Waste Management 32 (2012) 653–666

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Waste gasification vs. conventional Waste-To-Energy: A comparative evaluation

of two commercial technologies
Stefano Consonni ⇑, Federico Viganò
Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano, Via Lambruschini 4, 20156 Milan, Italy
LEAP (Laboratorio Energia Ambiente Piacenza), Via Bixio 27, 29100 Piacenza, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A number of waste gasification technologies are currently proposed as an alternative to conventional
Received 29 June 2011 Waste-to-Energy (WtE) plants. Assessing their potential is made difficult by the scarce operating experi-
Accepted 16 December 2011 ence and the fragmentary data available. After defining a conceptual framework to classify and assess
Available online 28 January 2012
waste gasification technologies, this paper compares two of the proposed technologies with conventional
WtE plants. Performances are evaluated by proprietary software developed at Politecnico di Milano and
Keywords: compared on the basis of a coherent set of assumptions. Since the two gasification technologies are con-
Waste gasification
figured as ‘‘two-step oxidation’’ processes, their energy performances are very similar to those of conven-
Energy recovery
Waste-to-Energy
tional plants. The potential benefits that may justify their adoption relate to material recovery and
Performance estimation operation/emission control: recovery of metals in non-oxidized form; collection of ashes in inert, vitrified
form; combustion control; lower generation of some pollutants.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Background and scope
As an alternative to conventional Waste-to-Energy (WtE) tech-
nologies, where Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) is fully oxidized in a
single-step combustion process, a number of technologies where
MSW is partially oxidized in a gasifier have been proposed (Heer-
mann et al., 2001; E4tech, 2009).
Gasification of solid combustible matter is not a new idea nor a
new technology: industrial applications for the production of town
gas from coke date back to the beginning of the XIX century, while a
number of large scale plants for the production of electricity from
coal or heavy oil residues have been built in the US and Europe in
the last 30 years (Gumz, 1950; Simbeck et al., 1993; Higman and
Van Der Burgt, 2003; Minchener, 2005). A large number of detailed
studies and projections have been developed either on technologi-
cal aspects and the market potential of Integrated Gasification
Combined Cycle (IGCC) plants (e.g. Bechtel, 2003; Aiken et al.,
2004; Gray et al., 2004; Holt, 2005). In 2007, more than 100 plants
fed with coal or petroleum residues were in operation, for a total
capacity of more than 48,000 MWth of syngas heating value (NETL,
2007).
A large body of literature is also available for the gasification of
biomass, (e.g. Reed, 1981; Consonni and Larson, 1996; McKendry,
2002; Knoef, 2005; Osowski et al., 2005; Juniper, 2007), although
the operating experience and the scale of commercial applications
is much more limited than for coal.
Many of the concepts and the process schemes applicable to
fossil fuels or biomass are applicable also to MSW – at least in prin-
ciple (Belgiorno et al., 2002; Malkow, 2004; Arena, 2011). How-
ever, the peculiar and most variable characteristics of MSW tend
to make gasification much more challenging and troublesome; in
fact, even for a much better defined feedstock like coal the varia-
tion of feedstock properties produces a major impact on the design,
performance, maintenance and cost of gasification (Collot, 2006) –
ultimately on its feasibility.
Even if a number of significant applications do exist (Arena,
2012), the extreme challenges of waste gasification prevent from
considering it an established commercial option: operating experi-
ence is quite limited and data on actual performances, reliability
and costs are fragmentary and incomplete, making comparisons
with conventional technologies very difficult. Nonetheless, under-
standing the potential of waste gasification and assessing whether
it may become an alternative to conventional combustion plants is
relevant for two sorts of issues: (i) technical, because gasification
may, at least in principle, overcome critical caveats of conventional
technology; (ii) political, because gasification is often put forward
to public administrators as the benign, innovative alternative to
the wicked, old-fashion combustion plants.

1.1. Gasification plants

⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano, Via
Lambruschini 4, 20156 Milan, Italy. Tel.: +39 02 2399 6803; fax: +39 02 2399 6837. While ‘‘gasification’’ is the mere process that converts a solid or
E-mail address: stefano.consonni@polimi.it (S. Consonni). liquid combustible feedstock into a partially oxidized gas called

0956-053X/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2011.12.019
654 S. Consonni, F. Viganò / Waste Management 32 (2012) 653–666

Nomenclature

ASR Automotive Shredded Residues LCA Life Cycle Assessment

CHP Combined Heat and Power LHV Lower Heating Value
DMS Direct Melting System LTFBG Low Temperature Fluidized Bed Gasifier
EGR Exhaust Gas Recirculation MSW Municipal Solid Waste
GC Grate Combustor RDF Refuse Derived Fuel
HHV Higher Heating Value SC Separate Collection
HRSG Heat Recovery Steam Generator SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction
HTGG High Temperature Grate Gasifier SNCR Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction
IGCC Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle URW Unsorted Residual Waste
IWMS Integrated Waste Management System WtE Waste-to-Energy

