160 million tons of biomass (Ozturk et al.,
2017). These volumes of biomass and biogas have a combined electricity
generation capacity of 2400 MW and 410 MW, respectively. However, Malaysia
can only harness 773 MW/year according to 2011 data.
Other than biomass as a renewable energy option, Malaysia currently has a
Waste-to-Energy landfill that relies on biochemical processes through methane gas
capture: the Bukit Tagar Sanitary Landfill (BTSL) and Worldwide Landfill Park
(WLP). As stated by Yong et al. (2019), BTSL has a total electric power generation
of 6 MW/month, as long as methane gas is extracted from two horizontal wells
carrying at least 2 million tons of MSW. Moreover, both cells should be able to
generate 3600 cubic meters of 60% methane LFG every hour. Currently, BTSL is
only able to collect methane gas, the remaining gas is flared.
Air Hitam sanitary landfill, currently known as the Worldwide Landfills
Park (WLP), produces 2 MW of electricity monthly from methane gas produced
44
from the breakdown of organic waste that has collected over the past 10 years.
Yong et al. (2019) estimated that WLP will maintain its output rate using the
saturated 6.2 million metric tons of MSW from its previous ten years of operations
for another 16 years. When electricity generation from WLP/Air Hitam is
combined with the Jeram landfill, capable of holding 2500 of MSW daily, the
resulting value is 6 MW/month.
In 2015, Malaysia’s annual waste generation was up to 10,680,000 tons and
42% of the generated waste is being treated using incineration with energy
recovery (Modak et al., 2017). In a paper by Tun et al. (2017), the Selangor
incineration plant was mentioned to run at a 70% efficiency, producing 5 MW of
electricity. These numbers are underwhelming considering that at 100% efficiency,
the plant is capable of processing 1000 tons/day, generating 8.9 MW of electricity.
A study conducted by Yong et al. (2019) stated that Malaysian incineration
plants are limited, but 80-95% of the MSW volume can be treated using
incineration. This coincides with the values presented by Modak et al. (2017)
wherein incineration with or without energy generation processes 42% and 56% of
solid MSW, respectively. Although there are five operating incineration plants in
Malaysia, only the Pulau-Langkawi plant is able to yield electricity, the other four
only diminishes the volume of MSW. Pulau-Langkawi is the only plant to
segregate waste on-site and is estimated to treat 100 tons/day generating 1 MW of
electricity. The plant is said to have an estimate of 80-90% efficiency. Additionally,
as stated by the same author, the Kajang WtE plant is an RDF incinerator capable
45
of treating about 1100 tons of MSW, producing 8 MW of electricity. 3 MW powers
the plant and the remaining 5 MW is provided to the national electricity grid. The
Kajang facility is at 77% efficiency, this value is expected to rise at 83% by adding
AD processes.
The Pulau-Langkawi incineration plant was also mentioned in Aja et al.
(2013) as the only incineration plant capable of generating electricity. However,
this study proposed MSW energy recovery from incineration using hybrid solar,
flue gas, chimney power plant or HSFGCPP which proposes to recover the heat (in
the form of steam) from the incineration process using solar chimneys to produce
electricity. However, this was only presented by the authors as an upgrade from the
solar chimney power plant (SCPP) prototype which had issues with night time
operations.
4.3.6 Myanmar
The study conducted by Tun et al. (2020) included Myanmar among the
Southeast Asian countries being evaluated on the feasibility of WtE as well as the
total energy yield from the existing WtE technologies implemented in the country.
Currently, Myanmar is one of the Southeast Asian countries that can collect an
estimate of 30-70% waste. According to data formulated in the year 2015, the
country can collect up to 0.44 kg/capita/day. The annual waste generation can
reach an estimate of 1,130,040 tons. However, collection efficiency in the country
remains at 50%, and the recycling sector only contributes up to 5% in Yangon City.
46
According to Tun et al. (2020) the total energy generation of the first WtE
plant in Yangon City in the year 2017 can produce a total of 0.76 MW/day.
Moreover, since the country still lacks the capability to develop solid action plans
and projects, insufficient knowledge and awareness in the concept of sustainable
WtE technologies. The country aims to achieve up to 15-20% renewable energy by
the year 2030, as well as reduce GHG emissions by 16% below the BAU level in
the year 2020, as well as preventing GHG emissions from reaching its peak limit
by 2030.
4.3.7 Philippines
In this systematic review, all thermal conversion processes have projected
electrical power generation because of RA 8749 which bans incineration activities
in the country. Although an exception was made in the paper by Sapuay (2016)
which focused on RDF incineration facilities in two cities of the Philippines’
capital region. No exact electrical output was mentioned because the fuel produced
in the facilities were used in cement kilns instead of supplied to national power
grids like in the conventional mass incineration process. In contrast, biochemical
conversion has both projected and current output values, though most values
remain projected.
Zhao (2017) analyzed three possible scenarios in Metro Manila, Philippines
and projected the energy recovery potential for certain time periods. Among them
are anaerobic digestion (AD) and landfill with gas (LFG) recovery. The former has
47
the potential to produce 14,000 GWh or 1.4 x 107 MWh and the latter 9,059 GWh
or 9.059 × 106 MWh. LFG values were calculated using cumulative electrical
power generation for 86 years (from 2012-2098) while AD values were yielded
from a 23-year (2012-2035) time period. In addition to biochemical processes,
incineration was also included in the study. This process is capable of producing
2.97 × 107 MWh from a 23-year (2012-2035) time period.
LFG recovery was labeled as Scenario 1 in the analysis by Zhao (2017).
The energy recovery trend shows that there will be a constant increase of LFG for
24 years (2012-2036) which is immediately followed by a constant decrease in
production until the analysis year endpoint 2098. Incineration was labeled as
Scenario 2 with an increasing electricity generation potential from 1.028 × 106
MWh to 1.448 × 106 MWh within the given time period. The AD biogas trend,
labeled as Scenario 3 in the paper, was exhibited to have a steady increase from
start to endpoint. Unlike Scenario 1, there is no sudden decline in the energy
production of incineration and AD biogas.
