1
“REUSE OF RDF DERIVED FROM MUNICIPAL SOLID
WASTE IN A CEMENT MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
AND POTENTIAL REDUCTION OF CARBON
FOOTPRINT”
Authors:Nagalaxmi Kulkarni,Dr Nagabhushan Biliangandi
Abstract
The global cement industry plays a key role in releasing greenhouse gases (GHG) like
Carbon dioxide,methane and nitrogen oxide respectively .From these gases the carbon
dioxide provides almost 7% in greenhouse gases emission.Therefore,there is a need of
sustainable alternatives which reduces the emission in clinkers.According to the various
studies we found out that the municipal solid waste (MSW) management by exploring its
conversion into refuse-derived fuel fuel(RDF) for cement co-processing ,reducing landfill
dependency and environmental.This paper is also based on field visits like HubballiDharwad Municipal Cooperation (HDMC), City Municipal Cooperation Gokak (CMCG)
and JK Super Cement ,Muddapur were we collected the data relevant to RDF and integrate
into the clinker manufacturing process.In these process we consider the characters of
Municipal solid waste like calorific value, combustion of RDF materials like plastic,
paper,textiles and wood which is 70% suitable to replace the coal in terms of heating value
in terms of manufacturing of cement in clinker
At present the cement manufacturing
industry is replacing petcoke with 25% of RDF which is significant but our objective is to
quantify the potential reduction in GHG emission by replacing it with RDF(ranging from
25% to 50%) and also analyze the economic benefits of RDF utilization in cement
production, including cost savings on fossil fuel.
2
1.Introduction
1.1 What is Carbon Emission?
As we all know that Carbon dioxide is naturally present in the atmosphere as part of the
Earth's carbon cycle (the natural circulation of carbon among the atmosphere, oceans, soil,
plants, and animals) (Carbon Dioxide Emissions | US EPA, 2025)and these carbon
compounds trap heat in the atmosphere resulting in global warming and releases gases like
carbon dioxide ,methane,nitrous oxide,hydro fluro carbon,perfluro carbons and
sulphur hexa fluoride and this process of emitting of gas is know as carbon emission.
1.2 Sources of Carbon Emission (Devi, 2024)






Fossil Fuels: The burning of coal, oil, and natural gas for electricity, heat, and
transportation is the largest source of carbon emissions. Power plants, vehicles, and
industrial facilities are primary contributers.
Industrial Processes: Certain industries, such as cement, steel, and chemical
production, emit significant amounts of CO2 during manufacturing processes.
Deforestation: Trees absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, so cutting down forests for
agriculture, logging, or urban development reduces this carbon sink, increasing
atmospheric CO2 levels.
Agriculture: Agricultural practices, including livestock production and rice paddies,
release other potent greenhouse gases like methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O),
contributing indirectly to the overall carbon footprint.
Waste Management: Landfills and waste treatment plants emit methane, a potent
greenhouse gas, as organic waste decomposes anaerobically. Improper waste
management exacerbates this issue.
Residential and Commercial: Heating, cooling, and energy use in buildings contribute
significantly to carbon emissions, especially in urban areas with high energy demands.
3
1.3 Overall Impact of Carbon Emission in Nature (Devi, 2024)






Climate Change: Increased carbon emissions enhance the greenhouse effect, leading to
global warming. This results in rising global temperatures, melting polar ice caps, and
more frequent and severe weather events like hurricanes, droughts, and floods.
Ocean Acidification: CO2 is absorbed by oceans, forming carbonic acid and lowering
pH levels. This process affects marine life, particularly organisms with calcium carbonate
shells or skeletons, such as coral reefs and shellfish.
Public Health: Higher temperatures and altered weather patterns can lead to health
issues, including heat-related illnesses, respiratory problems from increased air pollution,
and the spread of diseases.
Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Climate change disrupts habitats and ecosystems, leading
to shifts in species distribution, altered migration patterns, and increased risk of
extinction for many species.
Economic Impacts: Climate change affects agriculture, infrastructure, and overall
economic stability. Extreme weather events can damage crops, homes, and businesses,
leading to financial losses and increased costs for recovery and adaptation.
Water Resources: Changes in precipitation patterns and the melting of glaciers affect
freshwater availability, impacting agriculture, drinking water supplies, and hydroelectric
power generation.
1.4 Impact of Carbon Emission From Cement industry
The cement industry is one of the most energy-intensive industrial sectors and is responsible
for approximately 7–8% of global CO₂ emissions (Ali et al., 2011). These emissions
predominantly result from the calcination of limestone and the combustion of fossil fuels
needed to reach the high temperatures required during clinker production. (Azam et al., 2019).
