Full Text

Turn on search term navigation

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

Energy is essential for human survival; the long-term viability of contemporary society is reliant on a reliable and accessible energy source. Since energy security is one of the primary concerns of world politics, economics, environmental challenges, and climate change, it must be addressed [1]. Although energy is required in every sector of life, lighting, heating, and air conditioning consume the majority of it [2]. As a result of the rising need for electricity, the fluctuating price of oil, and the leakage of greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change, the globe is in the process of finding new solutions [3]. As a result, promoting innovative renewable applications and supporting the market for renewable energy will aid in the ecosystem’s preservation by lowering emissions on both a local and global scale [2]. Renewable energy sources have enormous potential as they may possibly supply the entire global energy demand. Renewable energy sources, such as biomass, sun, wind, hydropower, and geothermal, can provide sustainable energy utilities, relying on the usage of locally accessible resources [4,5]. Given that the cost of solar and wind energy systems has significantly decreased over the past 30 years and that gas and oil prices have been fluctuating, a switch to renewable energy sources appears to be inevitable [6]. Bioenergy is the conversion of biomass into beneficial energy sources, like heat, electricity, and liquid fuels [7]. Biomass for bioenergy can be obtained directly from the soil in the form of specially cultivated energy crops; or, it can come from waste materials left over after harvesting crops for food processing or other goods, like paper and wood pulp. Municipal solid waste (MSW) is therefore seen as another significant source [6]. And, because of the persistence of such solid waste, society requires methods to manage it. Sustainability in solid waste management (SWM) systems is one of the greatest issues in developing nations, including Palestine [8]. Waste-to-energy (WTE) technologies have been among the most advantageous solid waste management alternatives. WTE is the production and utilization of energy through the treatment of solid waste. WTE stations utilize the following technologies: incineration, gasification, pyrolysis, anaerobic digestion, refuse-derived fuel, and landfilling [9]. It is an efficient means of eradicating waste-generation issues and a valuable source of free energy at the same time [10]. In addition, it decreases the emissions generated from improper waste disposal and generates revenue. Therefore, it is an encouraging development in waste management [11,12].

It is estimated that over 800 WTE thermal plants are in operation in nearly 40 countries worldwide and that 11 percent of treated MSW can create up to 429 TWh of energy [11,13,14]. In Tan and Ho’s [11] study, for instance, they claimed that waste may be a resource that contributes to the socioeconomic development of towns and nations with the proper exploitation of technology and policy developments. The Palestinian government’s strategic plans (2017–2022) seek to reduce reliance on imported energy, reduce CO₂ emissions, and promote sustainable MSW disposal methods [15]. The MSW management strategies can be viewed as innovative technologies that could be applied in Tulkarm so that the city can reap the benefits of electricity recovered from waste.

Tayeh and Alsayed [15] observed that, in Palestine, particularly Tulkarm, the lack of funding and the absence of a policy framework and enabling institutions, as well as an extremely generic and limited analysis, have limited the investigations into the potential of MSW management solutions being feasible.

As a result, this study offers a reference that backs up the shortcomings of the studies that have been conducted on SWM technologies in Palestine and the distribution of the city of Tulkarm. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to evaluate Tulkarm’s waste management options and their potential effects on the environment, human health, the economy, and the energy sector. Additionally, different scenarios are used to evaluate the possibilities of utilizing waste as a clean and dependable energy source. Each scenario’s performance is roughly calculated and discussed. Additionally, this paper analyzes the economic and technological challenges that Palestinians confront in the energy sector and explores the possible use of solid waste as a sustainable energy source, based on the national solid waste management policy.

1.2. Energy Status in Tulkarm

Palestine is a developing country that requires a diverse array of energy sources to achieve substantial strides in enhancing living conditions, fostering economic growth, and assuring long-term development. Unfortunately, as illustrated in Figure 1, diesel fuel dominates Palestine’s current energy scenario.

The biggest energy issues facing Palestine are the lack of natural resources brought on by population growth and the political and financial instability [17]. As there is no indigenous power source that has been created, these factors contribute to Palestine’s unstable energy situation. As a result, Israel accounts for the majority of Palestine’s energy imports, which are made according to logistical and political considerations [18]. As illustrated in Figure 2, the majority of electrical energy supplied to the Palestinian area is imported. The Israel Electric Power Company provides power to Palestine through private establishments present in every governorate. However, some regions, such as Tulkarm, have an electrical shortage, resulting in regular power outages throughout the year, particularly in the summer. Regardless of the different barriers, energy imports have not increased, leaving this Palestinian city vulnerable to massive power outages that could have a significant impact on the lives of its residents [19].

1.3. MSW Management in the Governorate of Tulkarm

The Tulkarm governorate is located in the West Bank region of Palestine. In West Bank, the Palestinian Ministry of Local Government has established the Palestinian National Waste Management Policy, a comprehensive waste management strategy to be applied across all governorates in Palestine [21]. Figure 3 depicts the procedure for disposing of waste [22]. About 40% of the waste in the Tukaram region is collected by the Tukaram Joint Service Council (JSC); meanwhile, 60% of it is collected by the Tulkarm Municipality. After that, the transfer station (TS) receives the complete collection of waste. Approximately 168 tons of waste are collected and carried daily to the Tulkarm Transfer Station and then to the Zahrat Al-Finjan landfill (LF). Jenin JSC manages Zahrat Al-Finjan, which is the nearest LF to Tukaram [22]. This landfill, with a surface size of 2.9 million square meters, opened in 2009. It was initially designed to accommodate the waste disposal needs of Jenin and Tubas [23]. According to El-Kelani and Shadeed [24], it is currently collecting waste from the provinces of Tulkarm, Nablus, and Ramallah. In urban areas, there are seven weekly collections; whereas, rural regions have between two and seven collections. The average collection cost per tonne of MSW is USD 44.5. This charge was computed as USD 25.5 per ton for the cost of collecting, USD 10 for the cost of transportation, and USD 9 for the cost of storage [22].

1.4. Composition of the Palestinian MSW

There are a number of factors that affect the composition of urban municipal solid waste (MSW), including population density, standard of living, household income, traditions and practices, seasonal changes, and rises in processed foods [25]. Municipal solid waste consists of both biodegradable organic materials (manure or agricultural waste) and non-biodegradable elements, like plastic, rubber, glass, cardboard, leather, metal, etc. [26]. Figure 4 shows the average composition of the MSW in Palestine in 2019 [27].

The volume and type of the waste affect the possibility of energy production using MSW [28]. It is necessary to have a better understanding of the makeup of municipal solid waste in order to transition from resource-based waste management systems to landfill-based systems [29]. Knowing the makeup of MSW could aid in developing effective waste management strategies that prioritize waste reduction and produce electricity [30]. This saves natural resources, lowers greenhouse gas emissions, and decreases the quantity of waste sent to landfills. The percentages and amounts of municipal solid waste that each WTE technology uses are outlined in Table 1, which is organized according to waste composition.

On the basis of the waste composition and the amount of waste utilized by various WTE technologies, it is evident that waste-to-energy technology is one of the most impactful methods of managing solid waste. In the sections that follow, the potential for energy recovery from municipal solid waste via a variety of methods is investigated. This study concentrates mainly on waste management in the Tulkarm region.

2. Methodology

This study proposes a technique to enhance a city’s sustainability efforts and lower its carbon footprint by efficiently managing municipal solid waste (MSW) and converting it to energy. The first phase entails researching a given region to determine its waste management methods and energy requirements, as well as providing a baseline for evaluating the strategy’s effectiveness. Data collection is essential for measuring the quantity and composition of municipal solid waste, estimating the potential for energy generation, and calculating CO₂ emission reductions. By transforming municipal solid waste into energy through waste-to-energy technologies, the plan not only diverts waste from landfills but also provides renewable energy to power city services. This strategy also minimizes greenhouse gas emissions by improving waste-collecting techniques and can result in cost saving by limiting waste-disposal costs and decreasing dependency on conventional energy sources.

Successful implementation of the strategy used in this study could have a significant impact on a city’s sustainability efforts and reduce its carbon footprint. By effectively managing MSW and turning it into energy, waste disposal is reduced and renewable energy is produced, which may be used to power a variety of facilities. In addition, reducing greenhouse gas emissions produced during waste collection can assist the city in achieving its environmental objectives and fostering a more sustainable future.

Figure 5 provides a summary of the strategy’s implementation process, illustrating essential processes, such as evaluating the area, collecting data, estimating energy and CO₂ savings, and considering the possibility of cost savings. The illustration provides a visual depiction of the strategy, making it easier for other organizations and municipalities to reproduce and adapt it to their own situations. This study can serve as a model for other organizations engaged in sustainable waste management and renewable energy production.

