Science of the Total Environment 458460 (2013) 499507

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv

Greenhouse gas accounting of the proposed landll extension and

advanced incineration facility for municipal solid waste management in Hong Kong
K.S. Woon, Irene M.C. Lo
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, China

H I G H L I G H T S

G R A P H I C A L

A B S T R A C T

AIF is better than LFE with regard to

GHG emissions in Hong Kong.
Major individual sub-processes of LFE and
AIF for GHG emissions are investigated.
GHG emissions for LFE and AIF are
strongly dependent on studied parametric sensitivity analyses.
Findings are valuable for sustainable
MSW management and GHG reductions
in waste sector.

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 25 October 2012
Received in revised form 20 April 2013
Accepted 21 April 2013
Available online 19 May 2013
Editor: Simon Pollard
Keywords:
Municipal solid waste
Greenhouse gas emissions
Landll
Incineration
Policy making

a b s t r a c t
The burgeoning of municipal solid waste (MSW) disposal issue and climate change have drawn massive
attention from people. On the one hand, Hong Kong is facing a controversial debate over the implementation
of proposed landll extension (LFE) and advanced incineration facility (AIF) to curb the MSW disposal issue.
On the other hand, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government is taking concerted efforts to
reduce the carbon intensity in this region. This paper discusses the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from
four proposed waste disposal scenarios, covering the proposed LFE and AIF within a dened system boundary. On the basis of the data collected, assumptions made, and system boundary dened in this study, the
results indicate that AIF releases less GHG emissions than LFE. The GHG emissions from LFE are highly contributed by the landll methane (CH4) emissions but offset by biogenic carbon storage, while the GHG emissions
from AIF are mostly due to the stack discharge system but offset by the energy recovery system. Furthermore,
parametric sensitivity analyses show that GHG emissions are strongly dependent on the landll CH4 recovery
rate, types of electricity displaced by energy recovery systems, and the heating value of MSW, altering the
order of preferred waste disposal scenarios. This evaluation provides valuable insights into the applicability
of a policy framework for MSW management practices in reducing GHG emissions.
2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Abbreviations: AIF, advanced incineration facility; BAU, Business As Usual; CLP, China Light & Power; DOC, degradable organic carbon; EIA, environmental impact assessment;
HKEPD, Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department; HKSAR, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; GDP, gross domestic product; GHG, greenhouse gas; GWP, Global
Warming Potential; IETS, Island East Transfer Station; IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; IWMF, Integrated Waste Management Facility; IWTS, Island West Transfer
Station; LFE, landll extension; LFG, landll gas; LPG, Liqueed Petroleum Gas; MSW, municipal solid waste; NENT, North East New Territories; NLTS, North Lantau Transfer Station;
OITF, Outlying Islands Transfer Facilities; RTS, refuse transfer station; SENT, South East New Territories; WENT, West New Territories; WKTS, West Kowloon Transfer Station.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +852 23587157; fax: +852 23581534.
E-mail address: cemclo@ust.hk (I.M.C. Lo).
0048-9697/$ see front matter 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.04.061

500

K.S. Woon, I.M.C. Lo / Science of the Total Environment 458460 (2013) 499507

1. Introduction
With the growth of population, urbanization and afuence, disposal of municipal solid waste (MSW) has become a major environmental challenge aficting people throughout the world (Bogner
et al., 2007; UNEP, 2009). Hong Kong, as a world-class metropolis,
is also inevitably faced with this pervasive issue. The Hong Kong
Environmental Protection Department (HKEPD) has listed waste
reduction and management policies as an intractable environmental
issue to be resolved (HKEPD, 2010a). At present, Hong Kong relies
solely on landlls for MSW disposal. Approximately 9000 tonnes of
unrecoverable MSW are still discarded in the landlls every day, albeit
Hong Kong has achieved a recycling rate of 52% in 2010 (HKEPD,
2010b). Hong Kong is experiencing a serious shortage of MSW disposal sites with an anticipation that the current three strategic landlls,
namely South East New Territories (SENT), North East New Territories
(NENT), and West New Territories (WENT) will be exhausted in 2014,
2016, and 2018, respectively (HKEB, 2011). In response to this acute
problem, there is a pressing need for the HKEPD to identify a comprehensive solution. A policy framework for the management of MSW
was introduced by the HKEPD in late 2005 to address this problem.
One of the approaches applied in this policy framework is bulk reduction and disposal, in which the HKEPD has proposed to implement
landll extension (LFE) and Integrated Waste Management Facility
(IWMF), with the advanced incineration facility (AIF) as the core technology in this IWMF (HKEPD, 2005). The implementation of LFE
and AIF, however, has triggered a strong dispute from stakeholders
such as Hong Kong's citizens and green groups (Ng, 2011, 2012;
Tang, 2011). It spurs an intense debate as to whether these waste disposal facilities are truly suitable and sustainable to the Hong Kong
MSW management practices. Perhaps, it could not be told merely
based on the general perceptions and good experiences of the public
and executive authorities.
Apart from this issue, the inconvenient truth about the unprecedented challenge of climate change has created observable changes
in various weather patterns and drawn extensive concerns from the
public, climate panels and policy makers (IPCC, 2007; Schiermeier,
2011). The waste management sector accounted for approximately
35% of total anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at a
global scale in 2005 (UNEP, 2010). The maximum, minimum, and
annual average shares of GHG emissions from the waste sector in
Hong Kong from 1990 to 2006 were 5.9%, 3.2%, and 4.5%, respectively,
which was the third largest sector after electricity generation and
transportation (HKEPD, 2010c). Hong Kong, as a responsible international community, always takes initiative to reduce GHG emissions
and combat climate change. These initiatives include using cleaner
fuel and renewable energy for power generation, promoting energy
efciency and carbon audits in buildings, and using energy-efcient
transport and cleaner vehicles in the city. In 2003, the Kyoto Protocol
was extended to Hong Kong, where Hong Kong is attached to mainland China (dened as non-Annex 1 Party), and assists the Central
People's Government in fullling the obligations under the Kyoto
Protocol (HKBEC, 2012). While mainland China announced a target
of cutting carbon intensity, which is dened as total mass of carbon
dioxide equivalent emissions per gross domestic product (GDP), by
4045% by 2020 from the 2005 level (Lo, 2010), the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region (HKSAR) Government has set a more aggressive target to reduce carbon intensity by 5060% by 2020 from the
2005 level for its own region (HKEB, 2010). Besides enhancing energy
efciency and revamping the fuel mix for electricity generation,
one should take action with the waste sector as there is plenty of
room for GHG emission reductions by employing cleaner waste management practices or converting waste to wealth through displaced
energy from fossil fuels (Bogner et al., 2007). The accounting of GHG
emissions on various MSW disposal methods provides a conceptual
framework with which to describe a carbon footprint concept to the