Another projected value is from the study by Co and Paringit (2020) which
assessed the biomass energy potential from solid waste development using an
parameterization-based model equation fit to be utilized as an assessment tool by
the Philippine government for landfill transition to WtE options. Three regions in
the Philippines were used for the equation application; NCR, CALABARZON,
and MIMAROPA, all of which resulted in a positive slope from 2018-2028. At the
endpoint of the time period NCR is expected to have an electrical output of 2.79 ×
48
109 MW, CALABARZON with 9.00 × 109 MW, and MIMAROPA with 5.40 × 105
MW.
Similar to Co and Paringit (2020), the published study of Agaton et al.
(2020) also used an equation-based analysis to assess three potential thermal WtE
technologies: gasification, incineration, and pyrolysis. The study focused mainly
on the economic analysis of the technologies for the determination of the most
feasible WtE thermal conversion technology for
implementation in the
Philippines. The annual projected electricity generation was 21,353 MWh for
incineration and 24,090 MWh for both gasification and pyrolysis. Since the study
proceeded with an economic approach, the researchers mentioned the profitability
aspect of the three technologies from most profitable to least, which are
incineration, gasification, and pyrolysis, respectively.
For current electricity generation using WtE technologies, Serrona and Yu
(2009) mentioned that in Payatas, Metro Manila, a 100-kW WtE project has been
developed. The project is carried out through Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development
Mechanism (CDM) with the assistance of Pangea Green Energy Philippines Inc.’s
collaboration with the Quezon City LGU. Most LFG mentioned in this review uses
methane gas to convert to electricity, CDM uses carbon instead. During the time
frame period from 2005 to 2014, the project is expected to reduce CO2 emissions
by approximately 427,000 tons. Currently, the project is able to produce 0.06-0.07
MW/day capable of supplying 20 families and streetlights within the area with
electricity. The targeted population for electrical supply is 1000 families.
49
4.3.8 Singapore
According to Tun et al. (2017), Singapore is the only country in Southeast
Asia with the “Mature” WtE status, this is the highest classification of WtE status
in the research because Singapore generates a total of 256.8 MW/day of electricity
from four incineration plants; 47.8 MW from the Tuas plant, 55 MW from Senoko
plant, 132 MW from Tuas South plant, and 22 MW from the Keppel Seghers Tuas
Plant (KSTP). As stated by the same author, if not for the lack of land area,
Singapore would achieve a higher electricity production.
Similar to Tun et al. (2017), Tong et al. (2018) mentioned the scarcity of
land area in Singapore and the incineration plants involved were similar.
Furthermore, Tong et al. (2018) discussed the statuses of both gasification and
incineration in Singapore. An average of 7,886 tons of waste is incinerated per day
which produces 3,468 MWh of electricity. 78% is delivered to the national grid
which is 2-3% of Singapore’s electrical consumption. Gasification was declared to
be at an “early stage of development” because commercialization remains
unfeasible in the country. However, despite this, Singapore has already begun
developing the technology through the Neo Tiew industrial plant which produces 1
MW of electricity daily.
4.3.9 Thailand
The articles by Jutidamrongphan (2018) and Kritjaroen (2011) focused on
the biochemical conversion process in Thailand’s Waste-to-Fertiliser and Energy
50
Plant in Rayong Municipality which increases Thailand’s reliance on renewable
energy sources from 0.5% to 0.8%. A predicted total yield of 5,100 MWh of
electricity will be produced by the facility annually after processing 26,000 tons of
MSW. Aside from energy generation, organic fertilizers are among the expected
products of the Rayong renewable plant.
The article published by Udomsri et al (2010) focuses on the economic
assessment of MSW incineration and the concept of implementing a hybrid-dual
fuel power plants, as well as high quality gas called natural gas, but it also
mentioned an incineration plant (Phuket Plant) capable of yielding 2.5 MW/day.
Hybrid-dual fuel power plants utilize an integrated gas turbine along with a steam
bottoming cycle including natural gas as the main fuel which significantly
enhances the utilization of MSW as well as reduces the emission of secondary
waste such as ash, residues, etc.
According to the results from the study, hybrid-dual fuel power plants can
provide a higher electricity production in comparison to a single-fuel plant and
conventional MSW incineration. Producing a total of 4.5 TWh of electricity in
2010 and it could significantly increase to an estimate of 10 TWh in 2030.
Moreover, statistical data regarding the CO2 reduction in comparison to hybrid
cycle, conventional incineration, gasification, and combined hybrid cycle with
biogas. Illustrates that the hybrid cycle has a significantly high CO2 reduction in
comparison to the other technologies. With the hybrid dual-fuel cycle being
capable of reducing up to 1,000 tons of CO2 in 2008 and 2300 tons in 2030, in
51
comparison with the other technologies that are powered by natural gas. Hybrid
dual-fuel cycle can reduce the CO2 level by up to 4%. Overall, the hybrid
dual-fuel power plants are capable of providing Bangkok's electricity consumption
by 2.5% and 8%.
In an economical perspective, hybrid dual-fuel power plants have the
shortest payback among the other technologies. With only less than 5 years
payback, it could potentially become the most logical and the feasible concept in
achieving economically efficient and environment-friendly practices in Thailand.
