Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene
Life cycle assessment of municipal solid waste treatment to energy options: Case
study of KARTAMANTUL region, Yogyakarta
Made Gunamantha a, *, Sarto b
a
Chemical Analysis, Ganesha University of Education, Faculty of Science and Mathematics, Udayana street, Kampus Tengah, Singaraja, Bali 801116, Indonesia
b
Chemical Engineering Department, Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Various methods of solid waste treatment are available. However, due to heterogeneity characteristic of
Received 25 May 2010 solid waste, determined the best means to manage solid waste in environmental view of point is not
Accepted 7 November 2011 straightforward. In this case, solid waste management scenarios and an environmental analysis tool are
Available online 25 November 2011
required. This study compared various energetic valorization options with each other using the
simplified Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology. These scenarios were landfilling without energy
Keywords:
recovery as a representative of existing solid waste management, landfilling with energy recovery,
Solid waste management
combination of incineration and anaerobic digestion, combination of gasification and anaerobic diges-
Energetic options
Life cycle assessment
tion, direct incineration, and direct gasification. A case study area in a typical KARTAMANTUL (acronym
Impact of three cities: Yogyakarta, Sleman, Bantul) intercity region in province of Yogyakarta, Indonesia. One ton
of solid waste treated was defined as the functional unit of the systems studied. The Life Cycle Inventory
(LCI) analysis was done by including field and laboratory survey to characterize solid waste in area study
and using emission factors which were adopted from literature to estimate environmental burdens for
each scenario. Inventory’s result was classified into impact categories, i.e. global warming, acidification,
eutrophication, and photochemical oxidant formation. The indicators of categories were quantified by
using the equivalence factors of relevant emissions to determine the environmental performance of each
scenario. The study shown that in most of the impact categories (except acidification), a scenario with
direct gasification indicated the best environmental profile. A sensitivity analysis was also conducted to
examine change in outcomes for a variety of organic biowaste inputs, but had no significant effect on the
overall result.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
0960-1481/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.renene.2011.11.008
278 M. Gunamantha, Sarto / Renewable Energy 41 (2012) 277e284
Compensation System
Fig. 1. The system boundary of the life cycle model (Adapted and modified from Ref. [8]).
other developing countries, the LCA studies comparing different which is the landfilling system without energy recovery applied to
integrated waste management system scenarios are very few as solid waste in the areas of KARTAMANTUL. To compare all of the
shown in Ref. [4,5,7,9e11], most of the various other studies as solid waste management scenarios, a point of reference is neces-
shown in Ref. [2,6,8,12e16] in developed country were used also as sary to fix for the environmental evaluation. This so-called func-
references in this study. tional unit has been defined as the one ton of municipal solid
The LCA was applied to assess the environmental profile of waste treated in the areas of KARTAMANTUL. The main processes
different solid waste management options proposed for solid waste in each scenario were considered as foreground system, and
currently treated in KARTAMANTUL (acronym of intercity Yogya- background system only addresses the compensatory system for
karta, Sleman, Bantul) region in Yogyakarta province, Indonesia. Its electricity generated as shown in Fig. 1. Alternatives considered in
economic has grown at an annual rate 4.53% over the past five years the study are: the landfilling system with or without energy
and the contribution or household consumption to the gross recovery, incineration, gasification, and anaerobic digestion
regional domestic product was 52.19% which directly effects to the (Fig. 1). This excluded collection and transportation and waste-
MSW growth [17]. Besides, the selected area was an important water treatment.
municipal agglomeration to determine this region as tourism and The treatment methods and the quantity distribution of solid
education destination. Various activities to support these activities waste for each scenario are shown in Table 1. The solid waste
have spoil over then, as the consequence solid waste management treated in the area study in the year of 2008, namely, 146,000 ton
corporation inter small city was needed. (or 400 tons/day). The existing system and five scenarios proposed
At present, in the municipal agglomeration region most of the are as follows:
solid wastes are treated by using an uncontrolled landfilling system. Scenario 0: a landfilling system. Waste is collected and buried in
Based on the Act No. 18/2008 on Solid Waste Management, such a conventional landfill.