public and policy makers for understanding the issues surrounding

the need to reduce GHG emissions (Hammond, 2007).
The association of MSW disposal issue and GHG abatement
arouses a challenge that how to manage the MSW effectively without
adversely impacting the environment. Several studies have recently
been conducted to examine the GHG emissions from landlls and
incineration facilities, particularly focused in European and North
American regions (Mohareba et al., 2008; Christensen et al., 2009;
Kaplan et al., 2009; Morris, 2010; Vergara et al., 2011; Assamoi and
Lawryshyn, 2012; Monni, 2012). Morris (2010) reported that the
multi-criteria complexity of the landlls and incineration facilities
(e.g., performance factors, waste characteristics, and methodology
issues) affected local preferred waste technology decisions. The
results are difcult to generalize and represent the local environmental conditions. Also, most studies did not investigate the GHG emissions from the individual sub-processes of landll and incineration.
Despite the intense debates among the Hong Kong people over the
implementation of LFE and AIF, to date, a holistic and locally
relevant analysis of the uncertainties of waste-related emissions and
their relationships to GHG emissions of the two proposed LFE and
AIF is yet to be conducted. The purpose of this paper is to provide a
comprehensive analysis of GHG emissions for Hong Kong's MSW
that includes different waste disposal scenarios combining proposed
LFE and AIF within a dened system boundary. Only LFE and AIF
are considered in this paper, as these two waste disposal facilities
remain the most common disposal methods of MSW disposal in
developed countries (Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata, 2012). The results
of this study may serve as an additional view for the development
of practical guidelines in the Hong Kong MSW management system,
as well as for investigation of the potential of a policy framework
for MSW management practices in GHG mitigation. While most of
the data in this study is locally relevant to the Hong Kong region,
the modeling approach applied here may be applicable to other countries or regions. It is hoped that this study will act as a reference
for other places that face a MSW disposal dilemma similar to Hong
Kong's environmental conditions and community needs.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Modeling scope of study
Four scenarios are presented in a summary table as shown in
Table 1. Scenario 1 represents the Business As Usual (BAU) case
(the current practice in Hong Kong), while Scenario 2 serves as a representation for the proposed policy framework 20052014 by the
HKEPD (HKEPD, 2005). This scenario consists of the proposal of an
AIF with capacity of 3000 tonnes of MSW per day and the remaining
unrecoverable MSW, which is 6000 tonnes per day, will be disposed
of at LFE. The proposal of the AIF aims to substantially reduce the
bulk size of MSW, in hope to minimize the landlling of waste significantly, thereby extending the useable life of current and future landlls in Hong Kong. This study is extended to Scenario 3 and Scenario 4
to investigate the GHG emissions of future action plans that could be
adopted by the HKSAR Government. The functional unit used in this
study is based on one tonne of MSW (wet basis), shipped from refuse
transfer station (RTS) to respective waste disposal facilities. The individual sub-processes which encompass GHG emissions or reductions
in LFE consist of (a) transport of MSW from RTS to LFE; (b) landll
CH4 emissions; (c) electricity and heat displaced by energy recovery
system; and (d) biogenic carbon storage. As for AIF, the major processes included in this study consist of (a) transport of MSW from
RTS to AIF, and ash from AIF to LFE; (b) carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from stack discharge system due to MSW combustion process;
and (c) electricity displaced by energy recovery system. The superstructure of the interrelations among RTS, LFE and AIF used in this
study are depicted in Fig. 1. Information and data on the physical

K.S. Woon, I.M.C. Lo / Science of the Total Environment 458460 (2013) 499507

from landll CH4, GHGLFEGen = GHG reductions from heat and electricity generated due to energy recovery system, and GHGBCS = GHG
reductions from biogenic carbon storage.

Table 1
Summary of four different scenarios.
Scenario

MSW from RTS to LFE

(tonnes MSW day1)

MSW from RTS to AIF

(tonnes MSW day1)

Ash from AIF to LFE

(tonnes ash day1)

Scenario 1
Scenario 2c
Scenario 3
Scenario 4

9000a
6000
3000
N/A

N/Ab
3000
6000
9000

N/A
900d
1800
2700

Figure represents the current practice in Hong Kong MSW disposal (HKEPD, 2010b).
N/A means that no MSW or ash is sent to the respective waste disposal facility.
c
Scenario 2 is based on the proposed policy framework for the management of MSW
20052014 by HKEPD (2005).
d
Figure is adapted in part from the Engineering Investigation and Environmental
Studies for Integrated Waste Management Facilities Phase 1Feasibility Study Environmental Impact Assessment Report (HKEPD, 2011). For every 3000 tonnes of MSW,
approximately 660 tonnes of bottom ash and 240 tonnes of y ash and air pollution
control residues (after cementation) would be generated after combustion in AIF
every day. A linear correlation between the amount of generated ash and the amount
of combusted MSW in AIF is assumed.
b

and chemical composition of MSW used in this study are illustrated

in Table 2. The same physical and chemical composition of MSW is
applied to all scenarios to provide a fair comparison. The operational
period for LFE and AIF is set to be 10 years, in accordance to WENT
and NENT landll extension environmental impact assessment (EIA)
reports (HKEPD, 2007, 2009). In this paper, the WENT landll extension is chosen as a subject of study as it receives the highest rate of
MSW disposal as compared to the other landlls. It is assumed that
the GHG emissions produced from the construction of capital and
operating equipment are insignicant and not included in this study
(Kaplan et al., 2009; Morris, 2010).
2.2. Modeling details for LFE
On the basis of the GHG emissions and offset estimates for each
individual process, the general equation for calculating the net GHG
emissions from LFE is shown in Eq. (1):
GHGLFE GHGLFETrans GHGLFG GHGLFEGen GHGBCS