52
Table 4.3: Summary of Total Electrical Power Production of Waste-to-Energy Technologies in Accordance with the
Selected Journals
Country
Waste-to-Energy
Conversion
Process
Type of Waste-to-Energy
Technology
Brunei
Darussalam
Biochemical
Biomass
N/A
N/A
Yazdani et al. (2012)
Biomass
N/A
N/A
Yazdani
(2010)
Cambodia
Thermal
Gasification
0.0002 - 0.0006 MW/day
Current
Pode et al., (2015)
Rice husk gasification
10-100 MW/yearly (Large scale
electricity plants)
Projected
Incineration
0.316 MWh/ton
Projected
Air 0.769 MWh/ton
Projected
Plasma Gasification
0.941 MWh/ton
Projected
Indonesia
Thermal
Conventional
Gasification
Total Electrical Power Production
(MW/MWh)
Category
Author/s
&
Ali,
Sudibyo et al. (2017)
Lao PDR
Thermal
Incineration
200 MW
Projected
Tun et al. (2020)
Malaysia
Biochemical
Biomass
773 MW/year
Current
Ozturk et al., (2017)
2400 MW of biomass
Projected
410 MW of biogas
53
Landfill with Gas Capture Bukit Tagar Sanitary
(Methane Gas)
(BTSL): 6 MW/month
Landfill Current
Yong et al., (2019)
Worldwide Landfill Park (WLP): 2 Current
MW/month
Air Hitam and Jeram Landfill: 6 Current
MW/month
Thermal
Incineration
Selangor Plant = 5 MW
Current
Tun et al. (2020)
Incineration
Pulau-Langkawi Plant = 1 MW/day
Current
Aja et al. (2013)
Incineration
Pulau-Langkawi Plant = 1 MW/day
Current
Yong et al., (2019)
Kajang WtE Plant = 8 MW/day
Current
Myanmar
Thermal
Incineration
0.76 MW/day
Current
Tun et al. (2020)
Philippines
Biochemical
Anaerobic Digestion (AD)
1.4 x 107 MWh
Projected
Zhao, (2017)
Landfill with Gas Recovery 9.059 × 106 MWh
(LFG)
Projected
Landfill with Gas Capture 0.06-0.07 MW/day
(Clean
Development
Mechanism - Carbon Gas)
Current
Serrona & Yu, (2009)
Biomass
Projected
Co & Paringit (2020)
NCR:
2.79 × 109 MW
54
CALABARZON:
9.00 × 109 MW
MIMAROPA:
5.40 × 105 MW
Thermal
Singapore
Thailand
Incineration
21,353 MW/year
Projected
Gasification
24,090 MW/year
Projected
Pyrolysis
24,090 MW/year
Projected
Incineration (RDF)
N/A
N/A
Sapuay, (2016)
Incineration (RDF)
2.97 × 107 MWh
Projected
Zhao, (2017)
Gasification
Neo Tiew industrial plant: 1
MW/day
Current
Tong et al., (2018)
Incineration
3,468 MWh
Current
Incineration
256.8 MW/day (4 IPs)
Current
Tun et al. (2020)
Biochemical
Anaerobic Digestion
5,100 MWh/year
Projected
Jutidamrongphan,
(2018)
Thermal
Incineration
Phuket Plant = 2.5 MW/day
Current
Udomsri et al. (2010)
Hybrid-dual fuel cycle
4.5 TWh
Projected
Thermal
Agaton et al. (2020)
55
4.4 Ranking of Waste-to-Energy Solid Waste Conversion Technologies in Accordance
with the Selected Journals
In this systematic review, the ranking of WtE technologies in Southeast Asia was
categorized into current and projected values of total electrical power production in units
of MW per month and MWh. Brunei Darussalam’s biochemical conversion process of
biomass (Yazdani & Ali, 2010; Yazdani et al., 2012) and the Philippines’ thermal
conversion process of incineration with RDF production (Sapuay, 2016) were excluded
from this ranking due to a lack of data about total electrical power production. Overall,
there are four categories for ranking: (1) Current MW, (2) Projected MW, (3) Current
MWh, and (4) Projected MWh.
4.4.1 Current MW
Figure 4.1: Current MW Category Ranking from Greatest to Least Electrical Power Production
56
Figure 4.1 exhibits the Current MW ranking in MW/month using data from
the sixteen articles gathered in this review. Singapore is the highest in terms of
current electrical power production through the thermal process of incineration
yielding a total of 7,704 MW/month from four fully-functional incineration plants
(Tun et al., 2020). Singapore’s electrical production yield has a significant
difference from Malaysia’s incineration (ranked second) which produces 420
MW/month from three incineration plants (Aja et al., 2013; Tun et al., 2020; Yong
et al., 2019). Next is Thailand’s incineration process which, according to Udomsri
et al. (2010), produces 75 MW/month.
This is followed by Malaysia’s biomass with 64 MW/month (Ozturk et al.,
2017), Singapore’s gasification with 30 MW/month (Tong et al., 2018),
Myanmar’s incineration with 22.8 MW/month (Tun et al., 2020), and Malaysia’s
LFG with 14 MW/month which is a total from three landfills (Yong et al., 2019).
The Philippines’ LFG with carbon gas capture was designated by Serrona and Yu
(2009) with a range of 1.8-2.1 MW/month which averaged a 1.95 MW/month
electrical production. Similar to Cambodia’s gasification with a range of
0.006-0.018 MW/month (Pode et al., 2015) which averaged 0.012 MW/month.
57
4.4.2 Projected MW
Figure 4.2: Projected MW Category Ranking from Greatest to Least Electrical Power Production
Figure 4.2 displays the projected MW/year ranking based on the sixteen
articles gathered for this review. These projected values were based on existing
technologies that have either been subject to theoretical formulaic treatment
(Agaton et al., 2020; Co & Paringit, 2020) or at a disadvantageous circumstance
such as underperformance due to lack of technologies (Ozturk et al., 2017; Pode et
al., 2020; Tun et al., 2020) and policy hindrances (Agaton et al., 2020; Co &
Paringit, 2020).