a system should be closed in 2014. Therefore, the local government Scenario 1: a landfilling system with energy recovery. Biogas
should immediately seek a new alternative for the treatment of solid naturally released from the landfill is collected, treated, and burnt
waste generation. This LCA study is desired to provide the relevant (in situ) for producing electricity.
information to the decision maker to evaluate strategies for treat- Scenario 2: a combination of incineration and anaerobic diges-
ment of solid waste from environmental impact view of point. tion. It relies on the sorting plant of separating organic biowastes
and any combustible fractions (such as, plastic, textile, paper, wood,
2. Methodology nappies, and rubber and leather). The organic biowastes are
delivered to anaerobic digestion plants, combustible fractions to
LCA methodology was used to conduct an environmental the incineration plants, and the remaining to the landfill.
comparison between solid waste to energy schemes developed
through different scenarios in the current waste management Table 1
system. According to ISO 14040 [18], an LCA study comprises four The distribution of solid waste treated in each of the five scenarios.
phases: goal and scope definition, life cycle inventory analysis, life Solid waste Quantity of solid waste treated (ton/yr)
cycle impact analysis, and interpretation of the results. The first management
S-0 S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5
three are discussed in the following sections, while the interpre- system
tation is discussed in Section 3. Landfilling 146,000 e 18,250 18,250 18,250 18,250
Landfilling with e 146,000 e e e e
energy recovery
2.1. Goal and scope definition Incineration e e 54,750 127,750
Gasification e e 54,750 127,750
The study aims to compare five scenario energetic valorization Anaerobic digestion e e 73,000 73,000 e e
options with each other and the existing solid waste treatment, Note : S ¼ Scenario.
M. Gunamantha, Sarto / Renewable Energy 41 (2012) 277e284 279
Scenario 3: combined scenarios of gasification and anaerobic instrumental limited, some of ultimate analysis data typically
digestion. This scenario is the same as scenario 2, just by natural organic wastes were derived from laboratory analysis and
substituting incineration with gasification. the others were estimated from literature Ref. [20e22].
Scenario 4: direct incineration. Wastes are directly transported The second data were adopted from literatures. These data
to incineration plants with no sorting process. mainly are process parameters and some of emissions factor. Based
Finally, scenario 5: direct gasification, where wastes are directly on the MSW quantify and composition and data of model param-
transported to gasification plants with no sorting process. eters in each process, environmental burdens for each of the
In this study, the environmental burdens of emission gases, such examined scenarios were calculated. The references and using of
as CO2, CO, CH4, N2O, NO2, NH3, SO2, H2S, HF, HCl, and NMVOC were these data were described bellow.