2.1. Study Area

This research focuses mostly on the Tulkarm region, which is situated in the extreme northwest of the West Bank, with the geographic coordinates [32.3194° N, 35.0240° E]. Tulkarm is a significant agricultural hub due to its location in a region with abundant agricultural resources. In the thriving city of Tulkarm, the shortage of energy is causing significant issues.

The city, with an area of 28 km², is inhabited by almost 70,000 people [31]. Several districts make up the Tulkarm governorate, including the city center and the old town, the western district next to the city center, the northern district, the southern district, the eastern district, the Shweika district, the Iktaba district, the Thanabah district, the Al-Rasheed district, the Al-Azab district, the Kafa district, the Irtah district, the Mohandessin district, a residential district with inhabitants, the Al-Aqsa district, the Jabal Al-Sayed district, the Jabal Al-Nasr district, the Al-Salam district, and two refugee camps: camp Tulkarm and camp Nur Shams [32], as shown in Figure 6.

Typically, Tulkarm consumes 40 MWh of electricity per day; the energy deficit is estimated to be 5 MWh per day [33]. Tulkarm’s power is predominantly supplied by the Israeli Power Company, which offers two primary connection points, assuring a consistent supply of electricity to the city [19], as seen in Figure 7. In addition, in the past 5 years, a lot of projects utilizing the PV solar energy supply have been implemented. However, it is not currently regarded as a dependable source of energy. These two sources work together to guarantee Tulkarm has a consistent and long-term supply of power [19].

Tulkarm was selected as the place for carrying out this research because of the frequency and severity of the power outages that occur throughout the summer season. The data for this research were collected during the period of 2022–2023. These outages can cause major interruptions to the everyday lives of the residents in the vicinity; so, a solution to this problem is critical. This study’s goal is to create a long-term solution that will assure the city’s uninterrupted electricity supply.

2.2. Data Collection

During 2022, Tulkarm generated a tremendous amount of municipal solid waste (MSW), over 90 tons per day or about 32,850 tons per year [33]. Unfortunately, this number keeps rising year after year. Individually, 0.83 kg of solid trash is produced every day on average [32]. The animal husbandry and crop cultivation in the area account for a sizeable percentage of this waste. About 1980 animals in the region create 4839.9 tons of manure yearly; meanwhile, around 93 thousand fowl produce 1.347 tons, according to the Tulkarm Directorate of Agriculture. Approximately 14,655.5 tons of agricultural waste are created annually, which is a staggering amount. This amount is added to the overall amount of waste produced, which is 52,346.8 tons. The aforementioned information is tabulated in Table 2.

2.3. Estimation of Energy Potential Using Different Technologies

The technologies used for capturing landfill gas, incineration, gasification, and anaerobic digestion have the ability to recover energy. The MSW created should be looked at in light of each of these technologies to determine which one makes the strongest case for Tulkarm’s energy production.

2.3.1. Capturing of Landfill Gas Technology

This method is not a treatment process; landfilling is an alternative to liberating landfill gas (LFG) into the atmosphere [36]. The procedure of landfilling as a final way to weed out MSW remains mostly accepted and used due to its frugal economic advantages. The landfilling method is defined as the operation of disposing, compressing, and embanking waste at suitable sites. The landfill, at present, is easy, adaptable, and has minimal costs compared to the other disposal methods; it stands alone as the only disposal method for all waste materials [37]. Landfill treatments are categorized into three kinds: aerobic, semi-aerobic, and anaerobic.

Historically, landfills were run as “dry-tomb” types; but, landfills have started to shift towards running as bioreactors. Running landfills as bioreactors (aerobic, optional, or anaerobic) has many pros over the conventional dry-tomb way (anaerobic) of landfilling. These advantages include: safeguarding the environment; increasing the potential of energy production using LFG; recirculation of leachate and in-situ treatment leading to decreased treatment costs; greater stabilization rates allowing for more storage because of increased density; increasing the rate of decomposition and lessening the post-closure monitoring period; and increasing sustainability allowing for the probable reuse of this land [38,39,40].

LFG is a complicated mixture of various gases composed of microorganisms in a landfill [41]. Landfill mismanagement can lead to pungent odors, dust, and litter in the vicinity; uncontrolled emissions of LFGs, like CH₄ and CO₂, that contribute extremely significantly to climate change; and infiltration of the leachate composed in the landfill into surface water and groundwater [42]. LFG is produced greatly by the bacterial decomposition of organic waste that exists in landfills of solid waste. LFG generation in landfills includes three phases: decomposition of bacteria, chemical interactions, and volatilization [41]. LFG is ideal as a fuel for the production of power or heat, generating both power and heat, or as a fuel for transportation because it includes 45–55% methane gas. The majority of the residue is CO₂. Cribriform pipes are introduced into the garbage to collect the LFG. Both horizontal and vertical arrangements of these pipes are possible. The gas enters the cribriform pipelines and is transported to a system for gas refining to remove hydrogen sulfide. After being scrubbed, the gas can either be burned in flares or used in energy recovery systems, such as gas turbines, internal combustion engines, steam boilers, microturbines, etc., to generate electricity while lowering GHG emissions (see Figure 8) [43,44].

The appreciation of methane emissions from landfills is mostly achieved by a first-order decay (FOD) model that computes the methane generation rate proportionate to the waste input. There are various models via which to implement this process, such as using the landfill gas emissions model (LandGEM) within a Microsoft Excel interface [44]. The annual electricity that may be obtained from the LandGEM methane generation rate was calculated using Equation (1).

ERP_LG = LCV_biogas.Q_CH₄.γ.η(1)

The parameters used in the landfill scenario are shown in Table 3. Although LFG should not be considered a major WTE technology, it is a requirement for cities that must operate sanitary landfills since there is no other option. Rather than brand-new WTE initiatives, the LFG collection is seen as a potential option for current landfills [43].

2.3.2. Anaerobic Digestion Technology

Anaerobic digestion is a process in which microorganisms break down biodegradable materials without the need for oxygen. This is a complicated process that requires particular environmental conditions and various bacterial populations for decomposing the organic waste to attain the end product, a mixture of gases with valuable high energy (fundamentally CH₄ and CO₂) labeled biogas [45]. For that purpose, an anaerobic digester is utilized to create the ideal environment for microorganisms to convert the input feedstock, organic matter, into biogas. Additionally, if the feedstock is uncontaminated and derived from separated organic waste, the process will provide a substance known as digestate, a solid–liquid residue that may be used as organic fertilizer [43]. The predominant energy component of biogas is the ignitable gas methane (CH₄), whose proportion varies between 50 and 75% depending on operating circumstances and feedstock [46]. The heating value of biogas (5.5 to 7.5 kWh/m³) is roughly two-thirds of the amount of natural gas due to its low methane concentration [43].

The anaerobic digestion process includes four main chemical and biological stages: firstly, hydrolysis; then, acidogenesis; after that, acetogenesis; and finally, methanogenesis [47]. Anaerobic digestion depends on several parameters for an optimized performance. Various sets of microorganisms are included in methane production; suitable qualifications have to be instituted to maintain balance in all of the microorganisms. Some of these parameters are pH, temperature, C/N ratio, substrate, mixing, and hydraulic retention time (HRT). Digestion is a lazy process and it takes at least three weeks for the microorganisms to adjust to a new situation from the time that there is a change in temperature or substrate [48]. Figure 9 depicts the production of biogas from manures and organic waste during anaerobic digestion.

Around the world, there are several distinct anaerobic digester designs with varying degrees of complexity. As stated in reference [49], anaerobic digestion can be categorized based on the feeding method (continuous or batch), temperature range (psychrophilic—below 25 °C, mesophilic—35–48 °C, and thermophilic—above 50 °C), reactor type, and number of stages (digestion can occur in one or more stages). Biogas can be used in a combined heat and power plant, or right away, to produce heat by converting it to heat and electricity, the latter ordinarily occurs after drying and desulfurization [50]. The biogas that comes from the digesters is transmitted to a combustion engine, which converts it into mechanical and electrical energy [51].

The potential energy recovery from the anaerobic digestion process of MSW was calculated using Equation (2). Table 4 provides an illustration of the parameters employed in the anaerobic digestion scenario.

ERP_AD = P.R_AC.f.M_OFSW.Q.η(2)

Biogas demands a liquid fuel for the starting ignition [52]. Diesel fuel can also be combined with biogas for power generation [53,54,55,56,57]. Biogas has specific advantages when compared to other alternatives in renewable energy. It can be stored easily and generated when needed. Biogas can be distributed within the existing infrastructure of natural gas and utilized in the same manner as natural gas [58]. Small-scale biogas plants are an option that effectively works in underdeveloped nations. The key element of success resulting from adopting anaerobic digestion at larger scales is the well-separated organic waste fraction. However, in many countries, the organic waste is often mixed with other matter, which often hampers the success of WTE anaerobic digestion plants [43].