Notably, the first three highest-ranked electricity yields used a decadal
trend resulting in a decade-long electricity generation projection. The highest
projected electrical power production is from the Philippines, Region IV-A
CALABARZON, through biochemical biomass that generates 9,000,000,000 MW
or 9.00 × 109 MW (Co & Paringit, 2020). The Philippines' biochemical biomass in
58
NCR and MIMAROPA has the second and third highest projected electricity,
which yields 2,790,000,000 MW or 2.79 × 109 MW and 540,000 MW or 5.40 ×
105, respectively. Next is thermal gasification and thermal pyrolysis from the
Philippines projected to have similar yields of 24,090 MW/year, followed by
thermal incineration at 21,353 MW/year (Agaton et al., 2020). Malaysia's
biochemical biomass at 2400 MW biomass accompanied by biogas at 410 MW
(Ozturk et al., 2017) ranks next, followed by Lao's PDR thermal incineration
projected at 200 MW (Tun et al., 2020). Lastly, Cambodia's thermal gasification is
at a range of 10-100 MW/year and an average of 55 MW/year (Pode et al., 2020).
4.4.3 Current MWh
59
Figure 4.3. Current MWh Category Ranking from Greatest to Least Electrical Power Production
Figure 4.3 depicts the Current MWh ranking that was gathered from the
sixteen articles that were assessed in the study. According to the data, five articles
used the unit MWh to measure the total energy yield produced by the WtE
technologies mentioned and evaluated in the studies. Results from the evaluation
of WtE technologies are illustrated in a graph below (Figure 4.3), Singapore
yielded the highest current energy production measured by MWh (Tong et al.
2018), producing a total of 3,467 MWh/day or 104,040 MWh/month. This was
followed by Thailand’s Anaerobic Digestion, producing a total of 5,100 MWh/year
or 425 MWh/month (Jutidamrongphan, 2018).
4.4.4 Projected MWh
Figure 4.4. Projected MWh Category Ranking from Greatest to Least Electrical Power Production
From the sixteen publications that were evaluated for the study, Figure 4.4
shows the Projected MWh ranking. Four publications measured the energy
production that could potentially be generated by WtE technologies using the unit
60
MWh. According to the results, three technologies in the Philippines were
evaluated and yielded the highest energy production (Zhao, 2017). The first
technology with the highest amount of electricity is incineration which is projected
to yield a total of 2.97 × 107 MWh or 297,000,000 MWh. Second is anaerobic
digestion which is projected to produce a total of up to 1.4 x 107 or 140,000,000
MWh, third is landfill gas recovery which is projected to produce up to 9.059 × 106
or 90,590,000 MWh (Zhao, 2017).
According to the forecast table by Udomsri et al. (2010), next in the rank is
the Hybrid-Dual Fuel Cycle, projected to produce up to 10 TWh or 10,000,000
MWh. The last three technologies evaluated in the study were conducted in
Indonesia (Sudibyo et al. 2017), fifth from the rank is plasma gasification which is
projected to produce 0.941 MWh/ton. The sixth technology is conventional air
gasification projected to be capable of producing 0.769 MWh/ton of electricity.
Last is incineration which yielded the lowest projected electrical production of
0.316 MWh/ton.
4.5 Proposed Improvements for the Refinement of Existing Waste-to-Energy
Technologies in Southeast Asia
The issue of managing solid waste is becoming increasingly pressing in Southeast
Asian countries. Due to high population growth and increased prosperity, solid waste
generation in these nations is on the rise. Landfills and other conventional waste
management practices can no longer be maintained. Technologies that convert waste into
energy (WtE) could be the answer.
61
WtE is the process of creating usable energy from garbage dumps. Several
different WtE technologies exist, each with its own set of benefits and drawbacks.
Researchers have assessed the gathered literatures, advantages and disadvantages of
various WtE approaches to determine whether or not to pursue the implementation of
WtE, and thus have proposed appropriate improvements for the refinement of such WtE
technologies. The recommendations are as follows: (1) improve waste management
infrastructure in ASEAN countries, (2) create incentives for businesses to invest in WtE
technologies, and lastly, (3) encourage public education and awareness about the benefits
of these methods.
Improving waste management infrastructure is important in Southeast Asian
countries for several reasons. First, it is necessary to have a well-functioning waste
collection system in place in order to collect the solid waste that will be used for WtE.
Second, proper infrastructure is needed to store and process the waste before it is
converted into energy. Finally, having good infrastructure can help to reduce emissions
from WtE facilities and make them more efficient.
For the second recommendation, creating incentives for businesses to invest in
WtE technologies can help increase their adoption and implementation, which can
possibly lead to more jobs being created in the clean energy sector. Most importantly, this
can attract foreign investments and expertise into the ASEAN region.
For the last recommendation on this sector, encouraging public education and
awareness about the benefits of WtE technologies can help to increase support for these
62
technologies. Secondly, it can help people to understand how these technologies work and
how they can benefit from them. Finally, it can help to reduce any resistance or skepticism
that people may have about these technologies.
63
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 CONCLUSION
5.1.1 Methods and Findings
The study utilized the data gathered from the literature/studies in order to
assess the advantages and disadvantages of Waste-to-Energy (WtE) technologies in
Southeast Asia. A total of 66 articles were collected for this study and 16 were
selected in order to provide the necessary data to formulate correlational research
on the WtE technologies used by Southeast Asian countries.
5.1.2 Assessment of the Advantages and Disadvantages of Waste-to-Energy
Technologies
WtE technologies have both advantages and disadvantages in Southeast
Asia. On the plus side, they can help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, generate
electricity, and create jobs. However, they also come with some drawbacks, such
as high costs, negative health impacts, and environmental pollution.
The summary of the assessed advantages that came up from the evaluated
articles consisted of the following: (1) reduction of the amount of solid waste that
is sent to landfills, (2) sustainable waste disposal alternative, (3) generation of a
newly sourced yet sustainable energy that can be used to power homes and
businesses, and lastly, (4) creation of new jobs in the Waste Conversion industry.
64
WtE technologies can help to reduce the amount of solid waste that is sent
to landfills by converting it into energy. This process can help to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and create new jobs in the Waste Conversion industry.