selected as the objects for assessment. These burdens were
assigned (in the impact assessment phase) into impact categories, 2.2.1. Landfilling
including: global warming, acidification, eutrophication, and Methane production in landfilling system was estimated using
photochemical oxidant formation. Avoided emissions and impacts the USEPA model, LandGEM software [23]. Inputs required in this
were calculated as a compensation of electricity production in model are the year when the landfill was opened, the amount of
equivalent amount of energy displaced by energetic valorization waste piled in a year, local values of methane generation rate
options to the conventional electricity production. Emission factors constant of landfill (k) and potential methane generation capacity
from the combined conventional electricity production in JAMALI (Lo). In the study, k was determined by referring to the IPCC value
(Jawa, Madura, Bali) region in Indonesia on the year of 2006 (53.7% while Lo was determined as a function of the degradable organic
natural gas, 18.74% coal, and 27.69% oil) [19] were used for carbon (DOC) content. DOC was determined on the base of C-bio
computing the avoided environmental burdens from using recov- content in each of the solid waste components. In this process, the
ered electricity from waste treatment options. These emissions basic methane oxidation rate was 10%, the IPCC default. It is
factors for individual fuel were obtained from Ref. [8]. assumed that the methane content in landfill gas was 50%, while
concentrations of other gases, such as CO, H2S, NMVOC were
2.2. Life cycle inventory determined on the base of concentrations in landfill gas as set in the
LandGEM model. Other environmental burdens of HCl and HF gases
Life cycle inventory phase was done through using variety of were determined using emission factors of 6 and 2 mg/m3,
literature data to calculate outputs in terms of emissions to air. respectively, adopted from Ref. [12]. Pollutant emitted from the
However, most of waste characteristics (inputs) were collected diesel-based equipment for landfill operations for spreading and
from the disposal site in the area study. This phase included two solidifying waste was calculated by referring emission factors
main activities: data collection and calculation via model devel- which were adopted from Ref. [8]. By considering that emissions of
opment. Data collected were those on the characteristics of landfill gas occurred in a long period of time, an analysis was
municipal solid waste as inputs for the model and those necessary conducted in a range of 100 years in order that it can be consistent
to develop some parameters of the model. The MSW characteristic with other studies [3,7,8,13].
was taken as the input to the waste management system of each
scenario and its composition is shown in Table 2. The table displays 2.2.2. Landfilling system with energy recovery
the waste composition, NCV, proximate analysis (moisture, ash, Using this method, the efficiency of gas collecting system is
volatile matter, fixed carbon), and ultimate analysis (biogenic assumed to be 70%. The gas collections were done at 11th until 40th
carbon (DOC), nitrogen, sulfur and chlor content of each MSW years (including ten years after the post-operation of landfill). This
component, as well as the fossil carbon fraction of total carbon in consideration was based on result of estimation on the amount of
the each component). The former was collected by conducting landfill gas generation using the LandGEM model. Furthermore, the
a field study to define the physical composition and a laboratory landfill gas was used to drive gas turbine for producing electricity
analysis for the most of chemical composition data. The samples with determined capacity (6000 MWh/year). The content of energy
were collected in dry and wet season with one week in each season in biogas was determined as 17.7 MJ/m3 [13], while the efficiency of
and the ultimate and proximate analysis were performed on the conversion into power was defined as 30%. The excess biogas was
samples by the following basis sample on as-received basis. Due to burnt in flares to convert CH4 into CO2 and released into
Table 2
Characteristics of solid waste treated in the areas of KARTAMANTUL.
Parameter Unit Plastic Organic biowaste Wood Paper Textile Rubber & leather Nappies
Compositiond % wt 14.69 60.99 2.18 6.46 5.32 2.12 2.74
Water content % wt 17.89 84.83 40.15 38.93 41.72 8.43 25.77
Total solid (TS) % wt 82.11 15.17 59.85 61.07 58.28 91.57 74.23
Volatile matter (Vm) % db 88.09 64.64 67.74 44.94 82.84 55.88 85.11
Ash % db 7.84 28.49 8.12 35.80 4.83 42.90 9.23
Fixed carbon (FC) % db 4.07 6.89 24.15 19.26 12.34 1.23 5.66
Volatile solid % db e 10.19 e e e e e
C-biogenic % db 0.00 40.415 44.530 32.53b 35.27b 32.26b 19.06c
C_fossil % db 61.44a 0.81b 23.51b 2.29b 34.49c
C % db 61.44a 40.415 44.530 33.340a 58.780 46.32a 53.56
N % db 0.00 4.765 2.680 1.980 1.840 3.81a 0.12
S % db 0.00 0.430 0.120 0.320 0.130 0.13a 0.00
Cl gr/kg 1.59 10.27 3.705 0.78 4.53 9.58 3.04
Heating value GJ/ton 30.70 2.26 2.42 12.4 130.34 25.45 13.99
Fig. 2. Potential and avoided emission from each scenario. (a) Scenario 0, (b) Scenario 1, (c) Scenario 2, (d) Scenario 3, (e) Scenario 4, (f) Scenario 5.