2.3.3. Incineration Technology

Waste incineration is the main method of waste treatment technology, which converts biomass into electricity [59]. Municipal solid waste incineration (MSWI) refers to the controlled burning of waste in a specialized facility. The purpose of MSWI is to make the waste chemically inert so that it can burn without additional fuel, a process called autothermic combustion. This also reduces the bulk and volume of the waste. Additionally, MSWI allows for the recovery of energy, metals, and minerals from the waste as byproducts [60]. Hot combusted gas, consisting primarily of CO₂, nitrogen (N₂), oxygen (O₂), and water (H₂O, flue gas), is the end product obtained from burning waste, which has been transferred to be used in flue gas purification. Additional caution is needed for non-combustible residues and a secure location would be needed for the final disposal of hazardous fly ash [59,60].

When organic fuel substances within waste have reached the necessary inflammation temperature and come into contact with oxygen, they will burn. The actual combustion operation takes place in the gas state within fractions of seconds and simultaneously liberates energy where the supply of oxygen and the waste calorific value are sufficient; this can result in a thermal chain reaction in addition to self-supporting combustion [61].

The actual incineration plant design and configuration will differ significantly between technology providers. An incinerator with energy recovery incorporates the following key components: waste reception and handling, combustion chamber, energy recovery plant, emission clean-up for combustion gases, bottom ash handling, and air pollution control residue handling [62]. The temperature of the reaction is between 850 and 1450 °C. The excess heat from incineration may be utilized to produce steam for district heating and cooling, feed steam to local process businesses, or generate electricity. The main components of a MSW incineration are shown in Figure 10 [63].

Plants that generate electricity while also using a cogeneration system for thermal power (heating and cooling) can achieve efficiency levels as high as 80%. However, the greatest efficiency level for producing power alone is just about 20% [43]. Equation (3) was used for computing the potential energy recovery from the MSWI method, with Table 5 illustrating the parameters used in the MSWI scenario.

(3) $E R P_{i} = η . M . L C V_{M S W}$

Regardless of the fact that the waste incineration sector has a bright future. Nonetheless, numerous problems have emerged as a result of the quick expansion of waste-incineration facilities, including unsuitable placements, excessive fly ash generation, and environmental impact assessments (EIA). Therefore, it is crucial to make sure that the waste incineration process is safe for the environment and the general public [64].

2.3.4. Gasification Technology

Gasification is considered one of three major (alongside pyrolysis and incineration) thermochemical conversion methods utilized for energy recovery from biomass substances. Gasification, which generates energy from biomass, also involves heating biomass at high temperatures (over 1000 °C), under the limited support of oxygen, to generate a mishmash of gases (CO₂, CO, and H₂) collectively referred to as syngas. The combustible syngas constituents are H₂ and CO; they can be utilized as fuel for gas engines to heat and generate electricity in addition to participating in chemical production (such as organic acids, alcohols, methanol, and ammonia) through the Fischer-Tropsch process [65]. Equation (4) was used for computing the potential energy recovery from the gasification method, with Table 6 illustrating the parameters used in this scenario.

ERP_G = 0.28.G.R_f.η.LCV_MSW(4)

The importance of the gasification method is that it assists waste management and, at the same time, generates energy and other useful products required for economic growth. Systems engineered to gasify coal are supposed to be fit to use biomass well; meanwhile, characteristic variations of biomass and coal can have a significant impact on the sizing and design of the combustion chamber in the gasification system and the gasifying agent location [66]. A graphical representation of a gasification process that explains feedstock flexibility and the production of a vast range of products is shown in Figure 11.

Gasification technology has been presented for several decades and has, as of now, been commercialized in very few countries in the world, such as Sweden, Canada, Germany, India, China, and the United States. Using this technology displays many economic and ecological advantages, like a reduction in the environmental impacts of waste disposal, depressed emissions of pollutants, lower operating costs, and non-hazardous by-product generation when biomass feedstock is used [67]. Gasification happens in a gasifier through chemical reaction chains that are usually endothermic; to supply the reactions to work successfully and for the heat required for pyrolysis and drying to occur, a certain quantity of exothermic burning is permitted in the gasifier [67,68]. The gasifier and its configuration are the main factors that impact the entire gasification process, including the reactions happening and their products [69]. Gasifiers are generally sorted into three broad sets, namely, fixed-bed gasifiers, fluidized-bed gasifiers, and entrained-flow gasifiers. Although gasification technology may be deemed a useful technology for energy recovery regarding biomass substances, the technological choices regarding the gasification system types (fixed-beds, fluidized-beds, or entrained-flow reactors) for biomass conversion are still constrained by a host of technical impediments that have blocked significant exploitation of gasification technology and the energy of biomass as a whole. The quality of the syngas produced, its conversion mechanism, and the lack of feedstock elasticity are the main snags. Because the thermodynamics of the process are not well understood, its success is not as simple as can be imagined. Further utilization of the technology requires overcoming a large number of technical matters [70].

2.4. Economic Analysis

The financial analysis of WTE technologies takes into account factors such as variable plant prices based on the technology, feedstock, location, the high cost of eliminating harmful emissions, and potential financial strains brought on by technical issues and large waste capacity [71]. A techno-economic study that takes factors like LCOE, NPV, and IRR into account can be used to assess the economic viability of a WTE plant, evaluating a technology’s economic feasibility by weighing the project’s costs and benefits, which include income streams, capital and operating expenses, and environmental and societal benefits [72]. The environmental performance of WTE plants must be taken into account since environmental rules and policies may have an influence on the project’s financial viability [72]. Collected from previously published research, Table 7 presents the cost analyses of several WTE technologies for both developed and developing nations [73].

WTE thermal technologies, which include both incineration and gasification, are the most expensive. Studies have shown that in developing countries, regarding MSWI stations, savings for start-up costs can be available; meanwhile, sources of funds for operating costs are often insufficient. In this case, external sources of funding would be required for such projects; this is a difficult matter on the political level and with regard to the renewable laws related to incineration treatments. These high costs, whether in incineration or gasification, make waste generators prefer to use current disposal methods in regular landfills. Resorting to solutions in such stations at low costs negatively affects the environment, quality, profits, and finances as well.

Gasification is the most expensive of all of the techniques because of the need for highly developed technologies. Also, as noted, the range of costs for these stations is wide because of the differences in these technologies. Developing countries also suffer in adopting them because of these very expensive costs.

The cheapest method is the LFG capturing project, which is more of a treatment than an approved technology. It is used in abundance in developing countries due to its low cost. Even these profits are not at a good level; so, it is not used for economic reasons but environmental ones.

In the case of anaerobic digestion, the profits depend on the quality of the primary waste used. So, as a developing country with an environment closer to the countryside, the nature of life here is far from the predominance of industry; given the expansion of the plant and animal agricultural sector and the proportions of relatively predominant organic waste, the profits in these projects are good. Anaerobic digestion does not require expensive waste separation. It additionally raises the potential revenues from system byproducts that are excellent organic fertilizers in agriculture. AD project costs are reasonable and available. As well as being a good economic option for saving energy imports, it can save waste disposal costs in landfills and make fairly good profits [43]. Figure 12 shows the ranges for the total annual costs of each technology.

Resorting to WTE technologies and approving their establishment in the region saves the costs of transporting waste to the main landfills in neighboring areas as well. Figure 13 shows the possible savings from waste transportation in the study area per ton of waste.

2.5. Environmental Analysis

Although generating power and lowering the quantity of garbage in landfills with energy from waste may seem like a good combination, it has certain drawbacks. In order to select efficient recycling and disposal practices, it was important to examine the environmental effects of the current waste disposal systems.

2.5.1. Capturing Landfill Gas Technology

Our ecosystem is affected by the disposal of waste in landfills. The environmental gain is that methane from the LFG is captured and burned, helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in addition to other dangerous pollutants. LFG is also making a difference in improving air quality when used to replace diesel in transportation or fossil fuels in combustion operations [43].

Despite being one of the easiest options for disposing of MSW, it comes with a number of environmental problems. It has stoked worries about contamination of the land, water, and soil [22]. MSW landfill consequences concern the leak of sullied leachate and LFG [37] since the escaping gas seems to build up in adjacent structures and trigger explosions [43]. Through the gaps within the liners, leachate can move to groundwater or, indeed, surface water. The building of landfills has natural repercussions that might result in changes in the landscape and the eviction of wildlife [74]. Additionally, there is an offensive odor caused by landfill gas [37].