501

where GHGLFE = net GHG emissions from LFE, GHGLFETrans = GHG

emissions from MSW transport for LFE, GHGLFG = GHG emissions

2.2.1. GHG emissions from MSW transport

The distance traveled is modeled based on the average distance
among ve RTSs (i.e., Island East Transfer Station (IETS), Island West
Transfer Station (IWTS), West Kowloon Transfer Station (WKTS),
Outlying Islands Transfer Facilities (OITF), and North Lantau Transfer
Station (NLTS)) to WENT landll at Nim Wan (HKEPD, 2009). The
MSW transport distance is assumed to be 70 km (round trip). This
assumes that only one trip per day for MSW hauling from each RTS
to LFE. The GHG emission factor which accounts for MSW hauling is
equivalent to 19.1 g CO2e tonne 1 km 1 (container shipping vessel
with 70% average loading) (DEFRA, 2011).
2.2.2. GHG emissions from landll CH4
Since Hong Kong has not developed its own method for calculating
CH4 emissions from landll, the estimation of CH4 emissions is
modeled using 2006 IPCC guidelines which employ First Order Decay
method (IPCC, 2006). Local data is used whenever available in this
context. This method is based on the assumption that degradable
organic carbon (DOC) in respective wastes decays slowly, forming
CO2 and CH4 over a few decades. CO2 released due to the decomposition of biomass sources by aerobic bacteria is counted as biogenic origin and does not contribute to GHG emissions (USEPA, 2006). The CH4
emissions are modeled through 100 years (with 10 years as operational period and 30 years as restoration period) (Eriksson et al.,
2005). The CH4 generation rate constant, which is varied for each
type of waste and dependent on local climate (i.e., mean annual temperature and mean annual precipitation), is selected based on the IPCC
default values (shown in Table 2). The CH4 is collected for aring process and energy recovery system (electricity and heat generation)
during the operational and restoration period, while it is released
to the atmosphere without controls after 40 years. The CH4 recovery
rate (dened as total CH4 collection/total CH4 production) for the
rst two years is expected to be zero (due to insufcient gas to operate
the energy recovery equipment), while from the third to tenth year
is 40% (HKEPD, 2010c), and 90% during the restoration period (Levis
and Barlaz, 2011). This CH4 recovery rate is estimated based on
the current landll conditions in Hong Kong. The Global Warming

System boundary
OITF

70 km
NLTS

WENT landfill
extension

Biogenic carbon storage

CO 2 sinks

Landfill gas emissions

CH 4 emissions
Heat

Avoided CO 2

Electricity

Avoided CO 2

Energy recovery system

Unrecoverable
MSW

IETS

Stack discharge system

IWTS

54 km

Energy recovery system

WKTS

CO2 emissions

Advanced
incineration facility

Bottom ash, fly ash

and APC residues

90 km

Electricity

Avoided CO 2

WENT landfill

Fig. 1. Superstructure of the interrelations among the refuse transfer stations (RTS), WENT landll extension (LFE), and advanced incineration facility (AIF) used in this study. OITF:
Outlying Islands Transfer Facilities; NLTS: North Lantau Transfer Station; IETS: Island East Transfer Station; IWTS: Island West Transfer Station; WKTS: West Kowloon Transfer
Station; APC: Air Pollution Control; WENT: West New Territories. The distance traveled is shown in round trip.

502

K.S. Woon, I.M.C. Lo / Science of the Total Environment 458460 (2013) 499507

Table 2
Hong Kong discarded municipal solid waste (MSW) characterization data.
Waste component

Glass
Metals
Paper
Plastics
Putrescibles
Textiles
Wood/rattan
Household hazardous
wastesi
Othersi,j
Totalk

Dry matter
content
(%)b

Total carbon
content in dry
weight (%)c

Fraction
of fossil
carbond

Fraction of degradable
organic carbon on
wet basise

CH4 generation
rate constant
(year1)f

Heating value
(Btu lb1)g

Heating value
(kJ kg1)h

4.1
1.9
22.0
21.3
40.2
2.6
3.2
1.2

0.900
0.900
0.723
0.810
0.231
0.624
0.684
0.900

0
0
0.419
0.697
0.470
0.490
0.493
0.030

0.01
0.01
0.01
1.00
0
0.20
0
1.00

0
0
0.365
0
0.186
0.240
0.430
0

0
0
0.070
0
0.400
0.070
0.035
0

60
300
7200
14,000
2000
7500
8000
3000

140
698
16,747
32,564
4652
17,445
18,608
6978

3.4
100

0.900

0.030

1.00

3000

6978

Waste
composition
(%)a

Energy content
of each waste
component (kJ)
5.7
13.3
3684
6936
1870
454
596
83.7
237
13,880

HKEPD (2010b). Figure may not add up to total due to rounding off.
Dry matter contents of paper, plastics, putrescibles, textiles and wood/rattan are adapted from the HKSAR Government unpublished report. Dry matter contents of glass, metals,
household hazardous wastes and others are based on the 2006 IPCC Guidelines default value.
c
Total carbon contents in dry weight of paper, plastics, putrescibles, textiles and wood/rattan are adapted from the HKSAR Government unpublished report. Total carbon contents in dry weight of glass, metals, household hazardous wastes and others are based on the 2006 IPCC Guidelines default value.
d
IPCC (2006).
e
IPCC (2006). Degradable organic carbons on wet basis of paper and putrescibles are modied according to the total carbon content in dry weight.
f
IPCC (2006). Climate for Hong Kong is considered moist and wet tropical under IPCC Climate Zone Denition.
g
Brunner (2002).
h
1 btu lb1 2.326 = 1 kJ kg1.
i
Household hazardous waste and others are categorized as other, inert waste under IPCC's Waste Categorization.
j
Others include bulky items and other miscellaneous materials.
k
Figure may not add up to total due to rounding off.
b