atmosphere. It is not accounted for in the GWP because it does not global warming [13]. Almost all the emissions of landfill operations
have a fossil origin (it comes from the bioorganic fraction). So did were determined by using the same ways with those in the landfill
the remaining biogas that was not collected, 10% of them was system without energy recovery. Data on the need for internal
oxidized and the remaining was directly released into atmosphere. energy i.e. electricity for landfilling (2 kWh/ton waste), electricity
Therefore, about 20% of the remaining landfill gas was emitted to for gas collection (0.15 kWh/m3 landfill gas), diesel consumption
atmosphere. (1 L/ton waste) were adopted from Ref. [14].
Some emission factors of biogas combustion in the gas turbine
included CH4 (430 mg/MJ), NOx (100 mg/MJ), NMVOC (4 mg/MJ), 2.2.3. Anaerobic digestion
CO (250 mg/MJ), can be found in Ref. [25], and HCl (38 mg/Nm3), An organic biowaste fraction particularly consisted of kitchen
SO2 (6 mg/Nm3), are based on Ref. [26]. Meanwhile, emission garbage, leaves, grasses, and other biomasses. The crushed organic
factors of landfill gas combustion in open flares were CO (39.7 g/kg), biowaste fraction is put into an anaerobic digestion plant for biogas
NOx (162 mg/kg), and SO2 (931 mg/kg), according to Ref. [22] was (60% of CH4 and 30% of CO2) in a controlled process. The biogas
used. The CO2 emissions, both resulted from the biogas combustion production is associated with efficiency in conversion of volatile
in gas turbine and open flares, were not considered contributing to solid biodegradability [20] and [27]. Composition of CH4 in the
M. Gunamantha, Sarto / Renewable Energy 41 (2012) 277e284 281
Table 3
Energy recovery and environmental impacts for each scenario.
biogas was assumed 60%. Biogas was burnt in gas turbine for impact indicators were calculated associated to the product
producing electricity with efficiency in the conversion and internal emission amounts and their respective equivalency factors. All
energy use of electricity produced being 40% and 37%, respectively equivalency factors were adopted form Ref. [31] except CO which
[23]. It is assumed that biogas loss due to leakage in operations is was based on Ref. [32].
10% [24]. Emission factors in anaerobic digestion system operations
were allocated on the base of total solid contents. These factor 3. Result and discussion
values were CO2 (15), CH4 (4 kg/ton TS), NOx (46 kg/ton TS), CO
(11 kg/ton TS), NMVOC (3 kg/ton TS) [15]. 3.1. Environmental burdens for scenarios defined
2.2.4. Incinerator The environmental burdens from each scenario are shown in
Incineration is done by using a system with energy recovery. The Fig. 2aef. Except in Fig. 2a, all diagrams show the avoided envi-
power generated was calculated on the base of the lower heating ronmental burdens too. The value in brackets on yje horizontal axis
value content of the solid waste [16]. It is assumed that both shows a scaling factor for the value on the vertical axis. CO2 is
conversion efficiency and internal energy usage were 18% and 15% discerned as the dominant gas in mass emitted in most of scenarios
of electricity produced, respectively [22]. The quantity of ash except scenario 0 (landfilling without energy recovery) and
produced both (bottom ash and ash resulted from flue gas) was scenario 1 (landfilling with energy recovery). Scenarios 2 and 3 has
estimated by referring to Ref. [15]. Emission factors of CO2, SO2, much higher CO2 emission than other scheme, equivalent to 364 kg
NOx, N2O, NH3, and HCl in incineration were determined using due the carbon fossil content in combustible waste more higher
a product-related approach, while CO and NMVOC were deter- than in commingled waste. On the other side, due to the decom-
mined using a process-related approach [28]. Transfer coefficient position of organic waste in a landfill site, scenario 0 has the highest
data for C, N, Cl, and S were derived form Ref. [29]. emission of CH4 (17 kg CH4) and it is followed by scenario 1 (11 kg
CH4). The CO2 emission presented in scenario 0 and 1 is due to the
2.2.5. Gasifier energy consumption (through diesel oil) for equipment used to
It is assumed that the efficiency in gasification and internal disperse and compact the waste.