2.5.2. Anaerobic Digestion Technology

There are several environmental advantages to converting organic waste. This system lowers greenhouse gases, like methane, by transforming the biogas produced into electric or thermal energy. Methane has a high concentration and is 25-fold stronger than CO₂ in terms of causing climate alterations [75]. The production of biogas that is high in methane, a sustainable substitute for fossil fuels, is anaerobic digestion’s evident advantage [76]. Because the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere after fermentation and combustion is equal to the amount used to generate biomass, the entire process is said to be carbon-neutral. Mineral fertilizers, which require a lot of energy, can be replaced by using anaerobic digestate as a natural fertilizer [43]. Additionally, this reduces the smell to levels below those of unprocessed waste [77]. Unfortunately, there are significant environmental drawbacks to using the anaerobic digestion process. The release of biogas from digesters that are not run correctly might pose a risk to the environment. In addition, digested material leaks into waterways, causing water contamination, and local ecosystems may be harmed. Also, methane is a very flammable gas, which can result in dangerous issues, like explosions [43].

2.5.3. Incineration Technology

One of the goals of municipal solid waste incineration is to help reduce the overall environmental damage that may result from uncontrolled dumping, landfilling, or open burning. In addition to reducing the volume of waste, incineration also conserves landfill space, which helps preserve the environment. It is also a feasible method for the disposal of some hazardous wastes (such as biomedical waste) [43]. Despite the fact that it has been hailed as an important carbon emission reduction strategy, the environmental damage caused by waste incineration is significant and cannot be ignored. As a result of burning, the regional air quality has been damaged more than it would be by landfills [78]. Two sorts of toxins that are habitually discharged amid the burning are trace metals and natural micropollutants, which may be harmful to human health [79]. Additionally, contaminants from incinerators can amass in human adipose tissue, enter the nourishment chain, and hurt the immune system [80]. Immediate side effects, such as queasiness and vomiting, as well as long-term ones, like kidney damage and cancer, can result from hazardous ash exposure [81]. Both those who live near the incinerator and those in the neighborhood are affected. In order to manage waste, this procedure is frequently utilized as a last option.

2.5.4. Gasification Technology

The technology for gasification has substantial environmental advantages. High temperatures and controlled levels of oxygenation are combined during gasification to convert carbon-containing materials into syngas [82]. Low oxygen concentrations limit the development of dioxins and the high levels of SOx and NOx [83], lowering methane emissions and causing an approximately 95% reduction in the garbage going to landfills. Additionally, by displacing conventional fossil fuel-based power generation [84], municipal solid waste gasification has the potential to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. There could be drawbacks to this technology though. Operating the gasifier has a number of risks, including the possibility of fires, combustible gases, fumes, particles, carbon monoxide inhalation, and more [85]. Moreover, depending on the fuel content and gasification procedure, the gas generated by waste gasification may contain harmful chemicals, such as tars, particulates, halogens, heavy metals, and alkaline compounds. When heavy metals are released into the environment, they can build up and become hazardous; whereas, halogens that are released into the atmosphere cause acid rain [82]. Significantly damaging consequences for the environment include the production of fly ash, the dispersion of dust, the discharge of gaseous pollutants, and the poisoning of water supplies [83]. Due to the high amounts of acidity found in landfills and the ash that remains after gasification, many problems may arise. Wastewater is released as a result of the cooling and cleaning that the produced syngas goes through [84]. In addition, the presence of tar in biomass gasifiers puts the environment and public health in danger. These tars are frequently dumped into the neighborhood untreated and contain compounds that are mutagenic and carcinogenic.

3. Result and Discussion

The results of this study will be analyzed and discussed in this section. The LandGEM tool is used to undertake the assessment of biogas generation. The potential for energy recovery for each strategy is then calculated. Environmental and economic assessments are also carried out.

3.1. Calculation of Biogas Production Using the LandGEM

Based on the LandGEM, after establishing all input values (K,L₀) in this study, k is considered to be 0.03 year⁻¹ and L is 120 m³/Mg. Figure 12 displays the annual emission rates of landfill gas, methane (CH₄), carbon dioxide (CO₂), and non-methane organic compounds (NMOCs). The research will run for 17 years, from 2024 to 2040. The landfill outcomes are as follows: the maximum rate of landfill gas generation is shown as 4317 Mg year⁻¹ in 2041; the highest CO₂ emission rates are shown as 3070 Mg year⁻¹ in 2042; and the highest rate of CH₄ generation is shown as 1100 Mg year⁻¹ as shown in Figure 14. There is no NMOC creation shown during the power-generation phase. Based on the aforementioned results, it is due to the first-order decay equation’s exponential relationship. The findings indicate that after 17 years, 886,209 m³ of methane will have been created.

3.2. Estimate of Energy Potential for Various Technologies

Figure 15 displays the outcomes of the energy-recovery potential when applied to all of Tulkarm’s MSW. It is evident that the highest amount of energy could be recovered through incineration (40,986 kWh/day), followed by gasification and anaerobic digestion (14,663.88 and 5156.15 kWh/day, respectively); meanwhile, landfilling could (3563.87 kWh/day) produce the lowest amount of energy recovery.

3.3. Economic Analysis

Figure 15 shows the energy cost savings associated with each technology used. The tariff cost of this study was USD 0.12 per kilowatt-hour produced, based on Palestinian electricity supplier prices. When the cost savings were calculated for each technology, incineration was found to have the highest one at USD 4918.12 and landfilling had the lowest at USD 427.66.

In addition, Figure 16 shows the savings from waste transfer operations compared to the usual traditional method of sending it to landfills in other regions if WTE technologies are adopted in the same region. As it turns out, an amount of USD 1980 is saved per day for the amount of MSW produced in the region of Tulkarm.

3.4. Environmental Analysis

This section presents an estimation of the carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions associated with the production of conventional energy in Tulkarm using coal, oil, and natural gas. It was calculated what percentage of each fuel type would be used to generate power. Additionally, as shown in Table 8, the corresponding CO₂ emissions were calculated.

The amount of CO₂ emissions saved by switching to waste-to-energy (WTE) technologies was calculated by estimating the quantities of coal, petroleum, and natural gas required to produce the same amount of electrical energy as was produced by WTE technologies. A comparison of the CO₂ savings from various technologies is shown in Figure 17. Incineration reduces CO₂ more than landfilling, which saves the least.

3.5. Challenges and Recommendations

Energy generated from waste has the potential to be a model solution to both rising waste levels and the trend toward maximizing the use of sustainable energy resources. However, not all approaches for generating energy from waste are considered equal. They vary in regard to the amount of energy that can be properly harvested, their economic viability, and their environmental impact. In this section, the four WTE technologies are studied and compared to determine which is the best, most suited, and most economically viable option for energy recovery in the area of interest in Tulkarm.

3.5.1. The Incineration Approach

The incineration approach could be advocated as the optimal solution to the energy-shortage problem in Tulkarm and the elimination of all associated issues. This technique’s energy production may approximately compensate for the energy deficit by a factor of eight, providing energy security. However, there are certain hurdles to the adoption of this technology as a potential alternative bioenergy option for the energy supply shortage.

The most significant obstacles affecting the adoption of the incineration approach are:

−. The economic-related issues:

As indicated earlier in the economics section, waste thermal treatment methods are the most expensive of all and, in developing countries, such as the case of Palestine, the initial funds for the incineration plant are available while the operational costs are usually insufficient and difficult to obtain. Therefore, in such projects, a search is made for other financing sources to cover the costs of the station and its operation. Particularly in Palestine, where the municipal budget deficit prevents them from covering the cost of energy due to the country’s poor economic circumstances. Therefore, in this case, we would resort to dealing with investors from outside the country and most of the external sources of economic support would be European or American. Mainly, most of the financial support for the National Authority comes from donations from external countries. Accordingly, Palestine is facing an important obstacle in regard to financial support.

The European Commission is one of the major donors who contribute to the costs of establishing alternative energy courses. However, in December 2019, it was stated that the European Commission is considering removing incineration from its list of climate change mitigation initiatives. According to the statement, reducing incineration and avoiding waste disposal will help the circular economy. As a result, government support for incineration plant projects will be limited since it contradicts their environmental, economic, and political security.

Based on the foregoing facts, it is critical to think carefully before embarking on these projects, taking into account the difficulties raised.

−. The environmental-related issues:

The incineration plants suffer from obvious ill-treatment, which is a highly significant aspect that affects the environment. The press release from Zero Waste Europe may explain this negative environmental impact. It claims that “evidence from all sources indicates that WTE incineration is a high-carbon-intense source of energy, a source of air pollution, and a dangerous technology”. It throws governments and communities in a specific position, with no way to encourage waste reduction and recycling. Even if someone enjoyed burning waste, it could hardly be deemed environmentally friendly or sustainable [87]. It is clear that waste incineration is extremely bad for the climate. According to national data collected by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for their eGRID database, incineration emits around two and a half times more carbon dioxide than conventional coal power plants when producing the same amount of electricity.