Secondly, WtE technologies can help to generate energy that can be used to power
homes and businesses by converting solid waste into electricity. This process can
help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and create new jobs in the Waste
Conversion industry. Finally, WtE technologies can aid in the creation of new jobs
in the waste conversion industry by providing an alternative to traditional landfill
disposal methods, hence helping in the generation of sustainable electricity and in
the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
The summary of the assessed disadvantages that came up from the
evaluated articles, on the other hand, constituted of the following: (1) the
conversion process can release emissions that are harmful to the environment, (2)
exorbitant water requirement, (3) high cost, (4) political conflict, (5) land scarcity,
and lastly, (6) health and environmental hazards from the incineration process.
The conversion process of WtE technologies can be dangerous in releasing
emissions harmful to the environment and the health of humans and animals. The
process of converting solid waste into energy can generate electricity, but it can
also release harmful pollutants into the air. These pollutants can cause respiratory
problems, heart disease, cancer, and other serious health problems. Some WtE
technologies also require large amounts of water for cooling during the conversion
process. One example of a WtE technology that was found to be requiring large
65
amounts of water and is harmful to the environment is thermal treatment. Thermal
treatment involves burning waste at high temperatures, which can release harmful
pollutants into the air. This can place a strain on water resources in ASEAN
countries, as it can lead to increased demand and consumption of water.
Incineration, the process of burning solid waste, can be dangerous to both
human health and the environment. The emissions from incinerators can contain a
variety of harmful pollutants, including dioxins and furans, which are known to
cause cancer. Additionally, incineration can release particulate matter into the air,
which can aggravate respiratory problems like asthma. Other WtE technologies
that can be hazardous to human health include thermal treatment and gasification.
Thermal treatment involves burning waste at high temperatures, which can release
harmful pollutants into the air. Gasification involves converting solid waste into a
gas, which can also release harmful pollutants into the air.
5.1.3 Assessment of the Ranking of Waste-to-Energy Technologies
Incineration leads the Current MW (Tun et al., 2020), Current MWh (Tong
et al., 2018), and Projected MWh (Zhao, 2017) categories. Biomass leads the
Projected MW category (Co & Paringit, 2020) using an equation formulated by the
same authors.
Current MW and Current MWh electrical output data were gathered from
studies conducted in Singapore (Tong et al., 2018; Tun et al., 2020) which
66
coincides with Singapore’s current WtE classification (Tun et al., 2020). This is the
only country under the “Mature” or “Most Advanced” bracket.
Consequently, Projected MW and MWh categories represent data that were
gathered from studies conducted in the Philippines. Incineration in the Philippines
leads the Projected MWh category. However, it remains important to note that
incineration is banned by law in the Philippines. Thus, under the Projected MWh
category, Biomass, Anaerobic Digestion, Gasification, and Landfill with Gas
Recovery are the next best choices. Although, it can be inferred that incineration
leading the Projected MWh category in a country where it is banned is a testament
to its unrealized potential.
Following the researchers’ findings, it can be inferred that, considering
only the electrical power production, Incineration is the leading choice as it
produces the most electrical power. However, for countries where it is banned,
Biomass, followed by Anaerobic Digestion, Gasification and, lastly, Landfill with
Gas Recovery, would be the next choices based on the existing WtE technologies.
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations were suggested in accordance with the study’s
results and conclusion:
1.
To include more literature. It is recommended to add more literature to the study
to acquire additional information in order to derive more conclusions.
67
2. To expand the criteria. It is recommended to widen the criteria, to include more
countries, or regions allowing the usage and utilization of more research and data
that are equally valuable.
3. To compare the findings with other systematic reviews in the area of interest. It is
recommended to compare the findings with other systematic reviews in the area of
interest as the result of this comparison can be extremely beneficial to the area of
WtE technologies.
4. To conduct more systematic reviews. It is recommended to conduct more
systematic reviews in the WtE technology as the literature here is clearly limited.
5. For the DOE and DENR, to utilize the findings of this research. It is recommended
for the beneficiaries of this research, DOE and DENR, that the findings be utilized
and considered in their implementation and management of currently utilized WtE
technologies, as well as considered for future planning and development of WtE
technologies in the Philippines.
68
REFERENCES:
Adeleke, O., Akinlabi, S., Jen, T. C., & Dunmade, I. (2021, April 1). An overview of
factors affecting the rate of generation and Physical Composition of Municipal
Solid Waste. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 1107(1),
012096. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899x/1107/1/012096
Agaton, C.B., Guno, C.S., Villanueva, R.O., & Villanueva, R.O. (2020, October).
Economic analysis of waste-to-energy investment in the Philippines: A real options
approach.
Applied
Energy,
275,
115265.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115265
Aja, O. C., & Al-Kayiem, H. H. (2014). Review of municipal solid waste management
options in Malaysia, with an emphasis on sustainable waste-to-energy options.
Journal
of Material
Cycles
and
Waste Management, 16(4), 693–710.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-013-0220-z
Ahmed, A., Abu Bakar, M. S., Azad, A. K., Sukri, R. S., & Mahlia, T. M. I. (2018).
Potential thermochemical conversion of bioenergy from Acacia species in Brunei
Darussalam: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 82,
3060–3076. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.10.032
Albores, P., Petridis, K., & Dey, P. (2016). Analysing Efficiency of Waste to Energy
Systems: Using Data Envelopment Analysis in Municipal Solid Waste
Management.
Procedia
Environmental
Sciences,
35,
265–278.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2016.07.007
69
Aquino, A., & Abeleda, C. (2014, July 30). Renewable Energy Act for Energy
Self-Sufficiency and Harmful Emission Reduction. Food and Fertilizer Technology
Center for the Asia and Pacific Region. Retrieved October 22, 2022, from
https://ap.fftc.org.tw/article/721#:~:text=9513%20or%20the%20'Renewable%20E
nergy,while%20protecting%20health%20and%20environment.