energy usage is 34% and 20%, respectively, of the electricity CO2 is the dominant avoided emissions released (in terms of
produced [27]. As done in the incinerator, the power produced was mass) in equivalent amount of energy displaced by the energetic
calculated on the base of the lower heating value of solid waste. The valorization options (in all alternative scenarios). Scenarios 3 and 5
number of char generated was estimated on the base of fixed have a much higher avoided CO2 emission than their CO2 emission,
carbon, ash and carbon in the unconverted volatile matters of input equivalent to 457 and 511 kg respectively for scenario 3 and 5 due
[30]. Emission factors for CO, CO2, SO2, H2S, NOx were considered in to higher energy recovery. The highest energy recovery is found in
this process. In this case, the emission factors of CO2, SO2, H2S, NOx scenario 5 (517 kWh) followed by scenario 3 (467 kWh), scenario 4
were determined by using the product-related allocation approach (291 kWh), scenario 2 (265 kWh), and scenario 1 (21 kWh)
with the use of the transfer coefficient of C, S, and N in the Ther- (Table 3). These results are determined by the conversion efficiency
moselect technology developed as mentioned in Ref. [29]. So did CO from each process.
being determined with the same ways as in incineration.
Other relevant data were obtained from literature and other
3.2. Environmental impact for scenarios defined
document. One key reference of the relevant data are emission
factors from the combined conventional electricity production in
Table 3 shows also the net of each potential environmental
JAMALI (Jawa, Madura, Bali) region in Indonesia of 2006 (53.7%
impact category of the scenarios defined. This total contribution is
natural gas, 18.74% coal, and 27.69% oil) [19] were used for
derived by adding the contribution from each process included in
computing the avoided environmental burdens from using recov-
the scenario and subtracting the avoided environmental burdens.
ered electricity from waste treatment options. These emissions
The contribution of each process in each scenario is discussed
factors for individual fuel can be found in Ref. [8].
bellow and shown in Fig. 3aed.
Fig. 3. Contribution of each process from each scenario to the impact indicators. (a) Climate Change (kg CO2 eq/fu), (b) Acidification (kg SO4 eq/fu), (c) Eutrophication (kg PO4 eq/fu),
(d) Photochemical Oxidant Creation (kg ethylene eq/fu). LF ¼ landfilling without energy recovery, LFE ¼ landfilling with energy recovery, INC ¼ incineration, GAS ¼ gasification,
AD ¼ anaerobic digestion.
(electricity production). However, these three scenarios indicate (Fig. 3b). However, total value of savings to acidification for scenario
climate mitigation compares to the base scenario as representing 2 was lower than scenario 5 but, for scenario 3 was slightly greater
the existing solid waste management: 83%, 59%, and 50% respec- than scenario 5. In this case, scenario 3 is the most preferable in
tively to scenario 4, 2, and 1. It would be different with scenario 1, 2 term of acidification.