Potential (GWP) applied in this study for CH4 is 25 (a 100-year time

horizon) (IPCC, 2007). Typically, the production of CH4 does not
begin immediately after deposition of the waste, as aerobic decomposition takes place prior to anaerobic decomposition. Hence, in this
study, it is estimated that the CH4 would only be produced after
6 months (as recommended by the IPCC) in the year after MSW deposition. Landll gas (LFG) is a mixture of CH4, CO2 and a trace amount
of nitrogen, nonmethane organic compounds and other gasses. The
fraction of CH4 in generated LFG is 50% (by volume) in this analysis
(Jaramillo and Matthews, 2005). Given the same amount of MSW, an
unmanaged landll produces less CH4 than an anaerobic managed
landll. Hence, the CH4 correction factor is assigned by the IPCC to
reect the way MSW is managed and the effect of site conguration
and management practices on CH4 generation (IPCC, 2006). The CH4
correction factor (in fraction) used in this study is 1.0, assuming that
the LFE is an anaerobic managed landll. Some uncollected CH4 is
oxidized to CO2 in the soil or other materials covering the waste
from LFE. CH4 oxidation is assumed to reduce the CH4 emissions by
10%, as suggested by the IPCC (2006) and as used in HKEPD (2010c).
N2O emissions from the landll are assumed to be insignicant, as
recommended by the IPCC, and are excluded from this analysis
(IPCC, 2006). The data for calculating the landll CH4 emissions is
summarized in Table 2.
2.2.3. GHG reductions from heat and electricity generated due to energy
recovery system
In Hong Kong landlls, part of the collected CH4 is sent to an
energy recovery system for electricity and heat production to meet
on-site needs, while the remaining is ared into the atmosphere. Of
the total amount of recovered CH4, 10% is used for electricity generation, 50% for heat production (by an ammonia stripping plant in a
landll leachate treatment process), and the remaining 40% is ared
(HKEPD, 2009). Complete combustion is assumed at aring process;
only CO2 is released into atmosphere after aring. However, the
released CO2 is counted as biogenic in origin and not included in
this study (IPCC, 2006). The heating value of landll CH4 used in
this context is 37.7 MJ m 3 (Morris, 2010), while the efciency
of a gas turbine is modeled as 0.35 (HKEMSD, 2002). Producing electricity and heat from the recovered CH4 can contribute to a reduction

of the usage of fossil fuel resources and amelioration of GHG impacts.

The recovered electricity is compared with the electricity emission
factor from China Light & Power (CLP) Company at a value of
0.59 kg CO2e kWh 1 (CLP, 2011a). This electricity emission factor
corresponds to carbon dioxide emitted by CLP Company in producing
one kilowatt hour of electricity in Hong Kong. In this context, 0.59 kg
of carbon dioxide equivalents is generated when producing one kilowatt hour of electricity. For heat production, the efciency of a boiler
used is 0.80 (Damgaard et al., 2011). In Hong Kong, about 30% of hot
water is generated by electricity-red water heaters and 70% of that
is generated by gas-red water heaters or boilers (Hao et al., 2008).
The emission factor of Liqueed Petroleum Gas (LPG) for hot water
production adopted in this analysis is 0.0624 g CO2e kJ 1 (Leung
and Lee, 2000). Considering the hot water ratio production and
emission factors from electricity and LPG, the effective emission
factor for heat production in Hong Kong is 0.093 g CO2e kJ 1. This
effective emission factor is used to estimate the GHG offsets due to
the heat generated from recovered CH4.
2.2.4. GHG reductions from biogenic carbon storage
Signicant portions of landlled biogenic carbon (e.g., putrescibles,
woods and papers) are not completely decomposed by the anaerobic
condition, and the carbon is stored in the landll body. Thus, the landll serves as a long-term anthropogenic sink for GHG calculation
(USEPA, 2006). However, the fossil carbon that remains in the landll
is not counted as stored carbon because it is of fossil origin and already
considered exists in its natural state. The biogenic carbon storage is
calculated using a method as discussed in IPCC (2006). In this context,
the fraction of DOC that can be decomposed in the anaerobic condition
in LFE is assumed to be 0.5 (mass fraction). In other words, 50% of the
disposed DOC would remain in LFE for a long period.
2.3. Modeling details for AIF
On the basis of the GHG emissions and offset estimates for each
individual process, the general equation for calculating the net GHG
emissions for AIF is shown in Eq. (2):
GHGAIF GHGAIFTrans GHGStack GHGAIFGen