Cheng, H., & Hu, Y. (2010, June). Municipal solid waste (MSW) as a renewable source of
energy: Current and future practices in China. Bioresource Technology, 101(11),
3816–3824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.01.040
Co, R.A., & Paringit, E. (2020). An Assessment on the Development of the Nationwide
Solid Waste-To-Energy Potential Model in the Philippines. E3S Web of
Conferences, 190, 00035. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202019000035
Curea, C. (2017). Sustainable societies and municipal solid waste management in
Southeast Asia. Sustainable Asia: Supporting the Transition to Sustainable
Consumption and Production in Asian Developing Countries, 391-415.
Department of Alternative Energy Development and Efficiency. (2009). THE ENERGY
CONSERVATION ACT B.E. 2535. Retrieved October 22, 2022, from
http://berc.dede.go.th/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/EnCon_Act.pdf
Enerdynamics. (n.d.). MW vs. MWh: Do You Know Your Electric Units? - Enerdynamics.
Enerdynamics: The Energy Education Experts. Retrieved April 7, 2023, from
https://www.enerdynamics.com/Energy-Insider_Blog/MW-vs-MWh-Do-You-Kno
w-Your-Electric-Units.aspx
70
Erdiwansyah, Mamat, R., Sani, M. S. M., & Sudhakar, K. (2019). Renewable energy in
Southeast Asia: Policies and recommendations. Science of The Total Environment.
doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.
esters. (2014, February 24). The IUPAC Compendium of Chemical Terminology.
https://doi.org/10.1351/goldbook.e02219
Fetanat, A., Mofid, H., Mehrannia, M., & Shafipour, G. (2019, August). Informing energy
justice based decision-making framework for waste-to-energy technologies
selection in sustainable waste management: A case of Iran. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 228, 1377–1390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.215
Florida, R. (2017, January 19). Does Urbanization Drive Southeast Asia’s Development?
Bloomberg.
Retrieved
October
1,
2022,
from
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-18/how-urbanization-is-drivin
g-southeast-asia-s-economies#:~:text=Southeast%20Asia%E2%80%94the%20regi
on%20of,today%20to%20373%20million%20people.
Gabriel, C.A., & Kirkwood, J. (2016). Business models for model businesses: Lessons
from renewable energy entrepreneurs in developing countries. Energy Policy, 95,
336–349. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2016.05.006
Jain, A. (2017). Waste Management in ASEAN Countries: Summary Report. United
Nations
Environment
Programme.
https://www.unep.org/resources/report/waste-management-asean-countries-summa
ry-report
71
Jutidamrongphan, W. (2018). Sustainable waste management and waste to energy
recovery in Thailand. Advances in Biofuels and Bioenergy, 217.
Khan, I., Chowdhury, S., & Techato, K. (2022, March 22). Waste to Energy in Developing
Countries—A Rapid Review: Opportunities, Challenges, and Policies in Selected
Countries of Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia towards Sustainability.
Sustainability, 14(7), 3740. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073740
Kritjaroen, T. (2011). UNDERSTANDING URBAN GOVERNANCE IN THE
CONTEXT OF PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS: A Case Study of SolidWaste Management in Rayong Municipality, Thailand. Federal Governance, 8(3).
https://doi.org/10.24908/fg.v8i3.4382
Kumar, A., & Samadder, S. (2017, November). A review on technological options of
waste to energy for effective management of municipal solid waste. Waste
Management, 69, 407–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.08.046
Kyaw, W. W., Sukchai, S., Ketjoy, N., & Ladpala, S. (2011). Energy utilization and the
status of sustainable energy in Union of Myanmar. Energy Procedia, 9, 351–358.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.09.038
Liu, Y., & Liu, Y. (2005, April 15). Novel Incineration Technology Integrated with
Drying, Pyrolysis, Gasification, and Combustion of MSW and Ashes Vitrification.
Environmental
Science
&Amp;
Technology,
39(10),
3855–3863.
https://doi.org/10.1021/es040408m
Liu, C. & Wu, X. W. (2010, August 10). Factors influencing municipal solid waste
generation in China: A multiple statistical analysis study. Waste Management &
72
Research: The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy, 29(4), 371–378.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242x10380114
Modak, P., Pariatamby, A., Seadon, J., & Bhada-Tata, P. (2015). Asia Waste Management
Outlook.
United
Nations
Environment
Programme.
https://www.ajne.org/sites/default/files/resource/publications/7249/asia-waste-man
agement-outlook.pdf
Mujiyanto, S., & Tiess, G. (2013, October). Secure energy supply in 2025: Indonesia’s
need
for
an
energy
policy
strategy.
Energy
Policy,
61,
31–41.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.119
Mukherjee, A., Debnath, B., & Ghosh, S. K. (2016). A Review on Technologies of
Removal of Dioxins and Furans from Incinerator Flue Gas. Procedia
Environmental
Sciences,
35,
528–540.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2016.07.037
Ngoc, U.N., & Schnitzer, H. (2009). Sustainable solutions for solid waste management in
Southeast Asian countries. Waste management, 29(6), 1982-1995.
Ni, Y., Zhang, H., Fan, S., Zhang, X., Zhang, Q., & Chen, J. (2009). Emissions of
PCDD/Fs from municipal solid waste incinerators in China. Chemosphere, 75(9),
1153–1158. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.02.051
Ozturk, M., Saba, N., Altay, V., Iqbal, R., Hakeem, K. R., Jawaid, M., & Ibrahim, F. H.
(2017). Biomass and bioenergy: An overview of the development potential in
Turkey and Malaysia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 79, 1285-1302.
73
Pode, R., Diouf, B., & Pode, G. (2015). Sustainable rural electrification using rice husk
biomass energy: A case study of Cambodia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 44, 530-542.
Quirapas, M.A.J.R., Lin, H., Abundo, M.L.S., Brahim, S., & Santos, D. (2015). Ocean
renewable energy in Southeast Asia: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 41, 799–817. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2014.08.016
Ruiz, J. C., Juárez, M., Morales, M. I. P., Muñoz, P., & Mendívil, M. (2013). Biomass
gasification for electricity generation: Review of current technology barriers.