Due to the fact that Tulkarm, the study area, is a relatively small area, the incinerator would be constructed near the residential areas of the local population in the city. Therefore, the populace would be directly impacted by its emissions, which may have a negative effect on public health. On the basis of these highlighted factors, incineration cannot be promoted as a viable alternative solution from an environmental standpoint. In addition, incineration is not a clean energy source that nations are striving to adopt. As a result, incineration is removed from the list of approved WTE techniques as environmental considerations are of the utmost importance, despite the fact that incineration generates the highest amount of energy at around 40.98 MWh per day.

3.5.2. The Gasification Approach

And now let us look at the other thermal treatment alternative, which is the gasification process. Gasification is a process involving very advanced technology and it cannot be a suitable solution in the proposed study based on several data points that hinder this, including the fact that the process needs equipment with very advanced techniques and technology. This is the case whether considering the level of the gasifier itself or other associated systems, the most important of which are the treatment systems, which are an important and high-tech part. These machines with these technologies and functions are a major obstacle to importing them from abroad. The main aspects affecting the adoption of the gasification approach could be clarified as follows.

−. Political-related aspects:

As Palestine is not yet an independent state, the Israeli government’s customs control are required to determine the entry of high-tech components and machinery. According to the Palestinian Authority for Quality and Environment, this largely inhibits the entry of such technology. These essential items of equipment for thermal waste treatment operations are most often denied import approval by the Israeli government. To exert pressure on the Israeli government to permit the importation of these gadgets, the Palestinian The authority was compelled to introduce external media from European and other countries. Consequently, they were able to implement one mechanism. As they argue, the act of importing such high-tech equipment poses a threat to the Israeli government due to its high-tech heating system. It is stated that it is feasible to control the equipment and transform it into a deadly substance, which is an extremely complex and nearly impossible operation.

−. Gasification-scale-related issue:

From another angle, the capacity of large-scale gasification stations is 10 MW or more [88]. Therefore, the amount of daily energy that is produced from such as atation is estimated to be 14.6 MW per day, meaning that, when thinking about establishing a power station that depends on gasification, the plant should be planned on a large-scale basis. As a result, this could be a major issue due to the fact that the large-scale gasification stations that currently exist are very limited, according to a reference study by Mutz and Hengevoss [43]. According to this study, the advanced technology and operating requirements, the very precise waste input requirements, and the expensive initial capital expenses make it impossible to implement gasification technology on a large scale [39]. Due to these technical challenges, the establishment of gasifiers and their current use in other locations are extremely limited. In addition, this study emphasized that municipal conditions in the majority, if not all, developing nations do not justify the use of pyrolysis or gasification.

Based on the aforementioned facts and situations that exist in developing countries, even in those governed by more challenging conditions, it is apparent that gasification is one of the final viable solutions Palestine is capable of implementing.

−. Cost-related issue:

An important aspect is also the cost and economics related to the system. As mentioned earlier, this technology is the most expensive among all of the alternatives; also, this high cost is difficult to obtain from local investors because of the insufficient availability of torrents and the lack of expertise that guarantees the success of the money invested in it. It works with advanced techniques and there are not a sufficient amount of reliable knowledge experts in Palestine about such systems and technologies. Mutz and Hengevoss’ [43] study underlined that in developing nations, the comparatively high operation and investment costs do not warrant experimenting with a niche technique for extremely selective fractions, which are rare in municipal waste. Palestine as a developing nation, suffers from economic instability and current financial issues. As a result, the prospect of adopting gasification as a solution is limited as a result of its unrealistic cost, inability to be financially implemented, and lack of competence.

On the basis of these arguments, the gasification approach is ruled out as a feasible alternative. As a theoretical solution, it is possible to obtain an abundance of energy by gasification. Based on the observed findings, it is the second-best solution when there is an abundance of energy production, assuming its capabilities are present and its restrictions are eliminated. However, given the existing circumstances and conditions, it cannot be included in the proposed list of potential solutions.

3.5.3. The LFG and AD Approaches

As for now, the biological methods may remain among the four alternatives that have been investigated. These alternatives include the capture of LFG and AD. A comparison between those approaches, in terms of environmental impact and the efficiency of energy production, is carried out.

LF energy production

According to the information obtained from the electricity department in the Tulkarm municipality, the amount of energy deficit is estimated to be 5 MWh per day; through the option of capturing gas from landfills, it cannot meet and cover this amount of deficit as it only covers approximately 70% (around 3.6 MWh per day). Therefore, there is a need for an alternative to cover this visible deficit. In the case of the bio-digester, it does cover the deficit as it produces about 5 MW, or a little more, from municipal solid waste only.

AD energy production

It may certainly be able to produce greater amounts of energy by anaerobic digestion if the fraction of animal manure that is not used as fertilizer is used directly and produced as energy. It is very effective as it is rich in total, which contributes to the production of biogas, as well as agricultural residues, which may contribute to the production of energy in limited quantities. Therefore, this technology provides additional energy as a reserve during peak times and times of crisis from an environmentally friendly source. From this aspect, the digester excels over landfills significantly and takes priority to be the optimal choice for us.

LF environmentally

Environmentally, concerning landfills, the amount of gas that is captured is often less than expected; this means that there are gas leaks to the surrounding environment. The US Environmental Protection Agency indicated that the rate of gas capture in landfills ranges from 60% to 85%. In developing countries, with their limited economic and technical capabilities, this percentage barely reaches 50%; if these leaks, which must exist and result from the system, are considered a clear and certain security threat that could lead to explosions, this option is an environmentally bad one.

AD environmentally

Regarding the anaerobic bio-digester, it is an environmental option par excellence as the efficient management of the system preserves it from leaks; this is something that can be achieved with follow-up and good management. It is a technology that contributes well to preserving the environment from pollution and, given that, the anaerobic bio-digester also gets an additional point. It is the most environmentally friendly option as well.

AD and LFG costs

In terms of costs, in both cases, it is available and can be supplied. Also, at the level of Palestine and the local state of energy, anaerobic digestion technology is a good contribution to and presence in several local institutions and projects, including the Al-Jabrini Company in Hebron, which depends on the dung of cows to produce a large percentage of the energy operating for the company’s explosives using anaerobic digestion, as well as other examples. This is a good and encouraging advantage of working within the scope of this technology as it was studied and pre-applied and is useful. On the other hand, gas capture systems from landfills have not yet been tested in Palestine.

As instances of solid waste production rise, there is a negative impact on a number of industries, the environmental sector being the most significant. Additionally, as the energy gap widens as a result of the rising population density and other economic and political constraints, it is deemed appropriate and beneficial to turn to useful energy sources that turn waste into energy. In conclusion, and based on the offered and discussed factors, it is advised that the anaerobic digestion process be chosen as the most suitable and effective solution; hence, the anaerobic digester dominates and tops the list of approaches.

4. Conclusions

In this study, four bioenergy systems, namely, landfill gas capture, anaerobic digestion, incineration, and gasification, were investigated. The purpose of this investigation was to fill the estimated 5 MW per day energy shortage in the Palestinian city of Tulkarm utilizing WTE technologies. The results showed that incineration produces the most energy, followed by gasification, and then anaerobic digestion; whereas, landfill gas collection produces the least and the landfill cannot cover this deficiency on its own. In addition, the amount of energy produced by each of the four technologies was determined. The results of the costs of energy savings and the reductions in carbon dioxide emissions indicated that the greater the amount of energy, the greater the cost savings and the greater the harmful emissions that would have been produced if fossil fuels had been used in the region’s typical electricity networks. Accordingly, the results indicated that incineration is the most cost-effective and environmentally friendly option. Then, gasification, anaerobic digestion, and lastly, landfill gas capture. Each of the four technologies’ effects on the environment, as well as their financial effects in terms of savings and costs, were discussed. It was advised that anaerobic digestion technology be implemented as an optimal and suitable approach to address the issue of an energy shortfall in Tulkarm; this was determined after taking into account several environmental, economic, political, and other factors. Additionally, it might offer a clean energy source that takes into account Palestine’s existing financial needs and environmental concerns.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, W.A.S.; Methodology, W.A.S., M.A. (Mai Abuhelwa) and M.J.K.B.; Software, A.Z. and M.A. (Mai Abuhelwa); Validation, M.A. (Mai Abuhelwa) and M.J.K.B.; Formal analysis, M.A. (Manar Atatri), A.Z. and R.A.; Investigation, R.A.; Resources, A.Z.; Data curation, M.A. (Manar Atatri) and R.A.; Writing—original draft, W.A.S., M.A. (Manar Atatri), A.Z. and R.A.; Writing—review & editing, W.A.S., M.J.K.B. and B.A.Z.; Supervision, W.A.S.; Funding acquisition, B.A.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Data Availability Statement

No data available.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Figures and Tables

Figure 1. Imported energy in Palestine by type during 2020 (data collected from PCBS [16]).