K.S. Woon, I.M.C. Lo / Science of the Total Environment 458460 (2013) 499507

2.3.1. GHG emissions from MSW and ash transport

The distance traveled is modeled based on the average distance
between the three RTSs (i.e., IETS, IWTS and WKTS) and the IWMF
site at Shek Kwu Chau (HKEPD, 2011). The MSW transport distance
to IWMF site is assumed to be 54 km (round trip), and the distance
traveled for ash hauling from the IWMF site to the WENT landll is
about 90 km (round trip). Similar to the LFE, only one trip per day
for MSW hauling from each RTS to the AIF and ash disposal from
the AIF to the LFE is assumed. The GHG emission factor accounting
for MSW hauling and ash disposal is identical to the aforementioned
MSW hauling in LFE.
2.3.2. GHG emissions from stack discharge system
The CO2 emissions from AIF due to the stack discharge system
are calculated using 2006 IPCC guidelines, based on the basic carbon
stoichiometry calculation in the waste streams (IPCC, 2006). Only
the MSW fossil carbon content is responsible for GHG emissions.
Biogenic CO2 emitted by biomass materials contained in the waste,
which is considered as carbon neutral, is not counted as a GHG source
(USEPA, 2006). CH4 and N2O emitted from AIF are excluded in this
study. This is because emissions of CO2 are typically more signicant
than CH4 and N2O, as reported by the IPCC (2006). Data for the waste
fraction of each component, dry matter content, total carbon content
in dry matter, and the fraction of fossil carbon can be found in Table 2.
An oxidation rate is used in calculation to estimate the conversion
efciency of waste products to CO2. A 97% oxidation rate is used in
this study, as recommended in the EIA report (HKEPD, 2011).
2.3.3. GHG reductions from electricity generated due to energy recovery
system
The energy gained from the MSW combustion in the proposed
AIF displaces the electricity generated by the CLP Company. The
heating value in MSW combustion is 13,880 kJ kg 1 MSW (detailed
information on Table 2), calculated using the typical heating value
of MSW components provided by Brunner (2002), as used by Choy
et al. (2004). The net amount of energy recovered during the MSW
combustion depends on the process conversion efciency. The efciency of the steam turbine used to estimate the electricity generation
in this study is 0.197 (HKEMSD, 2002). This conversion efciency
is almost similar to the value used in other studies, which is 0.19
(Kaplan et al., 2009; Morris, 2010). Taking the efciency of steam
turbine into account, the base case net electricity generation from
AIF is about 760 kWh tonne 1. This assumes that 30% of generated
electricity is used on-site, while the remaining is sent to an electricity
grid for export (HKEMSD, 2002). Also, 4% of the exported electricity is
lost during the transmission and distribution process to other users
(CLP, 2011b).
2.4. Energy recovery system and sensitivity analyses on CH4 recovery
rate in LFE, electricity emission factor of CLP Company, and MSW heating
value in AIF
As abovementioned, an energy recovery system would be applied
in the proposed LFE and AIF in Hong Kong. Although it is a wellknown fact that most modern landll and incineration facilities are
equipped with energy recovery systems to promote environmental
and energy sustainability, it is worthwhile to study the relative consequences and benets from a carbon footprint perspective of applying
an energy recovery system as compared to facilities without energy
recovery system. Also, there are some uncertainties in this model
and input parameters that signicantly affect the GHG emissions are

investigated. Sensitivity analyses are done on key input parameters

(e.g., CH4 recovery rate in landll, electricity emission factor, MSW
heating value) to serve as a guideline to policy makers concerning
robust parameters that would have a considerable effect on the results,
hence extra caution would be taken while applying this model.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Net GHG emissions from different scenarios
The calculated GHG emissions from BAU (Scenario 1) and different
proposed scenarios are depicted in Fig. 2. The net GHG emissions
for all scenarios range from 19.9 to 111.6 kg CO2e tonne 1. Given
the same composition of MSW, the results reect that net GHG emissions from LFE are noticeably higher than AIF, with BAU (Scenario 1)
as the worst scenario. The trend indicates that more GHG emissions
could be reduced if more MSW was disposed of via AIF. Compared
to BAU (Scenario 1), the percentages of net GHG emission reductions
are approximately 27.4%, 54.7% and 82.2% for Scenarios 2, 3 and 4,
respectively. The implementation of the proposed policy framework
20052014 (Scenario 2) by the HKSAR Government would reduce
the GHG emissions as compared to BAU (Scenario 1).
3.2. Contribution of GHG emissions from individual sub-processes in LFE
and AIF
Besides investigating the net GHG emissions from the overall LFE
and AIF within the dened system boundary, Fig. 3 shows the contribution of GHG emissions from each individual sub-process from the
respective waste disposal facilities. It can be seen that the landll
CH4 emissions contribute to the highest GHG emissions, as illustrated
in Fig. 3a. The CH4 emissions are a major GHG source for landlls. The
characterization of CH4 to CO2e with a GWP of 25 contributes signicantly to GHG emissions. The electricity and heat generated from energy recovery system help to offset the GHG emissions from the LFE,
but biogenic carbon storage is the most signicant process for reducing the carbon footprint in LFE. The landlled biogenic carbon that is
not decomposed by anaerobic bacteria is stored in landlls, and its
subsequent CO2 release does not contribute to the addition of carbon
in atmospheric stock, yielding a great portion of carbon offsets in LFE.
Fig. 3b shows the GHG emissions from each individual process in AIF.
GHG emissions are resulted predominantly from the stack discharge
system due to MSW combustion, while the electricity generation

120
GHG Emissions (kg CO2e/tonne MSW)

where GHGAIF = net GHG emissions from AIF, GHGAIFTrans = GHG

emissions from MSW and ash transport for AIF, GHGStack = GHG
emissions from stack discharge system, and GHGAIFGen = GHG reductions from electricity generated due to energy recovery system.

503

111.6

100
81.1

80
60

50.6

40
19.9

20
0
Scenario 1
(LFE only)

Scenario 2
(LFE/AIF)

Scenario 3
(AIF/LFE)

Scenario 4
(AIF only)

Fig. 2. Comparison of GHG emissions for different scenarios. Scenario 1 represents

9000 tonnes MSW to LFE per day; Scenario 2 represents 6000 tonnes MSW to LFE
and 3000 tonnes MSW to AIF per day; Scenario 3 represents 3000 tonnes MSW to
LFE and 6000 tonnes MSW to AIF per day, and; Scenario 4 represents 9000 tonnes
MSW to AIF per day.

504

K.S. Woon, I.M.C. Lo / Science of the Total Environment 458460 (2013) 499507

a
504.3

300

111.6
100

1.1
-100

453.8

500

-72.4

-300

-321.5

GHG Emissions (kg CO2e/tonne MSW)

GHG Emissions (kg CO2e/tonne MSW)

500

-500

300

100

19.9

1.3
-100

-300

-435.1

-500

Scenario 1 (LFE only)

Scenario 4 (AIF only)

Transport (MSW Hauling)

Transport (MSW Hauling and Ash Disposal)

Landfill CH4 Emissions

Stack Discharge System

Energy Recovery System (Electricity and Heat

Generation)
Biogenic Carbon Storage (Anthropogenic Sink)

Energy Recovery System (Electricity Generation)

Net GHG Emissions

Net GHG Emissions

Fig. 3. Contribution of GHG emissions from different individual processes (a) Scenario 1 (LFE only) and (b) Scenario 4 (AIF only).

3.3. Comparison of LFE and AIF with and without energy recovery system

systems. However, this phenomenon is more signicant for AIF.