Renewable
&
Sustainable
Energy
Reviews,
18,
174–183.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.10.021
Sapuay, G.P. (2016). Resource Recovery through RDF: Current Trends in Solid Waste
Management in the Philippines. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 35, 464–473.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2016.07.030
Sen, S., & Ganguly, S. (2017). Opportunities, barriers and issues with renewable energy
development – A discussion. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 69,
1170–1181. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.137
Serrona, K. R., & Yu, J. (2009). Finding urban waste management solutions and policies:
Waste-to-energy development and livelihood support system in Payatas, Metro
Manila,
Philippines.
Journal
of
Environmental
Sciences,
21,
S40–S43.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s1001-0742(09)60033-4
Sesotyo, P. A., Nur, M., & Suseno, J. E. (2019). Plasma gasification modeling of
municipal solid waste from Jatibarang Landfill in Semarang, Indonesia: analyzing
74
its performance parameters for energy potential. E3S Web of Conferences, 125,
14009. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/201912514009
Sfeir, H. & Brown and Caldwell. (2013, January). Landfill Gas Potential using the
Philippine Landfill Gas Model [Slide show]. 16th Annual LMOP Conference and
Project
Expo.
Brown
and
Caldwell.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-05/documents/09a_sfeir_presentation.
pdf
Sudibyo, H., Majid, A.I., Pradana, Y.S., Budhijanto, W., & Budiman, A. (2017).
Technological evaluation of municipal solid waste management system in
Indonesia. Energy Procedia, 105, 263-269.
The State of Victoria Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning. (2017).
Turning
Waste
Into
Energy.
Victoria
State
Government.
https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/hdp.au.prod.app.vic-engage.files/9415/0
897/9363/Turning_waste_into_energy_-_Final.pdf
Tong, H., Yao, Z., Lim, J.W., Mao, L., Zhang, J., Ge, T.S., Peng, Y.H., Wang, C.H., &
Tong, Y. W. (2018). Harvest green energy through energy recovery from waste: A
technology review and an assessment of Singapore. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 98, 163–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.09.009
Tun, M. M., Palacky, P., Juchelkova, D., & Síťař, V. (2020, October 19). Renewable
Waste-to-Energy in Southeast Asia: Status, Challenges, Opportunities, and
Selection of Waste-to-Energy Technologies. Applied Sciences, 10(20), 7312.
https://doi.org/10.3390/app10207312
75
Udomsri, S., Martin, A. R., & Fransson, T. H. (2010). Economic assessment and energy
model scenarios of municipal solid waste incineration and gas turbine hybrid
dual-fueled cycles in Thailand. Waste management (New York, N.Y.), 30(7),
1414–1422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.02.009
U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2022, November 29). Measuring electricity U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). eia.gov. Retrieved April 4, 2023,
from
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/measuring-electricity.php#:~:text=
The%20power%20consumption%20of%20small,)%20and%20gigawatts%20(GW)
.
Weatherby, C. (2020, November 11). Waste-to-energy: A renewable opportunity for
Southeast
Asia?
China
Dialogue.
Retrieved
October
2,
2022,
from
https://chinadialogue.net/en/pollution/11093-waste-to-energy-a-renewable-opportu
nity-for-southeast-asia/
World Bank. (n.d.). Trends in Solid Waste Management. (n.d.). Retrieved October 1, 2022,
from
https://datatopics.worldbank.org/what-a-waste/trends_in_solid_waste_management
.html
World Energy Council. (2013). World Energy Resources 2013 Survey. Retrieved October
1,
2022,
from
https://www.worldenergy.org/assets/images/imported/2013/09/Complete_WER_20
13_Survey.pdf
76
Yamamoto, K., Fukuda, M., & Hanatani, A. (2021). Ultrasupercritical and advanced
ultrasupercritical power plants. JSME Series in Thermal and Nuclear Power
Generation, 345–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-820360-6.00007-2
Yazdani, M. G., & Ali, M. H. (2010). Properties of briquette from agricultural waste
available in Brunei Darussalam and its environmental impact. International
Scientific Journal, 1-8.
Yazdani, M.G., Hamizan, M., & Shukur, M.N. (2012). Investigation of the fuel value and
the environmental impact of selected wood samples gathered from Brunei
Darussalam. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(7), 4965-4969.
Yong, Z.J., Bashir, M.J., Ng, C.A., Sethupathi, S., Lim, J. W., & Show, P.L. (2019).
Sustainable
waste-to-energy
development
in
Malaysia:
Appraisal
of
environmental, financial, and public issues related with energy recovery from
municipal solid waste. Processes, 7(10), 676.
Zhao, Y. (2017, January 1). Municipal solid waste management and waste to energy
possibilities
in
the
Philippines.
LUTPub.
Retrieved
from
https://lutpub.lut.fi/handle/10024/136223
77
APPENDICES
A. RESEARCHERS’ PROFILE
78
Abulencia, Crizthal Mae U.
09396505022
2019140451@feu.edu.ph
Bldg 16055-16 arezzo Place Sandoval Avenue,
Ilugin, Pinagbuhatan Pasig City
>> ACADEMIC BACKGROUND
Tertiary Level
Far Eastern University – Manila
Bachelor of Science in Biology
Nicanor Reyes St., Sampaloc Manila
PERSONAL INFORMATION
S.Y 2019-2023
BIRTH DATE: April 7, 2001
Secondary Level
Lasalle College Antipolo
1985 La Salle St, Antipolo, 1870 Rizal
AGE: 21
HEIGHT: 5’3
WEIGHT: 60 kg
Senior Highschool
RELIGION: Catholic
S.Y. 2017-2019
CIVIL STATUS: Single
CITIZENSHIP: Filipino
SPARK School
Raymundo Centennial 2, Pasig, 1602 Metro Manila
SKILLS AND ABILITIES
Junior Highschool
S.Y. 2013-2017
Elementary Level
● Creativity skills
● Flexibility
● interpersonal abilities
SPARK School
Raymundo Centennial 2, Pasig, 1602 Metro Manila
S.Y.2007-2013
Pre- School
Notre Dame of Dadiangas
459C+CJ6, Marist Ave, General Santos City, 9500
South Cotabato
79
S.Y. 2004-2007
>>AFFILIATIONS
Red Cross Youth Council – Far Eastern University
Former member
80
Miranda, Vinz Arnel Jr. R.