Figure 2. Quantity and country of electricity (MWh) in Palestine (data collected from [20]).

Figure 3. Palestinian solid waste management process flow.

Figure 4. Solid waste compositions for Palestine in 2019 (data extracted from [27]).

Figure 5. Research methodology.

Figure 6. Tulkarm city map with neighborhoods indicated.

Figure 7. Monthly kilowatt hour (kWh) for Tulkarm City through lines 1 and 2, (Data source [34]).

Figure 8. Components of a landfill gas-capturing system for power production.

Figure 9. Parts of an anaerobic digestion facility.

Figure 10. Components of a MSW incineration.

Figure 11. A Schematic representation of a gasification process.

Figure 12. The ranges for the total costs of each technology.

Figure 13. Savings from waste transportation.

Figure 14. Annual emission rates (Mg year−1) of LFG, CH4, CO2, and NMOC for the Tulkarm landfill (2024–2040).

Figure 15. Energy-recovery potential and COE by various technologies.

Figure 16. Savings in waste transfer operations compared to the traditional method.

Figure 17. CO2 savings from each technology.

Table 1

Composition and percentage of the waste that was used for each WTE technique.

MSWComposition	Percentage in Palestine	AnaerobicDigestion	Gasification	Incineration	Landfilling
Organic	50%	√			√
Paper	12%		√	√	√
Plastic	15%		√	√	√
Metals	2%				√
Glass	2%				√
Other	19%		√	√	√

Table 2

MSW data in Tulkarm in 2022 [35].

municipal solid waste (ton/year)	32,850
sum of agricultural residues (ton/year)	14,655.6
sum of animal manure (ton/year)	4841.247
final solid waste total (ton/year)	52,346.8

Table 3

The parameters used in landfill technology.

Parameters		Value of the Parameters	Units
Low Calorific Value of Biogas	LCV_Biogas	5.56	KWh/m³
Methane Generation	Q_CH4	2427.97	m³/day
Efficiency of Biogas Recovery System	γ	80	%
Electrical Efficiency	η	33	%

Table 4

The parameters used in AD technology.

Parameters		Value of the Parameters	Units
LCV of Biogas due to Methane	Q	5.56	KWh/m³
Number of Population	P	69,937	Capita
Organic Fraction of Solid Waste	F	50	%
Efficiency of Process	η	26	%
Amount of Waste Produced per Capita	R_AC	0.85	Kg/capita.day
Methane Generation per ton of Organic Fraction of Solid Waste	M_OFSW	120	m³/ton

Table 5

The parameters used in MSWI technology.

Parameters		Value of the Parameters	Units
Lower Calorific Value of Waste	LCV_MSW	5.5	KWh/m³
Total Mass of Dry Solid Waste	M	41.4	ton/day
Efficiency of Process	η	18	%

Table 6

The parameters used in gasification technology.

Parameters		Value of the Parameters	Units
Lower Calorific Value of Waste	LCV_MSW	5.5	KWh/m³
Daily Tonnage Processed	G	90	ton/day
Ratio of Excluded after Mechanical Handling	R_f	46	%
Efficiency of Process	η	23	%

Table 7

WTE technologies cost comparison.

WTE Technologies	Capital Cost(US$/Ton of MSW/Year)	Operational Cost(US$/Ton of MSW/Year)
Capturing of Landfill gas	10–30	1–3
Anaerobic digestion	50–350	5–35
Incineration	400–700	40–70
Gasification	250–700	45–85

Table 8

Comparison of Fuel Types and Corresponding CO₂ Emissions in Palestine (Data source: [86]).

Fuel Types	% of Fuel Use	CO₂ Emissions (tons/kWh)
Coal	26	1.035 × 10⁻³
Petroleum	44	16.435 × 10⁻³
natural gas	30	60.655 × 10⁻³

References

1. Lyu, C.; Ou, X.; Zhang, X. China automotive energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions outlook to 2050. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang.; 2015; 20, pp. 627-650. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11027-014-9620-1]

2. Omer, A.M. Energy, environment and sustainable development. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2008; 12, pp. 2265-2300. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2007.05.001]

3. Weliwaththage, S.R.; Arachchige, U.S. Solar energy technology. J. Res. Technol. Eng.; 2020; 1, pp. 2265-2300.

4. Farjana, S.H.; Tokede, O.; Ashraf, M. Environmental Impact Assessment of Waste Wood-to-Energy Recovery in Australia. Energies; 2023; 16, 4182. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en16104182]

5. Lubańska, A.; Kazak, J.K. The Role of Biogas Production in Circular Economy Approach from the Perspective of Locality. Energies; 2023; 16, 3801. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en16093801]

6. Herzog, A.V.; Lipman, T.E.; Kammen, D.M. Encyclopedia of life support systems (EOLSS). Forerunner Volume: Perspectives and overview of life support systems and sustainable development. Renew. Energy Sources; 2001; 76.

7. Shah, T.M.; Khan, A.H.; Nicholls, C.; Sohoo, I.; Otterpohl, R. Using Landfill Sites and Marginal Lands for Socio-Economically Sustainable Biomass Production through Cultivation of Non-Food Energy Crops: An Analysis Focused on South Asia and Europe. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 4923. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su15064923]

8. Al-Khateeb, A.J.; Al-Sari, M.I.; Al-Khatib, I.A.; Anayah, F. Factors affecting the sustainability of solid waste management system—The case of Palestine. Environ. Monit. Assess.; 2017; 189, pp. 1-12. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10661-017-5810-0] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28144876]

9. Salah, W.A.; Abuhelwa, M.; Abusafa, A.; Bashir, M.J.K. The feasibility of renewable energy recovery from municipal solid wastes in Palestine based on different scenarios. Biofuels; 2023; 14, pp. 499-507. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17597269.2022.2151428]

10. Abuhelwa, M.; Salah, W.A.; Bashir, M.J.K. Potential energy production from organic waste and its environmental and economic impacts at a tertiary institution in Palestine. Environ. Qual. Manag.; 2023; 32, pp. 167-177. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tqem.21960]

11. Tan, S.T.; Ho, W.S.; Hashim, H.; Lee, C.T.; Taib, M.R.; Ho, C.S. Energy, economic and environmental (3E) analysis of waste-to-energy (WTE) strategies for municipal solid waste (MSW) management in Malaysia. Energy Convers. Manag.; 2015; 102, pp. 111-120. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.02.010]

12. Salah, W.A.; Abuhelwa, M.; Bashir, M.J.K. Overview on the current practices and future potential of bioenergy use in Palestine. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefin.; 2021; 15, pp. 1095-1109. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bbb.2224]

13. Johari, A.; Ahmed, S.I.; Hashim, H.; Alkali, H.; Ramli, M. Economic and environmental benefits of landfill gas from municipal solid waste in Malaysia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2012; 16, pp. 2907-2912. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.02.005]

14. Tozlu, A.; Özahi, E.; Abuşoğlu, A. Waste to energy technologies for municipal solid waste management in Gaziantep. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2016; 54, pp. 809-815. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.097]

15. Tayeh, R.A.; Alsayed, M.F.; Saleh, Y.A. The potential of sustainable municipal solid waste-to-energy management in the Palestinian Territories. J. Clean. Prod.; 2021; 279, 123753. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123753]

16. PENRA: Palestinian Energy and Natural Resources Authority. 2020; Available online: http://www.penra.pna.ps/ar/index.php?p=penra10 (accessed on 15 February 2022).

17. Salah, W.A.; Abuhelwa, M.; Bashir, M.J. The key role of sustainable renewable energy technologies in facing shortage of energy supplies in Palestine: Current practice and future potential. J. Clean. Prod.; 2021; 293, 125348. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125348]

18. Kreitem, G.M.; Khatib, I. Renewable Energy Exploitation in Palestine: Current Practice & Future; LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing: Saarbruecken, Germany, 2018.

19. Salah, W.A.; Abuhelwa, M. Energy status and practices for efficient energy management to reduce power interruptions: A case study on Tulkarm district in Palestine. Int. J. Sustain. Energy; 2020; 39, pp. 685-699. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14786451.2020.1748630]

20. PCBS. Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics. 2018; Available online: https://www.pcbs.gov.ps/statisticsIndicatorsTables.aspx?lang=en&table_id=528 (accessed on 10 February 2019).