AIF with an energy recovery system emits 435.2 kg CO2e tonne 1
less compared to AIF without this system, while LFE with an energy
recovery system emits 72.4 kg CO2e tonne 1 less than LFE without
this system. Apart from this result, it is interesting to note that scenarios without an energy recovery system, in which BAU (Scenario 1) and
Scenario 4 are the best and worst case respectively, exhibit a reverse
ranking order in terms of GHG emissions. In other words, without
the energy recovery systems, LFE releases less GHG emissions as

500
GHG Emissions (kg CO2e/tonne MSW)

from the energy recovery system contributes to the highest GHG offsets. The use of MSW to generate electricity in AIF provides better
GHG offsets compared to LFG (i.e., recovered CH4) to generate heat
and electricity in LFE. This can be partly attributed to the fact that
landll CH4 has a lower heating value than MSW combustion, and
only the biodegradable portion of MSW in a landll contributes to
the CH4 generation. Furthermore, it is assumed that the CH4 emissions are not fully recovered due to inefciencies in the landll
gas collection system, and the aforementioned landll operating
systems indicate that not all recovered CH4 is used for electricity
and heat production. Fig. 3a and b also indicates that the contribution
of GHG emissions from the transport process is relatively insignicant
as compared to the other individual sub-processes. This is mainly due
to the small land area of Hong Kong, where the distances traveled
between RTS and the respective waste disposal facilities are relatively short. A summary of GHG emissions or reductions from individual sub-processes for all four scenarios are shown in Table A.1
(Supplementary data). The results in Fig. 3 provide valuable information to policy makers to improve the performance of facility by
reducing the GHG emissions. The results could serve as guidelines
for improvement of processes from the respective waste disposal facilities which signicantly release or reduce the GHG emissions.

455.1

450
400

300

274.4

250
184.0

200
150

111.6

100

81.1
50.6

50
0

As previously stated, the relative GHG reductions from LFE and

AIF, with or without an energy recovery system, are investigated in
this study. The results of all four scenarios are illustrated in Fig. 4. As
expected, net GHG emissions for waste disposal facilities with energy
recovery systems are lower compared to those facilities without these

364.8

350

19.9

Scenario 1
(LFE only)

Scenario 2
(LFE/AIF)

With Energy Recovery System

Scenario 3
(AIF/LFE)

Scenario 4
(AIF only)

Without Energy Recovery System

Fig. 4. Comparison of GHG emissions for different scenarios with and without energy
recovery system.

K.S. Woon, I.M.C. Lo / Science of the Total Environment 458460 (2013) 499507

3.4. Summary of sensitivity analyses

GHG Emissions (kg CO2e/tonne MSW)

Given the complexity of the systems studied and some uncertainties about primary data collection, the parametric sensitivity analyses presented in this paper provide a better understanding of the
relationship between waste disposal facilities and the degree to
which variations in key input parameters might alter nal conclusions. The key input parameters used in this study are recovery rate
of landll CH4, electricity emission factor of CLP Company, MSW
heating value in the AIF, and efciencies of gas turbine (for LFE) and
steam turbine (for AIF). In this context, the sensitivity analyses on
the efciencies of gas turbine and steam turbine are not studied as
they are varied according to the models purchased and should be
constant throughout the operational period. For the recovery rate of
landll CH4, the range of 40% to 60% is chosen based on the landll
CH4 data collected from the closed and existing landlls in Hong
Kong (HKEPD, 2010c). For the variations of electricity emission
factors, the values are chosen based on the sustainability report of
CLP Company (CLP, 2011a). In view of the MSW heating value, the
range of 550 kWh tonne 1 to 850 kWh tonne 1 is selected based
on the ndings as reported by Kaplan et al. (2009). Fig. 5 shows the
sensitivity analysis with a variation of landll CH4 recovery rate ranging from 40% to 60% during the operational phase. The comparison is
done between Scenario 1 and Scenario 4 to examine the consequences of increasing the CH4 recovery rate in a landll system compared to MSW being incinerated. From this gure, it can be observed
that LFE is sensitive to the CH4 recovery rate. Net GHG emissions are
reduced approximately 54% for every 10% increment of CH4 recovery
rate. This drastic change is mainly due to CH4 that has a GWP of 25 for
GHG emissions. It reduces CO2e emissions considerably if it is not
released to the atmosphere. Besides, the higher CH4 recovery rate indicates that more CH4 is recovered for electricity and heat production,
rendering more GHG offsets. Based on a trial and error calculation
from Fig. 5, the breakeven CH4 recovery rate for LFE to emit equal

120

111.6

100
80
60

51.6

40
20

19.9

19.9

19.9

GHG emissions compared to AIF is 56%, and LFE releases less GHG
emissions than AIF when the CH4 recovery rate is above 56%. In addition, it is worthwhile to note that LFE achieves zero GHG emissions
when the CH4 recovery rate is at 58.6%. Above this recovery rate,
the LFE shows negative GHG emissions. With advancing technology,
institutions should enhance standards for landll performance by encouraging a higher recovery rate of landll CH4 emissions throughout
its entire life cycle.
GHG offsets by electricity generated from landll CH4 and MSW
combustion depend on the fuel mix composition of the displaced
electricity from a power plant. Electricity generated from a low
carbon intensive source (e.g., natural gas) would emit lower GHG
emissions than high carbon intensive source (e.g., coal). Taking the
electricity emission factors as targeted by CLP Company in 2035
and 2050 (CLP, 2011a), a sensitivity analysis on different electricity
emission factors is analyzed to investigate the impact on net
GHG emissions for all four scenarios. As shown in Fig. 6, with the
change of the electricity emission factors of the CLP Company from
0.59 kg CO2e kWh 1 to 0.20 kg CO2e kWh 1, the GHG emissions of
LFE increase 28.4 kg CO2e tonne 1, while the GHG emissions of AIF
increase 287.6 kg CO2e tonne 1 or almost 14.5 times more than the
base case scenario. This indicates that AIF is more sensitive to the variation of electricity emission factors as compared to LFE. When the
electricity emission factor is set at 0.59 kg CO2e kWh 1, Scenario 4
is the best among other scenarios. The net GHG emissions for all
scenarios are almost identical when the electricity emission factor is
set at 0.45 kg CO2e kWh 1. However, Scenario 4 contributes the
highest GHG emissions among other scenarios when the electricity
emission factor achieves a target of 0.20 kg CO2e kWh1. The results
indicate that the recovered electricity generated from AIF is vulnerable to policies of national fuel mix composition for electricity production. This is an important area for policy makers to consider
when selecting appropriate waste disposal facilities. While the
HKSAR Government promotes fuel switching by applying cleaner energy in this region to reduce carbon intensity, there is a tendency that
LFE is better than AIF in view of carbon footprint due to the preponderance of less GHG emissions generated from cleaner energy.
One of the factors affecting the amount of energy produced from
MSW combustion in AIF is MSW heating value. The different composition and moisture content of MSW generate a varying MSW heating
value. A sensitivity analysis can be performed to investigate the
net GHG emissions due to the variation of the MSW heating value. In