and 4, the scenario 5, and 3 resulted a net negative indicator
namely, 168 kg CO2 eq/fu and 50 kg CO2 eq/fu respectively to 3.2.3. Eutrophication
scenario 5 and 3. The negative indicator means that the global Like for acidification, except scenario 1 (0.0050 kg PO4 eq/fu), all
warming potential avoided due to electricity production was energetic valorization options shown eutrophication savings
greater than that produced by main processes. The avoided GWP (Table 3). It means that, the eutrophication potential avoided due to
from electricity production (515 kg CO2 eq/fu and 469 kg CO2 eq/fu electricity production was greater than that produced by the main
(Fig. 3a) respectively for scenario 5 and 3) could offset the gross processes in each options. The highest value of saving is given by
GWP from main processes (347 kg CO2 eq/fu and 419 kg CO2 eq/fu scenario 5 (0.16 kg PO4 eq/fu) followed by scenario 3 (0.15 kg
respectively for scenario 5 and 3) resulting in negative indicator as PO4 eq/fu), scenarios 4 and 2 (0.08 kg PO4 eq/fu). The anaerobic
mentioned before. However, scenario 5 is preferable to scenario 3, digestion process generated greater eutrophication potential
then, when the focus is only on GWP, scenario 5 would be the best (0.45 kg PO4 eq/fu) than that generated by incineration or gasifi-
choice. cation in scenarios 2 (0.007 kg PO4 eq/fu) and 3 (0.005 kg PO4 eq/fu)
(Fig. 3c). However, the eutrophication potential avoided due to
3.2.2. Acidification electricity production was greater than that produced by main
Except of scenario 1 (0.0428 kg SO2 eq/fu), all of the scenarios processes in these scenarios, but, the net negative impact could not
proposed shown acidification savings (Table 3). The highest value of to step over scenario 5. Therefore, if the impact indicator for
savings was presented by scenario 3 (2.81 kg SO2 eq/fu), followed eutrophication is the main consideration, the best scenario is pre-
by scenario 5 (2.80 kg SO2 eq/fu), scenario 4 (1.4 kg SO2 eq/fu), sented by scenario 5.
and scenario 2 (0.87 kg SO2 eq/fu). Anaerobic digestion process
has the highest contributor to acidification for scenarios 2 and 3. 3.2.4. Photochemical oxidant formation
However, acidification avoided due to electricity production was Scenario 1 indicates a positive contribution for photochemical
greater than that produced by foreground production. It means, oxidant formation (0.3898 kg ethylene eq/fu). It is particularly
acidification potential from electricity production could offset the contributed by the landfilling activity. Scenarios 2, 3, 4, and 5
main processes resulting in a net negative of impact indicator. The shown savings in term of this impact. The highest value of saving is
highest acidification avoided from electricity production is showed shown by scenario 5 (0.16 kg ethylene eq/fu), followed by scenario
by scenario 2 (4.3 kg SO4 eq/fu) and scenario 3 (5.4 kg SO4 eq/fu) 3 (0.15 kg ethylene eq/fu), scenarios 2 and 4 (0.07 kg ethylene
M. Gunamantha, Sarto / Renewable Energy 41 (2012) 277e284 283
Fig. 4. Effect of biowaste composition on result of impact category. (a) Effect of biowaste composition on Global Warming Potential, (b) Effect of biowaste composition on Acid-
ification Potential, (c) Effect of biowaste composition on Eutrhopication Potential, (d) Effect of biowaste composition on Photochemical Oxidant Potential.
eq/fu) (Table 3). Although, the anaerobic digestion process was the 4. Conclusion
main contributor to the photochemical oxidant formation in
scenarios 2 and 3 (0.22 kg ethylene eq/fu) (Fig. 3d), avoided The result of the study indicate that LCA could be used as an
photochemical oxidant formation from electricity production by important tool for assessing and comparing different solid waste
these scenarios (0,31 and 0,4 for scenario 2 and 3 respectively) management scenarios for energy in treating solid waste in the
could offset it in a net negative impact. Likewise, both scenarios 4 areas of KARTAMANTUL, the Special Region of Yogyakarta. Selected
and 5, the avoided impact from electricity production could offset emissions to air and impact category indicator for assessment lead
the gross impact. In these scenarios the avoided photochemical to the following conclusions:
oxidant formation was achieved i.e. 0.12 and 0.21 kg ethylene eq
for scenarios 4 and 5, respectively (Fig. 3d). But, the most net In view of global warming, eutrophication, and photochemical
negative impact is scenario 5 (0.16 kg ethylene eq/fu). Therefore, if oxidant creation, scenario 5 (direct gasification þ landfilling)
photochemical oxidant formation is the main issue, the best profile was found to be the most feasible system with highest savings
is indicated by scenario 5. of 168 kg CO2 eq/fu, 0.17 kg PO4 eq/fu, and 0.16 kg ethylene
eq/fu respectively.
