PRODUCTION OF THERMOELECTRIC
POWER FROM SOLID WASTE OF SOME
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS OF
LAHORE
By
Mohammad Rafiq Khan
Lahore School of Economics
INTRODUCTION
The study was undertaken with the following objectives in mind:

Safe and techno-economic disposal of solid waste produced in
the scheduled educational institutions

Study of the feasibility of production of thermo-electric power from
the biomass of solid waste

Later extension of the study to higher levels such as village, town,
and national city level

Recommendations to all concerned for effective solid waste
management and production of thermoelectric power to eliminate
power in Pakistan
Collection of Data
METHODOLOGY
OF RESEARCH

Processing of Data
 Interpretation of Results
The preliminary enquiry revealed that the total waste produced in
the scheduled institutions were approximately as follows:
 LSE
200 Tons per Annum
 LUMS
500 Tons per Annum
 KC
200 Tons per Annum
 GCU
720 Tons per Annum
Description of Detailed Methodology in

(1) Khan MR and Pervez, F. 2009. Production of
Thermoelectric Power from the Solid Wastes of Kinnaird
College, Environ Monitor, IX (9&10): 14-28
(2) Khan, MR and Sheikh, S. 2010. Production of
Thermoelectric Power from Solid Waste: A Case of Lahore
School of Economics, International Energy Journal 11:51-64
The two sets of projects;
One related to the actual waste of the institutions and
second to the amounts that had the likelihood of
qualifying the projects as feasible for subsequent
implementation are reported in Table 1 and 2.
Table 1: Bases and requisites of alternative
projects (Assessed weight of solid waste)
Alternatives
Solid Waste-Tons/Annum
1
2
3
4
5
6
200
200
500
500
720
720
Excluded
Included
Excluded
Cost of Land
Included Excluded
Included
Live Steam Temperature
600Co to 650Co
600Co to 650Co
600Co to 650Co
Live Steam Pressure
70–80 kg/cm²
70–80 kg/cm²
70–80 kg/cm²
Fuel Steam Ratio
1:7
1:7
1:7
Steam Produced
1,400 Ton/Annum
4,200 Ton/Annum
4.200 Ton/Annum
Multistage Turbine
Light Duty
Light Duty
Light Duty
Steam Consumption/ kW
5 kg/kW
5 kg/kW
5 kg/kW
Electricity Produced
280,000 kW/Ann.
700,000 kW/Annum
1,008,000 kW/Annum
Steam Produced /hr
0.16 Ton/hr
0.4050 Ton/hr
0.5832 Ton/hr
Electricity Produced/Hr
32-40 kW
81.10 kW
116 kW
Table 2: Bases and requisites of alternative
projects (Increased weight of solid waste)
Alternatives
Solid Waste-Tons/Annum
7
8
9
10
600
600
1,000
1,000
Included
Excluded
Cost of Land
Included
Excluded
Live Steam Temperature
600Co to 650Co
600Co to 650Co
Live Steam Pressure
70–80 kg/cm²
70–80 kg/cm²
Fuel Steam Ratio
1:7
1:7
Steam Produced
4,200 Ton/Annum
7,000 Ton/Annum
Multistage Turbine
Light Duty
Heavy Duty
Steam Consumption/ kW
5 kg/kW
5 kg/kW
Electricity Produced
840,000 kW/Annum
1,400,000 kW/Annum
Steam Produced /hr
0.486 Ton
0.81Ton/hr
Electricity Produced/hr
97.22 kW
162kW
RESULTS
Nature and Composition of Solid Waste
Sub-Processes at Sugar Mill

Bagasse Storage

Transport to the Boiler

Boilers

Turbines

Supply of Electricity
Bagasse Storage
Transport to boiler
Boiler
Turbine
Supply of electricity
Figure 1: Flow sheet showing the sub-processes
in the process of production of electricity from
bagasse
Figure 2: Flow Sheet of Bagasse Transport to
Boiler
Figure 3: Flow Sheet of Boiler-Supplied by
Pattoki Sugar Mill
Figure 4: Flow Sheet of Turbine-Supplied by Pattoki
Sugar Mill
Sub-processes of the Project: Same as above except the
substitution of Bagasse by Solid waste
Solid Waste
Transport to boil
Boiler
Turbine
Supply of electricity
Figure.5: Flow sheet diagram of the designed project.
RESULTS OF COST ANALYSIS
The integrated results of cost analysis are computed in Table 3 to 6.
Table 3: Computation of results of evaluation of alternatives- for LSE (US$)
Alt.
PV of
Benefits
PV of
Costs.
BCR
NPV
Initial
Annual
Investment Return
PBP-Years
1
190,196
1,206,599
0.15
–1,016,403
920,950
-7,455
Infinite
2
190,196
539,933
0.35
–349,737
264,167
--7,455
Infinite
8
562,967
539,933
1.04
23,034
264,167
53,212
5.
10
935,738
539,933
1.73
395,805
264,167
110,100
2.39
Table 4: Computation of results of evaluation
of alternatives for KC (Rupees)
Alt.
PV of
Benefits
PV of Costs
BCR
NPV
1
190,196
4,539,933
0.04
2
190,196
539,933
0.35
–349,737
8
562,967
539,933
1.04
10
935,738
539,933
1.73
Initial
Annual
Investment Return
– 4,349.737 4,264,167
PBP-Years
-7,455
Infinite
264,167
--7,455
Infinite
23,034
264,167
53,212
5
395,805
264,167
110,100
2.39
Table 5: Computation of results of evaluation of
alternatives for LUMS (Rupees)
Alt.
PV of
Benefits
PV of Costs
BCR
NPV
Initial
Investment
Annual
Return
PBP Years
3
469,774
1,739,933
0.26
- 1,270,159
1,464,167
34,267
42.7
4
469.774
539,933
0.87
– 70,159
264,167
34,267
7.7
8
562,967
539,933
1.04
23,034
264,167
53,212
5.
10
935,738
539,933
1.73
395,805
264,167
110,100
2.39
Table 6: Computation of results of evaluation of
alternatives for GCU (Rupees)
Alt.
PV of
Benefits
PV of Costs
BCR
NPV
Initial
Investment
Annual
Return
PBP
Years
5
674,798
7,206,503
.0.09
–6,531,795
6,930,833
67,633
102
6
674,798
548,266
1.23
126,532
264,167
67,633
3.90
8
562,967
539,933
1.04
23,034
264,167
53,212
5
10
615,738
539,933
1.73
395.805
264,167
110,100
2.39
DISCUSSION

Lahore School of Economics

Kanaird College

Lahore University of Management Sciences

Government College & University Lahore
CONCLUSIVE REMARKS