At the same time, the increasing generation of municipal solid waste (MSW) presents a
significant environmental challenge. Current MSW disposal practices includes landfilling,
which contribute to pollution and the release of methane—a potent greenhouse gas. In this
context, the co-processing of MSW in the form of Refuse-Derived Fuel (RDF) in cement kilns
represents a dual-benefit strategy. It addresses the dual challenges of reducing greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions from the cement industry and improving waste management systems by
diverting waste from landfills(Bahor et al., 2009). This study investigates the feasibility,
efficiency, and sustainability of utilizing RDF derived from MSW as an alternative fuel in
cement manufacturing. It aims to assess RDF’s potential to reduce CO₂ emissions, enhance
energy efficiency, and support circular economy principles through sustainable waste reuse.
4
1.5 Impact of Carbon Emission Due to Landfill
Environmental Impact of Waste Management due to Solid waste treatment and disposal
contribute significantly to carbon emissions, raising concerns about their environmental
sustainability in Malaysia. Need for Sustainable Waste Solutions – Assessing the carbon
footprint of different waste treatment methods is crucial for identifying eco-friendly and
efficient disposal techniques to minimize environmental impact. High Carbon Emissions from
Landfills – The study found that landfill disposal is the largest contributor to carbon footprint
emissions among waste treatment methods in Malaysia.so one must dispose waste in proper
such that landfill does not cause emissions
2. Problem Statement
The cement industry is a major contributor to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,
responsible for CO₂ emissions. These emissions primarily arise from the calcination of
limestone and the combustion of fossil fuels to achieve the high temperatures required in
clinker production (Ali et al., 2011). Simultaneously, the management of municipal solid waste
(MSW) presents a growing environmental challenge, with landfilling and incineration
contributing to pollution and methane emissions (Sharma & Jain, 2018). The successful reuse
of MSW as an alternative fuel in cement kilns presents a dual opportunity: reducing GHG
emissions from both the cement sector and waste management systems (Tihin et al., 2023).
However, significant challenges exist in ensuring the feasibility, efficiency, and sustainability
of MSW co-processing, including concerns over emission control, material composition, and
regulatory compliance. This study seeks to explore the potential of MSW-derived fuels in
cement production, assessing their impact on emissions reduction, energy efficiency, and
overall environmental benefits.
3 Objectives

To assess the usage of municipal solid waste (MSW) as an alternative fuel in
cement Industries.

To quantify the potential reduction in GHG emission through substitution of
petcoke with combustible RDF.
 To analyze the economic benefits of MSW utilization in cement production.
5
4.Methodology Adopted
1. Data Collection
Primary data were collected through field visits to both municipal waste management authority
and cement manufacturing plant. From the municipal entity ( Hubballi-Dharwad Municipal
Corporation) list of data collected were: Number of wards
 Total dry waste generated
 Total dry waste processed
 Wet waste generated
 Wet waste processed
 Waste composition
 Daily waste generated
 Quantity of waste produced
Significant data were collected from field visit to J.K Super Cement, Muddapur. The data
Collected were:



Quantity of petcoke used
Quantity of Alternate fuel consumption
Calorific values
Daily Cement production
2. Waste Analysis
A comprehensive analysis data of municipal solid waste (MSW) was provided by the
Municipal corporation from both Hubballi-Dharwad Municipal Corporation to identify
components suitable for RDF production. This involved categorizing the MSW into key
types such as plastics, wood, rubber, and leather. Furthermore, the physical
characteristics and chemical characteristics (calorific value) of these specific waste
streams were provided to assess their suitability as an alternative fuel source.
3. Emission Analysis
Emission analysis was performed to quantify the energy contribution of petcoke
currently used in the cement clinker production process. This assessment established a
baseline for energy consumption, allowing for a comparative evaluation of the potential
energy contribution of RDF. The goal was to determine the equivalent amount of RDF
required to substitute a given quantity of petcoke while maintaining the necessary
thermal energy for clinkerization.
6
4. Cost Analysis
The economic viability of the proposed RDF integration was evaluated through a detailed cost
analysis. This included assessing the price of RDF, petcoke and identifying potential cost
savings. Furthermore, the analysis explored how the adoption of RDF could contribute to
achieving circular economy principles thereby minimizing overall environmental and
economic.
5.Calculations
COST ANALYSIS(25%)
price of RDF=2500 Rs
price of petcoke/ton =13800 Rs.