In terms of acidification, scenario 3 (gasification, anaerobic
3.3. Sensitivity analysis digestion þ landfilling) gives the highest value of saving
(2.8 kg SO2 eq/fu).
A sensitivity analysis in this study focused on variation in the
organic biowaste compositions by following the pattern variation Although scenario 3 showed the highest value of saving in
of 50%, 55%, 60.99% (existing composition), 65%, and 70%, while for acidification, the value was not too different with that of scenario 5
other fractions by proportionally following the original condition. (i.e. slightly worse than 2.8 kg SO2 eq/fu). Therefore, it is
The simulation indicates that variation in organic biowaste frac- concluded that scenario 5 was the best option with respect to the
tions did not affect the environmental profile in a substantial way environmental impacts. These results shown also that the LCA
(Fig. 4). methodology allows us to construct an environmental data set and
284 M. Gunamantha, Sarto / Renewable Energy 41 (2012) 277e284
examine the environmental impact of the life cycle of various waste [15] Borjesson P, Borglund M. Environmental systems analysis of biogas system-
sdpart I: fuel-cycle emissions. Biomass and Bioenergy 2006;30:469e85.
treatment methods to support a decision making on the solid waste
[16] Ribber C, Bhander GS, Christensen TH. Environmental assessment of waste
management strategy for energy. incineration in a life-cycle-perspective (EASEWASTE). Waste Manage Res
2008;26:96e103.
Acknowledgments [17] dan Bappeda DIY BPS. Analisis Produk Domestik Regional Bruto Provinsi
Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta 2002-2006. Kerjasama Badan Pusat Statistik
dengan Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Provinsi Daerah Istimewa Yogya-
The authors would like to thank Dr. Reinout Heijungs of CML karta; 2007. Yogyakarta.
Leiden University for the effective collaboration, as well as Prof. Dr. [18] ISO 14040. Environmental management e life cycle assessment e principles
and framework. Geneva, Switzerland: International Standards Organisation;
Cafied Fandeli, M.S and Prof. Dr. Salihuddin Djalal Tandjung, M.Sc 1997.
from Gadjah Mada University who kindly supervised the author. [19] PLN. Statistik PLN. Perusahaan Listrik Negara, http://www.pln.go.id; 2006
[accessed 12.07.08].
[20] Tchobanoglous G, Theisen H, Vigil S. Solid wastes engineering principles and
References management issues. Singapore: McGraw-Hill; 1993.
[21] IPCC. 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Japan:
[1] Thorneloe SA, Weitz K, Jambeck J. Application of the US decision support tool IGES; 2006.
for materials and waste management. Waste Manage 2007;27:1006e20. [22] Bjarnadóttir HJ, Guðmundur B, Friðriksson, Johnsen T, Sletsen H. Guidelines
[2] Burgess AA, Brennan DJ. Application of life cycle assessment to chemical for the use of LCA in the waste management sector. Nordtest Report TR 517.
processes. Chem Eng Sci 2001;56:2589e604. Finland, Available at: http://www.nordtest.org/register/techn/tlibrary/tec517/
[3] Arena U, Mastellone ML, Perugeni. The environmental performance of alter- tec517.pdf [accessed 06.03.07].
native solid waste management options: a life cycle assessment study. Chem [23] USEPA. Landfill gas emission model (LandGEM) version 3.02 user’s guide.