09981589504
2019094541@feu.edu.ph
2160 San Andres ext. Santa Ana Manila
>> ACADEMIC BACKGROUND
Tertiary Level
Far Eastern University – Manila
Bachelor of Science in Biology
Nicanor Reyes St., Sampaloc Manila
S.Y 2019-2023
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Secondary Level
BIRTH DATE: April 22, 2022
Colegio de San Juan de Letrán
151 Muralla St, Intramuros, Manila, 1002 Metro
Manila
S.Y. 2014-2019
AGE: 21
HEIGHT: 5’7
WEIGHT: 56 kg
RELIGION: Catholic
CIVIL STATUS: Single
Elementary Level
Saint Pius X Parochial School
CITIZENSHIP: Filipino
SKILLS AND ABILITIES
Paco, Manila, Metro Manila
S.Y. 2008-2013
●
●
●
Collaboration with
groups of people in terms
of schoolwork.
Motivation
Dedication to work
Goal Setting
●
Flexibility
●
Pre- School
Name of School
Complete Address
S.Y. ________
>>AFFILIATIONS
Red Cross Youth Council – Far Eastern University
81
Former member
82
Sarmiento, Danielle Victoria Anne B.
0968 883 5112
2019088641@feu.edu.ph
Block 14, Lot 14, Phase 11, Carmona Estates, Brgy.
Lantic, Carmona, Cavite, 4116
>> ACADEMIC BACKGROUND
Tertiary Level
Far Eastern University – Manila
Bachelor of Science in Biology
Nicanor Reyes St., Sampaloc Manila
PERSONAL INFORMATION
S.Y 2019-2023
BIRTH DATE: November 28, 2001
Secondary Level
St. Anthony de Carmelli Academy Inc.
72VW+HRW, Calumpang Road, Carmona, 4116
Cavite
S.Y. 2015-2019
Monlimar Development Academy
1632, 317 M. L. Quezon St, Lower Bicutan, Manila,
Metro Manila
AGE: 20
HEIGHT: 5’1
WEIGHT: 55kg
RELIGION: Catholic
CIVIL STATUS: Single
CITIZENSHIP: Filipino
SKILLS AND ABILITIES
S.Y. 2013-2015
●
●
Computer Proficiency
Communication and
public speaking
●
Self-management
Elementary Level
Monlimar Development Academy
1632, 317 M. L. Quezon St, Lower Bicutan, Manila,
Metro Manila
S.Y. 2012-2013
Ricardo P. Cruz Sr. Elementary School
157 M. L. Quezon St, Taguig, 1632 Metro Manila
S.Y. 2007-2012
83
Pre- School
Montero's Learning Center
49 Millares St, Lower Bicutan, Taguig, 1632 Metro
Manila
S.Y. 2006-2007
>>AFFILIATIONS
FEU Red Cross Youth Council
Former Blood Services Committee
84
Tag-ulo, Meredith Ysabel Marquez
09508407518
2019106761@feu.edu.ph
31 Cebu Street BF Homes Parañaque City
>> ACADEMIC BACKGROUND
Tertiary Level
Far Eastern University – Manila
Bachelor of Science in Biology
Nicanor Reyes St., Sampaloc Manila
S.Y 2019-2023
Secondary Level
Manila Tytana Colleges
Diosdado Macapagal Boulevard, Pasay City,
Philippines
Senior High School (Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics strand)
PERSONAL INFORMATION
BIRTH DATE: September 28, 2000
AGE: 22
HEIGHT: 5’3
WEIGHT: 52 kg
RELIGION: Roman Catholic
CIVIL STATUS: Single
S.Y. 2017-2019
CITIZENSHIP: Filipino
Elementary Level
SKILLS AND ABILITIES
Gemille School Inc.
5 St. Jude cor. St. Andrew Ave. Lopez Village, Sucat,
Parañaque, Metro Manila
●
S.Y. 2007-2013
●
Pre- School
Gemille School Inc.
5 St. Jude cor. St. Andrew Ave. Lopez Village, Sucat,
Parañaque, Metro Manila
●
●
Well-versed in Microsoft
applications and select
Adobe software
Organized, diligent, and
quality-oriented
Can adapt well to adverse
situations
Collaborative
S.Y. 2004-2007
>>AFFILIATIONS
85
FEU Scholars’ Society
Former Director for Logistics and
Documentation (2020-2021)
86
YULO, Dylan Francesca G.
09398903213
2019087741@feu.edu.ph
Blk 4 Lot 7 Apartment A, La Mirasol Village, Brgy.
San Juan, Taytay, Rizal.
>> ACADEMIC BACKGROUND
Tertiary Level
Far Eastern University – Manila
Bachelor of Science in Biology
Nicanor Reyes St., Sampaloc Manila
S.Y 2019-2023
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Secondary Level
Divine Word College of San Jose
General Lukban Street, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro
5100
S.Y. 2013-2019
BIRTH DATE: March 8, 2001
AGE: 21
HEIGHT: 5’4
WEIGHT: 69 kg
RELIGION: Roman Catholic
Elementary Level
CIVIL STATUS: Single
Divine Word College of San Jose
CITIZENSHIP: Filipino
General Lukban Street, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro
5100
S.Y. 2007-2013
Pre- School
Sto. Niño Montessori School
San Roque II, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro
SKILLS AND ABILITIES
●
●
●
●
Leadership skills
Flexibility
Computer proficiency
Communication skills
S.Y. 2004-2007
>>AFFILIATIONS
87
Red Cross Youth Council – Far Eastern University
Former Officer Creatives Committee (2019-2020)
88