Cost of 100% Petcoke =
44850000 Rs.
Cost of Fuel (RDF + Petcoke) = 35668750 Rs.
Reduction rate in Cost of fuel is (in %) = 20.471
Table 1. Carbon emission analysis (25%)
Type of RDF
Total Quantity of
Petcoke used
(Traditional Fuel)
Total
quantity of
Petcoke Replaced with
RDF(Purely Plastic)
Total
quantity of
Petcoke Replaced with
RDF(Paper and
Cardboard)
Total
quantity of
Petcoke Replaced with
RDF(Purely
Textile
waste)
Total
quantity of
Petcoke Replaced with
RDF(Purely Rubber
and Leather)
Quantity
Unit
Emission
Factor
Unit
Total
Emission
Unit
2437.5
Tonnes
3.3
CO2e/Kg
8254768.47
CO2e
888.333
Tonnes
3
CO2e/Kg
2664999
CO2e
1666.562
Tonnes
1.6
CO2e/Kg
2665500
CO2e
1480.56
Tonnes
2.15
CO2e/Kg
3183194.44
CO2e
1110.42
Tonnes
2.65
CO2e/Kg
2942604.17
CO2e
7
COST ANALYSIS(30%)
Price of RDF = 2500 Rs
Price of Petcoke/ton = 13800 Rs.
Cost of 100% Petcoke = 44850000 Rs.
Cost of Fuel (RDF + Petcoke) = 33832500 Rs
Reduction rate in Cost of fuel is (in %) = 24.565
Table 2. Carbon emission analysis (30%)
Type of RDF
Total Quantity of
Petcoke
used
(Traditional Fuel)
Total quantity of
Petcoke
Replaced
with RDF(Purely
Plastic)
Total quantity of
Petcoke
Replaced
with
RDF(Paper
and Cardboard)
Total quantity of
Petcoke
Replaced
with RDF(Purely
Textile waste)
Total quantity of
Petcoke
Replaced
with
RDF(Purely
Rubber and Leather)
Quantity
Unit
Emission
Factor
Unit
Total
Emission
Unit
2275
Tonnes
3.3
CO2e/kg
7704.451
TCO2e
1066
Tonnes
3
CO2e/Kg
3198
TCO2e
1998.75 Tonnes
1.6
CO2e/Kg
3198
TCO2e
1776.67 Tonnes
2.15
CO2e/Kg
3819.833
TCO2e
1332.5
2.65
CO2e/Kg
3531.125
TCO2e
Tonnes
8
COST ANALYSIS
price of RDF = 2500 Rs
price of petcoke/ton = 13800 Rs.
Cost of Petcoke = 44850000 Rs.
Cost of Fuel (RDF + Petcoke) = 31996250 Rs
Reduction rate in Cost of fuel is (in %)=28.659
Table 3. Carbon emission analysis (35%)
Type of RDF
Quantity
Unit
Emission
Factor
Unit
Total
Emission
Unit
Total Quantity of
Petcoke
used
(Traditional Fuel)
2112.5
Tonnes
3.3
CO2e/Kg
7154.132
TCO2e
Total quantity of
Petcoke Replaced
with RDF(Purely
Plastic)
1243.67
Tonnes
3
CO2e/Kg
3731
TCO2e
Total quantity of
Petcoke Replaced
with RDF(Paper
and Cardboard)
2331.88
Tonnes
1.6
CO2e/Kg
3731
TCO2e
Total quantity of
Petcoke Replaced
with RDF(Purely
Textile waste)
2072.78
Tonnes
2.15
CO2e/Kg
4456.472
TCO2e
Total quantity of
Petcoke Replaced
with RDF(Purely
Rubber and
Leather)
1554.58
Tonnes
2.65
CO2e/Kg
4119.645
TCO2e
9
COST ANALYSIS
price of RDF = 2500 Rs (1000 waste1000transportation500 handling cost)
price of petcoke/ton = 13800 Rs.
Cost of Petcoke = 44850000 Rs.
Cost of Fuel (RDF + Petcoke) = 30160000 Rs
Reduction rate in Cost of fuel is (in %) = 32.753
Table 4. Carbon emission analysis (40%)
Quantity
Unit
Emission
Factor
Unit
Total
Emission
Unit
1950
Tonnes
3.3
CO2e/Kg
6603.814
TCO2e
1421.33
Tonnes
3
CO2e/Kg
4264
TCO2e
Total quantity of
Petcoke Replaced
with RDF(Paper
and Cardboard)
2665
Tonnes
1.6
CO2e/Kg
4264
TCO2e
Total quantity of
Petcoke Replaced
with RDF(Purely
Textile waste)
2368.89
Tonnes
2.15
CO2e/Kg
6093.111
TCO2e
Total quantity of
Petcoke Replaced
with RDF(Purely
Rubber
and
Leather)
1776.67
Tonnes
2.65
CO2e/Kg
4708.166
TCO2e
Type of RDF
Total Quantity of
Petcoke
used
(Traditional
Fuel)
Total quantity of
Petcoke Replaced
with RDF(Purely
Plastic)
10
COST ANALYSIS
price of RDF = 2500 Rs
price of petcoke/ton = 13800 Rs.