Eng J 2003;96:207e22. Washington, DC 20460: U.S: Environmental Protection Agency Office of
[4] Aye L, Widjaya ER. Environmental and economic analyses of waste disposal Research and Development; 2005.
options for traditional markets in Indonesia. Waste Manage 2006;26:1180e91. [24] Murphy JD, Power N. A technical, economic, and environmental analysis of
[5] Chaya W, Gheewala SH. Life cycle assessment of MSW-to-energy schemes in energy production from newspaper in Ireland. Waste Manage 2007;27:
Thailand. J Cleaner Prod 2007;15:1463e8. 177e92.
[6] Ozeler D, Yetis U, Demirer GN. Life cycle assessment of municipal solid waste [25] Baky, Eriksson O. System analysis of organic waste management in Denmark,
management methods: Ankara case study. Environ Int 2006;32:405e11. Environmental Project No. 822. Danish Environmental Protection Agency,
[7] Liamsanguan C, Gheewala SH. The holistic impact of integrated solid waste Copenhagen, Denmark. Available at: www.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2003/
management on greenhouse gas emissions in Phuket. J Cleaner Prod 2008;16: 87-7972-740-9/pdf/87-7972-741-7.pdf [accessed 13.11.08].
1865e71. [26] McDougall F, White P, Franke M, Hindle P. Integrated solid waste manage-
[8] Diaz R, Warith M. Life assessment of municipal solid wastes: development of ment a life cycle inventory. United Kingdom: Blackwell Science Ltd; 2001.
the WASTED model. Waste Manage 2005;26:886e901. [27] Murphy JD, McKeogh E. Technical, economic and environmental analysis of
[9] Wanichpongpan W, Gheewala SH. Life cycle assessment as a decision support energy production from municipal solid waste. Renew En 2004;29:1043e57.
tool for landfill gas-to energy projects. J Cleaner Prod 2007;15:1819e26. [28] Sundqvist JO. Life cycle assessment and solid waste guidelines for solid waste
[10] Zhaoa W, van der Voet E, Zhanga Y, Huppes G. Life cycle assessment of treatment and disposal in LCA. Stockholm, Sweden: IVL, Swedish Environ-
municipal solid waste management with regard to greenhouse gas emissions: mental Research Institute; 1999.
case study of Tianjin, China. Sci Tot Env 2009;407:1517e26. [29] Hellweg S, Hofsteter BT, Hungerbuhler K. Modeling waste incineration for life
[11] Batool SA, Chuadhry MN. The impact of municipal solid waste treatment cycle inventory analysis in Switzerland. Env Mod Ass 2001;6:219e35.
methods on greenhouse gas emissions in Lahore, Pakistan. Waste Manage [30] Jung CG, Fontana A. Slow pyrolysis vs gasification: mass and energy balances
2009;29:63e9. using a predictive model. CEB Working Paper No. 07/026 2007: Université
[12] Manfredi S, Christensen TH. Environmental assessment of solid waste land- Libre de Bruxelles e Solvay Business School e Centre Emile Bernheim ULB CP
filling technologies by means of LCA-modeling. Waste Manage 2009;29: 145/01 50, Brussels, BELGIUM: avenue F.D. Roosevelt 1050; 2007.
32e43. [31] Guinée JB, Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, van Oers L, et al. Life cycle
[13] Cherubini F, Bargigli S, Ulgiati S. Life cycle assessment of urban waste assessment: an operational guide to the ISO Standards. Dordrecht (Hard-
management: energy performances and environmental impacts, the case of bound, ISBN 1-4020-0228-9; Paperback, ISBN 1-4020-0557-1). Leiden, Neth-
Rome, Italy. Waste Manage 2008;28:2552e64. erlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2001.
[14] Den Boer E, Den Boer J, Jager J. Waste management planning and optimisation [32] Lundquist L, Manson JAE, Leterrier Y, Sunderland P. Life cycle engineering of
e; handbook for municipal waste prognosis and sustainability assessment of plastics: technology, economy and environment. Elsevier Science & Tech-
waste management systems. Stuttgart, Germany: Ibidem Verlag; 2005. nology Books; 2001.