21. Thöni, V.; Matar, S.K. Solid Waste Management. 2019; Available online: https://www.cesvi.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/SWM-in-Palestine-report-Thoni-and-Matar-2019_compressed-1.pdf (accessed on 21 January 2020).

22. Tayeh, R. Solid Waste Management Strategies via Waste to Energy (WtE) Potential Assessment in Palestine. Ph.D. Thesis; An-Najah National University: Nablus, Palestine, 2019.

23. Villa, F.; Vaccari, M.; Gibellini, S. Separate Collection of Organic Waste and Cardboard: Assessing the Impact of a Development Cooperation Project in Tulkarem, West Bank. Environ. Eng. Manag. J. (EEMJ); 2018; 17, pp. 2473-2484.

24. El-Kelani, R.J.; Shadeed, S.M.; Hasan, A.F.R.; Ghodieh, A.M.; Burqan, M.A. Geospatial Implications Assessment of Zahrat Al Finjan Solid Waste Landfill, North of West Bank, Palestine. IUG J. Nat. Stud.; 2017; 25, pp. 1-9.

25. Nadaletti, W.; Cremonez, P.; De Souza, S.; Bariccatti, R.; Belli Filho, P.; Secco, D. Potential use of landfill biogas in urban bus fleet in the Brazilian states: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2015; 41, pp. 277-283. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.08.052]

26. Nanda, S.; Berruti, F. Municipal solid waste management and landfilling technologies: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett.; 2021; 19, pp. 1433-1456.

27. Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung. Palestine: Solid Waste Management under Occupation. Available online: https://ume.la/elQvQF (accessed on 11 July 2021).

28. Singh, R.; Tyagi, V.; Allen, T.; Ibrahim, M.H.; Kothari, R. An overview for exploring the possibilities of energy generation from municipal solid waste (MSW) in Indian scenario. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2011; 15, pp. 4797-4808. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.071]

29. Burnley, S.J. A review of municipal solid waste composition in the United Kingdom. Waste Manag.; 2007; 27, pp. 1274-1285. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2006.06.018] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17011771]

30. Ludwig, C.; Hellweg, S.; Stucki, S. Municipal Solid Waste Management: Strategies and Technologies for Sustainable Solutions; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012.

31. WAFA. The Palestinian News & Information Agency. 2022; Available online: https://info.wafa.ps/ar_page.aspx?id=3297 (accessed on 15 February 2022).

32. Hamadah, S.R. Comparative Analysis of Separation Versus Direct Transport of Solid Waste from Tulkarem District to Zahret Al-Finjan. Ph.D. Thesis; An-Najah National University: Nablus, Palestine, 2011.

33. Palestine Municipality of Tulkarem Sustainable Energy Action Plan (SEAP), CES-MED. 2016; (Unpublished Material)

34. Tulkarm-Municipality. Imported Energy in Palestine by Type During 2020. 2020; Available online: https://mycovenant.eumayors.eu/docs/seap/21696_1464105679.pdf (accessed on 15 February 2022).

35. Tulkarm Directorate of AgricultureMinistry of Agriculture. 2022; Available online: https://www.moa.pna.ps/events/29 (accessed on 20 February 2023).

36. Omar, H.; Rohani, S. Treatment of landfill waste, leachate and landfill gas: A review. Front. Chem. Sci. Eng.; 2015; 9, pp. 15-32.

37. Vaverková, M.D. Landfill impacts on the environment. Geosciences; 2019; 9, 431. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/geosciences9100431]

38. Mehta, R.; Barlaz, M.A.; Yazdani, R.; Augenstein, D.; Bryars, M.; Sinderson, L. Refuse decomposition in the presence and absence of leachate recirculation. J. Environ. Eng.; 2002; 128, pp. 228-236. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2002)128:3(228)]

39. Reinhart, D.R.; McCreanor, P.T.; Townsend, T. The bioreactor landfill: Its status and future. Waste Manag. Res.; 2002; 20, pp. 172-186. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734242X0202000209]

40. Reinhart, D.R.; Townsend, T.G. Landfill Bioreactor Design & Operation; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1997.

41. Njoku, P.O.; Odiyo, J.O.; Durowoju, O.S.; Edokpayi, J.N. A review of landfill gas generation and utilisation in Africa. Open Environ. Sci.; 2018; 10, pp. 1-15. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1876325101810010001]

42. Agency, H.P. Impact on Health of Emissions from Landfill Site, Advice from the Health Protection Agency; Health Protection Agency: London, UK, 2011.

43. Mutz, D.; Hengevoss, D.; Hugi, C.; Gross, T. Waste-to-Energy Options in Municipal Solid Waste Management a Guide for Decision Makers in Developing and Emerging Countries; Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH: Bonn, Germany, 2017.

44. Alcani, M.; Dorri, A.; Maraj, A. Estimation of energy recovery potential and environmental impact of Tirana landfill gas. Environ. Prot. Eng.; 2018; 44, pp. 117-128. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.37190/epe180308]

45. Lastella, G.; Testa, C.; Cornacchia, G.; Notornicola, M.; Voltasio, F.; Sharma, V.K. Anaerobic digestion of semi-solid organic waste: Biogas production and its purification. Energy Convers. Manag.; 2002; 43, pp. 63-75. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0196-8904(01)00011-5]

46. Wilken, D.; Rauh, S.; Bontempo, G.; Hofmann, F.; Strippel, F.; Kramer, A.; Ricci-Jürgensen, M.; Fürst, M. Biowaste to Biogas; Fachverband Biogas: Freising, Germany, 2019; Volume 5, 2022.

47. Demirbas, A. Waste management, waste resource facilities and waste conversion processes. Energy Convers. Manag.; 2011; 52, pp. 1280-1287. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2010.09.025]

48. Deublein, D.; Steinhauser, A. Biogas from Waste and Renewable Resources: An Introduction; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011.

49. Bioenergy, I. The Biogas Handbook; Woodhead Publishing Limited: Cambridge, UK, 2013.

50. Vögeli, Y.; Lohri, C.R.; Gallardo, A.; Diener, S.; Zurbrügg, C. Anaerobic Digestion of Biowaste in Developing Countries; Eawag: Dübendorf, Switzerland, 2014; pp. 1-137. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.13140/2.1.2663.1045]

51. Nazir, M. Biogas plants construction technology for rural areas. Bioresour. Technol.; 1991; 35, pp. 283-289. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0960-8524(91)90126-5]

52. Luijten, C.; Kerkhof, E. Jatropha oil and biogas in a dual fuel CI engine for rural electrification. Energy Convers. Manag.; 2011; 52, pp. 1426-1438. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2010.10.005]

53. Duc, P.M.; Wattanavichien, K. Study on biogas premixed charge diesel dual fuelled engine. Energy Convers. Manag.; 2007; 48, pp. 2286-2308.

54. Bari, S. Effect of carbon dioxide on the performance of biogas/diesel duel-fuel engine. Renew. Energy; 1996; 9, pp. 1007-1010. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0960-1481(96)88450-3]

55. Henham, A.; Makkar, e.M. Combustion of simulated biogas in a dual-fuel diesel engine. Energy Convers. Manag.; 1998; 39, pp. 2001-2009. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0196-8904(98)00071-5]

56. Tippayawong, N.; Promwungkwa, A.; Rerkkriangkrai, P. Long-term operation of a small biogas/diesel dual-fuel engine for on-farm electricity generation. Biosyst. Eng.; 2007; 98, pp. 26-32. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2007.06.013]

57. Tippayawong, N.; Promwungkwa, A.; Rerkkriangkrai, P. Durability of a small agricultural engine on biogas/diesel dual fuel operation. Iran. J. Sci. Technol. Trans. B Eng.; 2010; 34, pp. 167-177.

58. Holm-Nielsen, J.B.; Al Seadi, T.; Oleskowicz-Popiel, P. The future of anaerobic digestion and biogas utilization. Bioresour. Technol.; 2009; 100, pp. 5478-5484. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.12.046]

59. Tchobanoglous, G. Integrated Solid Waste Managementengineering Principles and Management Issues; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1993.

60. European Commission. Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control: Reference document on the Best Available Techniques for Waste Incineration. 2005; Available online: https://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2020-01/sa_bref_0505.pdf (accessed on 25 January 2023).

61. Neuwahl, F.; Cusano, G.; Benavides, J.G.; Holbrook, S.; Roudier, S. Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for Waste Incineration; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2019.

62. Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs. Incineration of Municipal Solid Waste; Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs: London, UK, 2013; 56.

63. Pulok, H.A. Prospect of E-Waste in Bangladesh: A Review. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hasibul_Ahmed_Pulok/publication/362230233_Prospect_of_E-waste_in_Bangladesh_a_review/links/62de30baaa5823729ee0a892/Prospect-of-E-waste-in-Bangladesh-a-review.pdf (accessed on 25 January 2023).