Cost of Petcoke = 44850000 Rs.
Cost of Fuel (RDF + Petcoke) = 28323750 Rs
Reduction rate in Cost of fuel is (in %) = 36.847
Type of RDF
Quantity
Unit
Total Quantity of
Petcoke
used
1950
Tonnes
(Traditional
Fuel)
Total quantity of
Petcoke Replaced
with RDF(Purely 1598.999 Tonnes
Plastic)
Emission
Factor
Unit
Total
Emission
Unit
3.3
CO2e/Kg
6435
TCO2e
3
CO2e/Kg
4796.997
TCO2e
Total quantity of
Petcoke Replaced
with RDF(Paper
and Cardboard)
2998.125 Tonnes
1.6
CO2e/Kg
4797
TCO2e
Total quantity of
Petcoke Replaced
with RDF(Purely
Textile waste)
2664.967 Tonnes
2.15
CO2e/Kg
5729.680
TCO2e
Total quantity of
Petcoke Replaced
with RDF(Purely
Rubber and
Leather)
1998.74
2.65
CO2e/Kg
5296.661
TCO2e
Tonnes
11
COST ANALYSIS
price of RDF = 2500 Rs
price of petcoke/ton = 13800 Rs.
Cost of Petcoke = 44850000 Rs.
Cost of Fuel (RDF + Petcoke) =
26487500 Rs Reduction rate in Cost of
fuel is (in %) = 40.94
Table 5. Carbon emission analysis (50%)
TYPE OF RDF
Quantity
Unit
Emission
Factor
Unit
Total
Emission
Unit
Total Quantity of
Petcoke
used
(Traditional Fuel)
1625
Tonnes
3.3
CO2e/Kg
5503.178
TCO2e
Total quantity of
Petcoke Replaced
with RDF(Purely
Plastic)
1776.67
Tonnes
3
CO2e/Kg
5330
TCO2e
3331.25
Tonnes
1.6
CO2e/Kg
5330
TCO2e
2961.11
Tonnes
2.15
CO2e/Kg
6366.388
TCO2e
2220.83
Tonnes
2.65
CO2e/Kg
5885.208
TCO2e
Total quantity of
Petcoke Replaced
with RDF(Paper
and
Cardboard)
Total quantity of
Petcoke Replaced
with RDF(Purely
Textile waste)
Total quantity of
Petcoke Replaced
with RDF(Purely
Rubber
and
Leather)
12
6.Results and Discussion
Case 1: Comparasion Of RDF (Traditional fuel) and their carbon emission
Emission(tonnesCo2e)
Carbon Emissions
9000 8254,768
7704,451
8000
7154,133
6603,815
7000
6053,497
5503,179
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
25
30
35
40
45
50
Type of rdf (traditional fuel) used in %
Figure 1. Carbon emission for traditional fuel for different percentage RDF use
Discussion:
From figure 1 we come to know that as we increase the percentage of RDF the amount of
carbon emission decreases,thereby by decreasing the usage of petcoke or traditional fuel in
cement industr
13
Case 2: Comparasion Of RDF (Plastic) and their carbon emission
Carbon Emission
Emission (TonnesCo2e)
6000
5330
4797
5000
4264
3731
4000
3000
3198
2665
2000
1000
0
25
30
35
40
45
Type of RDF (plastic) used in %
50
Figure 2. Carbon emission for Plastic for different percentage RDF use
Discussion:
From figure 2 we come to know that as we increase the percentage of RDF the amount of
carbon emission increases ,thereby by increasing the usage of plastic in place of petcoke as an
alternative in cement industry.
Case 3: Comparasion Of RDF (Paper and Cardboard) and their carbon emission
14
Carbon Emission
Emission (TonnesCo2e)
6000
5330
4797
5000
4264
3731
4000
3000
3198
2665
2000
1000
0
25
30
35
40
45
50
Type of RDF (Paper and Cardboard) used in %
Figure 3. Carbon emission for Paper and Cardboard for different percentage RDF use
Discussion:
From figure 3 we come to know that as we increase the percentage of RDF the amount of
carbon emission increases ,thereby by increasing the usage of paper and cardboard in place of
petcoke as an alternative in cement industry.