350
GHG Emissions (kg CO2e/tonne MSW)

compared to AIF. The remarkable GHG emission reductions for AIF indicate that the energy recovery system in AIF plays a more crucial role
in contributing to GHG offsets as compared to LFE. This is owing to the
fact that AIF is capable of generating an order of magnitude more electricity than LFE, given the same amount and composition of MSW.
Hence, it provides a huge advantage on GHG reductions and fossil
fuel offsets. As a result, policy makers are advised to provide more
incentives and enhance efciency of the technology of energy recovery since it provides a promising technique for reducing GHG emissions and fossil fuels consumption.

505

300
250
200
150
100
50
0

-8.5

-20
40%

50%

Base Case -CLP (2011)

60%

Landfill CH4 Recovery Rate

Scenario 1 (LFE only)

Scenario 4 (AIF only)

Fig. 5. Comparison of GHG emissions from Scenario 1 (LFE only) with variation of landll
CH4 recovery rate to Scenario 4 (AIF only).

Scenario 1
(LFE only)

CLP (2035)
Scenario 2
(LFE/AIF)

Scenario 3
(AIF/LFE)

CLP (2050)
Scenario 4
(AIF only)

Fig. 6. Comparison of GHG emissions for different scenarios with different electricity emission
factors in Hong Kong. CLP (2011) = electricity emission factor at 0.59 kg CO2e kWh1;
CLP (2035) = electricity emission factor at 0.45 kg CO2e kWh1; CLP (2050) = electricity emission factor at 0.20 kg CO2e kWh1.

506

K.S. Woon, I.M.C. Lo / Science of the Total Environment 458460 (2013) 499507

GHG Emissions (kg CO2e/tonne MSW)

160
139.6

140
120

111.6

111.6

100

111.6

111.6
82.3

80
60
40
19.9

20
0
-20
-40

-32.4

-60
760 kWh/tonne
(Base Case)

550 kWh/tonne

650 kWh/tonne

850 kWh/tonne

MSW Heating Value

Scenario 1 (LFE only)

Scenario 4 (AIF only)

Fig. 7. Comparison of GHG emissions from Scenario 4 (AIF only) with variation of MSW
heating value to Scenario 1 (LFE only).

Fig. 7, the variation of MSW heating value entails different outcomes

of net GHG emissions from AIF compared to LFE. It can be seen that
the higher the MSW heating value, the lower the net GHG emissions
from AIF. This is mainly ascribed to the fact that a higher MSW
heating value generates more energy during the energy recovery
system, producing more electricity, and hence more electricity is
displaced from the power plant. The GHG emissions of AIF reduce
57.3 kg CO2e tonne1 for every increment of 100 kWh tonne 1 of
MSW heating value. Meanwhile, based on a trial and error calculation
from Fig. 7, the breakeven MSW heating value for AIF to release equal
amount of GHG emissions compared to LFE is 598 kWh tonne1.
However, policy makers should note that not all discarded MSW is a
viable source for electricity generation. As it can be seen from
Table 2, the MSW components that contribute to high energy content
are mainly paper and plastics. The energy content from putrescibles is
relatively lower than paper and plastics (due to a relatively lower
heating value), regardless of the fact that it contributes to the highest
waste fraction among other MSW components. Also, glass and metals
are not suitable for combustion due to low heating values, with 0.04%
and 0.10% of total MSW energy content, respectively. In view of improving the MSW heating value of the energy recovery system in AIF, it
is suggested to discard putrescibles via other treatment methods
(e.g., composting or anaerobic digestion), and more pre-sorting effort
could be done on waste components particularly with low heating
values (e.g., glass and metals) before undergoing combustion process
in AIF.
4. Conclusions
The modeling approach used for calculating GHG emissions from
both LFE and AIF in this study is explained explicitly in this paper. It
provides a framework for policy makers to consider the performance
of GHG emissions of different waste disposal scenarios. The aggravation or mitigation of GHGs from the waste sector depends on the technology and the efciency of waste disposal facilities. Based on the data
collected, assumptions made, and system boundary dened in this
study, the net GHG emissions from AIF are less than LFE. The ndings
indicate that the implementation of the proposed waste management
policy framework 20052014 (Scenario 2) by the HKSAR Government
would emit less GHG than the current practice in Hong Kong. Based on
this study, some substantive measures to be taken to tackle the GHG
emissions in the waste sector include the reduction of landll CH4
emissions to the atmosphere through a higher CH4 recovery rate and
the enhancement of heat and electricity generation through improved