64. Hu, H.; Li, X.; Nguyen, A.D.; Kavan, P. A critical evaluation of waste incineration plants in Wuhan (China) based on site selection, environmental influence, public health and public participation. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2015; 12, pp. 7593-7614. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120707593]

65. Song, X.; Guo, Z. Technologies for direct production of flexible H₂/CO synthesis gas. Energy Convers. Manag.; 2006; 47, pp. 560-569. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2005.05.012]

66. Ciolkosz, D.; Miller, B.; Wallace, R. Renewable and Alternative Energy Fact Sheet: Characteristics of Biomass as a Heating Fuel; The Pennsylvania State University, Ag Communications and Marketing: State College, PA, USA, 2010.

67. Anukam, A.; Mamphweli, S.; Meyer, E.; Okoh, O. Computer simulation of the mass and energy balance during gasification of sugarcane bagasse. J. Energy; 2014; 2014, 713054. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/713054]

68. Basu, P. Biomass Gasification, Pyrolysis and Torrefaction: Practical Design and Theory; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018.

69. Arena, U. Process and technological aspects of municipal solid waste gasification. A review. Waste Manag.; 2012; 32, pp. 625-639. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.09.025]

70. Mohammadi, A.; Anukam, A. The Technical Challenges of the Gasification Technologies Currently in Use and Ways of Optimizing Them: A Review; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2022.

71. Themelis, N.J. An overview of the global waste-to-energy industry. Waste Manag. World; 2003; pp. 40-48. Available online: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/seas/earth/papers/global_waste_to_energy.html (accessed on 11 July 2023).

72. Abushammala, M.F.; Qazi, W.A. Financial feasibility of waste-to-energy technologies for municipal solid waste management in Muscat, Sultanate of Oman. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy; 2021; 23, pp. 2011-2023. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10098-021-02099-8]

73. Kumar, A.; Samadder, S.R. A review on technological options of waste to energy for effective management of municipal solid waste. Waste Manag.; 2017; 69, pp. 407-422. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.08.046]

74. Danthurebandara, M.; Van Passel, S.; Nelen, D.; Tielemans, Y.; Van Acker, K. Environmental and socio-economic impacts of landfills. Proceedings of the Linnaeus ECO-TECH 2012: International Conference on Natural Sciences and Environmental Technologies for Waste and Wastewater Treatment Remediation Emissions Related to Climate Environmental and Economic Effects; Kalmar, Sweden, 26–28 November 2012; Linnaeus University: Växjö, Sweden, 2012; pp. 40-52.

75. Stengler, E. Impending European legislation from the view of the Confederation of European Waste-to-Energy Plants (CEWEP); Europaeische Gesetzesvorhaben aus Sicht der Confederation of European Waste-to-Energy Plants (CEWEP). Available online: https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/biblio/20501830 (accessed on 25 January 2023).

76. Stuart, P. The Advantages and Disadvantages of Anaerobic Digestion as a Renewable Energy Source; Loughborough University: Loughborough, UK, 2006.

77. Wilkie, A.C. Anaerobic digestion: Biology and benefits. Dairy Manure Management: Treatment, Handling, and Community Relations; NRAES-176 Natural Resource, Agriculture, and Engineering Service, Cornell University: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2005; pp. 63-72. Available online: http://biogas.ifas.ufl.edu/Publs/NRAES176-p63-72-Mar2005.pdf (accessed on 12 January 2022).

78. ClientEarth. What Are the Environmental Impacts of Waste Incineration?. Available online: https://ume.la/jFZ7do (accessed on 12 January 2022).

79. Sharma, R.; Sharma, M.; Sharma, R.; Sharma, V. The impact of incinerators on human health and environment. Rev. Environ. Health; 2013; 28, pp. 67-72. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2012-0035]

80. Lung, F.-W.; Shu, B.-C.; Chiang, T.-L.; Lin, S.-J. The impermanent effect of waste incineration on children’s development from 6 months to 8 years: A Taiwan Birth Cohort Study. Sci. Rep.; 2020; 10, 3150. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-60039-w] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32081913]

81. Hester, R.E.; Harrison, R.M. Waste Incineration and the Environment; Royal Society of Chemistry: London, UK, 1994; Volume 2.

82. Zhang, Y.; Cui, Y.; Chen, P.; Liu, S.; Zhou, N.; Ding, K.; Fan, L.; Peng, P.; Min, M.; Cheng, Y. Gasification technologies and their energy potentials. Sustainable Resource Recovery and Zero Waste Approaches; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 193-206.

83. Zafar, S. Gasification of municipal solid wastes. Energy Manag.; 2009; 2, pp. 47-51.

84. CTCN. Gasification of Waste. Available online: https://ume.la/tHt8uX (accessed on 16 February 2022).

85. Barahmand, Z.; Eikeland, M.S. A scoping review on environmental, economic, and social impacts of the gasification processes. Environments; 2022; 9, 92. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/environments9070092]

86. Ritchie, H.; Roser, M.; Rosado, P. Energy. Our World in Data. 2022; Available online: https://ourworldindata.org/energy (accessed on 25 March 2023).

87. Vähk, J. Zero Waste Europe Welcomes the European Sustainable Finance Platform. Defence of the Exclusion of Waste-to-Energy Incineration from the EU Taxonomy Regulation; Zero Waste Europe: Brussels, Belgium, 2020.

88. Hofbauer, H. Biomass gasification for electricity and fuels, large scale. Renewable Energy Systems; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; pp. 459-478.

Word count: 11428

Show less

© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.

Abstract

Translate

Municipal solid waste management (SWM) is one of the most useful applications of renewable energy, supporting the market for renewable energy and assisting in environmental protection by reducing emissions. Sustainability is one of the key issues with solid waste management systems in developing countries, including Palestine. Waste-to-energy (WTE) technology is one of the greatest strategies for effectively managing solid waste. This study focuses mostly on waste management in Palestine’s Tulkarm area. We conducted an evaluation of the potential of energy recovery from municipal solid waste through a number of approaches, such as incineration, gasification, anaerobic digestion, and landfilling. Additionally, the implications on the environment, human health, and economics were investigated. The results showed that anaerobic digestion recovered around 5156.15 kWh per day; whereas, incineration and gasification recovered about 40,986.60 and 14,663.88 kWh per day, respectively. The least recovered energy amount was roughly 3563.87 kWh per day, which was generated by landfilling technology. Additionally, the environmental analysis showed that anaerobic digestion could save around 48,362 tons of CO₂ annually; meanwhile, incineration and gasification could save about 384,424 and 137,538 tons of CO₂, respectively. The lowest quantity of emissions could be saved by landfilling, with about 33,427 tons saved yearly. The energy cost savings associated with each technology were also estimated. The results of the energy savings estimation showed that incineration had the highest saving of USD 4918.12; gasification and anaerobic digestion saved USD 1759.67 and USD 618.74, respectively. Whereas, landfilling had the lowest saving of about USD 427.66. A careful analysis of all aspects related to each technology, in comparison to the available waste treatment techniques, was carried out to propose a solution to cover the energy deficit in Tulkarm as a primary goal. Anaerobic digestion was found to be more environmentally advantageous and economically feasible and thus can be recommended to decision-makers and investors.

Details

Title

Analysis of Energy Recovery from Municipal Solid Waste and Its Environmental and Economic Impact in Tulkarm, Palestine

Author

Salah, Wael A¹

; Atatri, Manar²; Zaid, Aya²; Abuhafeza, Rama²; Abuhelwa, Mai³

; Bashir, Mohammed J K⁴

; Basem Abu Zneid⁵

¹ Department of Electrical Engineering, College of Engineering and Technology, Palestine Technical University—Kadoorie, Yafa Street, Tulkarm P.O. Box 7, Palestine
² Department of Renewable Energy Engineering, College of Engineering and Technology, Palestine Technical University—Kadoorie, Yafa Street, Tulkarm P.O. Box 7, Palestine; [email protected] (M.A.); [email protected] (A.Z.); [email protected] (R.A.)
³ Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA; [email protected]
⁴ Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Green Technology (FEGT), Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Kampar 31900, Perak, Malaysia; [email protected]
⁵ Department of Electrical Engineering, College of Engineering (CE), University of Business and Technology (UBT), Jeddah 21448, Saudi Arabia; [email protected]

First page

5590

Publication year

2023

Publication date

2023

Publisher

MDPI AG

e-ISSN

19961073

Source type

Scholarly Journal

Language of publication

English

DOI

https://doi.org/10.3390/en16155590

ProQuest document ID

2849024202

Analysis of Energy Recovery from Municipal Solid Waste and Its Environmental and Economic Impact in Tulkarm, Palestine

Jump to:

Full Text

Abstract

Details

Suggested sources