Case 4: Comparasion Of RDF (Textile) and their carbon emission
15
Carbon Emission
Emissions (Tonnes Co2e)
7000
6366,389
5729,75
6000
5093,111
5000
4000
4456,472
3819,833
3183,194
3000
2000
1000
0
25
30
35
40
45
Type of Rdf (textile) used in %
50
Figure 4. Carbon emission for textile for different percentage RDF use
Discussion:
From figure 4 we come to know that as we increase the percentage of RDF the amount of
carbon emission increases ,thereby by increasing the usage of textile waste in place of petcoke
as an alternative in cement industry.
Case 5: Comparasion Of RDF (Rubber and Leather) and their carbon
emission
16
Carbon Emission
Emission(Tonnes Co2e)
7000
5885,203
6000
5296,688
4708,167
5000
4119,646
3531,125
4000
3000
2942,604
2000
1000
0
25
30
35
40
45
Type of RDF(rubber and leather) used in %
50
Figure 5. Carbon emission for Rubber and leather for different percentage RDF use
Discussion:
From figure 5 we come to know that as we increase the percentage of RDF the amount of
carbon emission increases ,thereby by increasing the usage of leather and cardboard waste in
place of petcoke as an alternative in cement industry.
17
Case 6: Cost Analysis
Cost Analysis
Reduction rate in Cost of fuel (in %)
45
40,94
40
36,848
32,754
35
28,659
30
25
24,565
20,471
20
15
10
5
0
25
30
35
40
45
Percentage(%) of RDF used
50
Figure 6. Cost Analysis for increase in percentage of RDF
Discussion:
From figure 6 we come to know that as we increase the percentage of RDF the amount of fuel
cost reduces for each 5 % increase in percentage,thereby reducing suggesting that higher is the
percentage of RDF used lower is the cost of fuel.
18
7.Conclusion






Replacing pet coke with RDF in the cement industry can be beneficial due to its
potential for cost savings and environmental advantages. RDF can also reduce reliance
on fossil fuels and help in waste management.
From the results we can conclude that replacing pet coke with 50% of RDF results in
higher rate in reduction of fuel cost.
It is observed that for every 5% increase in the RDF there is 4% increase in the reduction
of fuel cost.
From the results we can conclude that Traditional pet coke has the highest emission and
plastic has the least emission amongst all and also plastic has higher calorific value than
Rest of the RDF therefore we can use plastic for replacing Petcoke.
Replacing 25% Petcoke with RDF Gives the least amount of emission.
The project overall aims to meet the sustainable aspect, efficient consumption of
resources and also stresses on the effects of GHG’s on the environment thereby
satisfying the 5 USTDG sustainable development goals that are UNSTG no
7(Affordable and Clean Energy), UNSTG no 9(Industry, Innovation and
Infrastructure), UNSTG no 11(Sustainable cities and comminites), UNSTG no
12(Responible Consumption and Production) and UNSTG no 13(Climate Action).
19
References
Azam, M., Jahromy, S. S., Raza, W., Jordan, C., Harasek, M., & Winter, F. (2019). Comparison
of the combustion characteristics and kinetic study of coal, municipal solid waste, and refuse‐
derived fuel: Model‐fitting methods. Energy Science & Engineering, 7(6), 2646–2657.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ese3.450
Bahor, B., Van Brunt, M., Weitz, K., & Szurgot, A. (2009). Life-Cycle Assessment of Waste
management greenhouse gas emissions using municipal waste Combustor data. Journal of
Environmental
Engineering,
136(8),
749–755.
|
EPA.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)ee.1943-
7870.0000189
Carbon
dioxide
Emissions
US
(2025,
February
13).
US
EPA.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/carbon-dioxide-emissions
Devi, M. (2024, June 3). Carbon emissions: causes, impacts, and solutions. GLB.
https://www.globallaunchbase.com/post/carbon-emissions-causes-impacts-and-solutions
Sharma, K. D., & Jain, S. (2018). Overview of municipal solid waste generation, composition,
and
management
in
India.
Journal
of
Environmental
Engineering,
145(3).
https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)ee.1943-7870.0001490
Tihin, G. L., Mo, K. H., Onn, C. C., Ong, H. C., Taufiq-Yap, Y., & Lee, H. V. (2023). Overview
of municipal solid wastes-derived refuse-derived fuels for cement co-processing. Alexandria
Engineering Journal, 84, 153–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2023.10.043