performance and efciency of energy recovery system. Nevertheless,

due to heterogeneous characteristics within MSW and complex
multi-criteria factors affecting the performance of waste disposal
facilities, policy makers should be aware that the variation of some
key inputs, as suggested in the sensitivity analyses, might alter the
overall impact on net GHG emissions.
The relentless growth in the volume of MSW constitutes both a
threat and an opportunity to society, depending on how we treat the
waste. One opportunity is to convert waste to wealth by enhancing
the potential utilization of energy recovery systems. Some results in
this study demonstrate that AIF has a great potential for reducing
GHG emissions via electricity generated from energy recovery system.
Substantial energy and carbon offsets can be achieved by capitalizing
on energy conservation through resource recovery of MSW. Economic
incentives can be provided to boost energy recovery in the waste sector. In addition, citizen acceptance of proposed waste management
policies is critical and should be taken into consideration. Strong
local opposition from the public will incur delays for waste disposal
facilities to be commissioned. The policy makers have the obligations
to pursue a sustainable waste management framework that is environmentally sound, economically feasible and socially acceptable.
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.04.061.
References
Assamoi B, Lawryshyn Y. The environmental comparison of landlling vs. incineration
of MSW accounting for waste diversion. Waste Manag 2012;32:101930.
Bogner J, Ahmed MA, Diaz C, Faaij A, Gao Q, Hashimoto S, et al. Waste management. In:
Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR, Dave R, Meyer LA, editors. Contribution of Working
Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, 2007. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge
University Press; 2007. p. 585618.
Brunner CR. Waste-to-energy combustion. In: Tchobanoglous G, Kreith F, editors. Handbook of solid waste management. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2002. p. 13.7.
Choy K, Porter J, Hui C, McKay G. Process design and feasibility study for small scale
MSW gasication. Chem Eng J 2004;105:3141.
Christensen TH, Simion F, Tonini D, Moller J. Global warming factors modeled for 40
generic waste management scenarios. Waste Manag Res 2009;27:87184.
CLP (Company Light Power Group). 2011 online sustainability report; 2011a.
CLP (Company Light Power Group). 2011 annual report; 2011b.
Damgaard A, Manfredi S, Merrild H, Stense S, Christensen T. LCA and economic evaluation of landll leachate and gas technologies. Waste Manag 2011;31:153241.
DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). 2011 guidelines to
Defra/DECC's GHG conversion factors for company reporting: methodology paper
for emission factors; 2011.
Eriksson O, Carlsson Reich M, Frostell B, Bjorklund A, Assefa G, Sundqvist JO, et al.
Municipal solid waste management from a systems perspective. J Clean Prod 2005;13:
24152.
Hammond G. Time to give due weight to the carbon footprint issue. Nature 2007;445(7125):
256.
Hao X, Yang H, Zhang GT. A new way for landll gas utilization and its feasibility in
Hong Kong. Energy Policy 2008;36:366273.
HKBEC (Hong Kong Business Environment Council). The Hong Kong business guide to
emission reduction [Internet]. [cited 2012 May 23]. Available from http://www.
climatechangebusinessforum.com/en-us/ghg 2012.
HKEB (Hong Kong Environment Bureau). Hong Kong's climate change strategy and
action agenda. Consultation Document; 2010.
HKEB (Hong Kong Environment Bureau). Take action now for proper waste management; 2011.
HKEMSD (Hong Kong Electrical & Mechanical Services Department). Study on the potential applications of renewable energy in Hong Kong. Stage 1 study report; 2002.
HKEPD (Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department). A policy framework for
the management of municipal solid waste (20052014); 2005.
HKEPD (Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department). North East New Territories
(NENT) landll extensions environmental impact assessment report; 2007.
HKEPD (Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department). West New Territories
(WENT) landll extensions environmental impact assessment report; 2009.
HKEPD (Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department). Environmental performance report 2010 [Internet]. [cited 2012 May 23]. Available from http://www.
epd.gov.hk/epd/misc/er/er2010/index.html 2010.
HKEPD (Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department). Monitoring of solid waste
in Hong Kong. Waste statistic for 2010; 2010b.
HKEPD (Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department). A study of climate change
in Hong Kongfeasibility study 2010; 2010c.
HKEPD (Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department). Engineering investigation
and environmental studies for integrated waste management facilities phase 1
feasibility study environmental impact assessment report; 2011.

K.S. Woon, I.M.C. Lo / Science of the Total Environment 458460 (2013) 499507
Hoornweg D, Bhada-Tata P. What a waste: a global review of solid waste management.
Urban development series; knowledge papers no. 15. Washington D.C.: The World
Bank; 2012
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2006 IPCC guidelines for national
greenhouse gas inventories. Waste, vol. 5; 2006.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Climate change 2007: the physical
science basis; contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M,
Chen ZM, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL, editors. New York: Cambridge
University Press; 2007.
Jaramillo P, Matthews HS. Landll-gas-to-energy projects: analysis of net private and
social benets. Environ Sci Technol 2005;39:736573.
Kaplan PO, Decarolis J, Thorneloe S. Is it better to burn or bury waste for clean electricity generation? Environ Sci Technol 2009;43(6):17117.
Leung D, Lee Y. Greenhouse gas emissions in Hong Kong. Atmos Environ 2000;34:
448798.
Levis JW, Barlaz MA. Is biodegradability a desirable attribute for discarded solid waste?
Perspectives from a national landll greenhouse gas inventory model. Environ Sci
Technol 2011;45:54706.
Lo A. China's response to climate change. Environ Sci Technol 2010;44:568990.
Mohareba AK, Warithb MA, Diazb R. Modelling greenhouse gas emissions for municipal
solid wastes management strategies in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Resour Conserv
Recycl 2008;52:124151.

507

Monni S. From landlling to waste incineration: implications on GHG emissions of

different actors. Int J Greenh Gas Con 2012;8:829.
Morris J. Bury or burn North America MSW? LCAs provide answers for climate impacts
and carbon neutral power. Environ Sci Technol 2010;44:79449.
Ng J. Green groups plead against incinerator site. South China Morning Post. 2011 Mar
18.
Ng J. Neighbours mull legal bid to stop incinerator. South China Morning Post. 2012 Jan
12.
Schiermeier Q. Climate and weather: extreme measures. Nature 2011;477:1489.
Tang H. Gov't opts not to use country park for landll. Hong Kong's Information Service
Department; 2011 [Jan 4].
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). Developing integrated solid waste
management plan. Training manualWaste characterization and quantication with
projections for future, vol. 1; 2009.
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). Waste and climate change: global
trends and strategic framework; 2010.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Solid waste management and greenhouse
citiesa life cycle assessment of emissions and sinks. 3rd ed. ; 2006 [Washington, DC].
Vergara SE, Damgaard A, Horvath A. Boundaries matter: greenhouse gas emission
reductions from alternative waste treatment strategies for California's municipal
solid waste. Resour Conserv Recycl 2011;57:8797.