‘‘syngas’’ (basically a mixture of CO, H2, CO2 and H2O), the term
‘‘gasification plant’’ is generally used to name the whole system
that converts the primary feedstock into useful energy carriers.
Fig. 1 illustrates the basic process options and the possible outputs.
In principle, the primary feedstock could be any hydrocarbon; in
practice, for a given gasifier the admissible range of feedstock
properties is rather narrow (much more than for a combustor), be-
cause the chemistry and the fluid-dynamics of gasification are very
sensitive to variations of feedstock composition, moisture, ash con-
tent, particle size, density, reactivity, etc. Differently from combus-
tion plants, where the useful output is power and possibly heat, in
a gasification plant the output can vary over a wide range: not only
power and heat, but also chemicals, liquid fuels or hydrogen. To do
so, however, syngas must be properly treated to meet the (typically
very stringent) requirements of the process for the production of
chemicals, liquid fuels or hydrogen. Proper syngas treatment is
needed also to meet the requirements of high-efficiency, inter-
nally-fired cycles (gas turbines, internal combustion engines),
which would not survive to the acid gases, the particulates, the
tar and all other impurities in the raw syngas generated by the
gasifier.
Whether syngas is properly treated to meet the specifications of
an internally-fired cycle or a synthesis process makes a fundamen-
tal difference in the nature and the potential of the gasification
plant. If raw syngas is combusted into a boiler to feed an exter-
nally-fired cycle, the gasification plant is very similar to a combus-
tion plant, with the difference that full oxidation is carried out in
two steps: first feedstock gasification, then syngas combustion.
On one hand, such ‘‘two-step oxidation’’ plant is much simpler
and easier to operate than a plant comprising syngas clean-up
and, downstream, one of the systems represented in the lower sec-
tion of Fig. 1. On the other hand, the mere breakdown of oxidation
into two steps allows capturing only few of the potential benefits
of gasification. This is why a plant designed according to the
‘‘two-step oxidation’’ concept in the upper section of Fig. 1 can
be regarded as a particular type of combustion plant, rather than
a gasification plant.
1.2. Waste gasification vs. waste combustion
Given the characteristics of the MSW feedstock and the issues at
stake in conventional combustion plants, the rationale of waste

Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the basic processes of a gasification plant. If raw syngas is combusted into a boiler (path in upper part) the plant is very similar to a
combustion plant, with the difference that oxidation is broken down into two steps. The potential benefits of gasification can be fully captured only by following the ‘‘full’’
gasification path in the lower part, where syngas is properly treated ahead of being fed to an internally-fired cycle, a synthesis process or a system to generate hydrogen.
 S. Consonni, F. Viganò / Waste Management 32 (2012) 653–666 655

gasification vs. waste combustion can be summarized in the five

(c) At the small scale typical of waste treatment plants, efficiency of internally-fired systems is low (especially if gas turbine-
(b) Due to the consumption/losses of gasification and syngas clean-up, overall energy conversion efficiency is typically lower
(a) since syngas is highly toxic and explosive, its presence raises major security concerns and requires sophisticated control

The actual production of pollutants depends on how syngas is processed downstream of the gasifier; if syngas is eventually
(b) since feedstock is oxidized/converted in two steps (gasification + syngas combustion/conversion) plants tend to be more
items in the left column of Table 1. The table also reports the major

(b) At the small scale typical of waste treatment plants, synthesizing quality fuels or chemicals can entail prohibitive costs
drawbacks and issues that tend to offset the potential advantages.

Pressurized waste gasification poses formidable challenges and has not been attempted by any technology developer
The relevance and the implications of the items in the right column
of the table explain why waste gasification has had so few applica-
tions so far. In addition to the issues that afflict fossil fuel-based
plants, waste gasification must cope with further problems specific
to the waste feedstock: large variability of composition, high con-
centrations of contaminants, unfavorable chemical properties
(high moisture, low LHV, high ash content), unfavorable physical
properties (irregular particle size, low density).
(a) Required syngas treatment is costly and causes significant energy consumption/losses

This situation has induced most of the proponents of waste gas-

ification to pursue the more manageable ‘‘two-step oxidation’’
scheme. In fact, for a feedstock with composition and physical
properties varying over such a wide range like MSW, generating
a syngas that can reliably meet the stringent specifications of an
internally-fired cycle or even more a synthesis process is a formi-
complex and costly, more difficult to operate and maintain, less reliable

dable challenge. And even if technical challenges could be over-

come, at the small scale typical of waste treatment plants net
Related drawbacks/issues that hinder the benefit of gasification

energy conversion efficiencies are likely to be lower than those

of combustion plants, while investment and operating costs tend
(a) Required syngas treatment very demanding and costly

to be higher.
oxidized, dioxins, furans and NOX may still be an issue

From the standpoint of the schematic comparison in Table 1, a

two-step oxidation scheme captures benefits 1 and 2 but misses
the other three. Two-step oxidation is thus a somewhat ‘‘partial’’
solution that should be regarded as an intermediate step toward
the accomplishment of ‘‘full’’ gasification schemes.

1.3. Systems considered in this paper

than that of combustion plants

This paper focuses on two technologies falling in the realm of

‘‘two-step oxidation’’ processes. Even if such processes prevent
from capturing the full potential benefits of gasification, they are
the ones adopted in most commercial technologies currently avail-
equipment

able (Arena, 2012) and, most important, the ones for which data
are available to verify the predictions of simulation models.
based)

The basic goal of this paper is to compare on a coherent basis

the performance achievable by the selected gasification technolo-
Syngas can be used, after proper treatment, in highly efficient internally-fired cycles (gas
(a) the combustible gas generated by gasification (syngas) is easier to handle, meter and

(b) the homogenous, gas-phase combustion of syngas can be carried out under conditions

gies with those of state-of-the-art, conventional WtE plants. This

Gasification at high pressure enhances the opportunities to increase energy conversion
Syngas can be used, after proper treatment, to generate high-quality fuels (diesel fuel,

goal has been pursued by generating detailed mass/heat balances

for each one of the three plant considered (grate gasifier, fluidized
bed gasifier, grate combustor: see further), thereby estimating
gross and net power output. The comparison is carried out over a
(ii) reduce the generation of some pollutants (dioxins, furans and NOX)

wide range of power outputs (thermal input from 12.5 to

300 MWth) to show the relevance of plant scale, while the implica-
tions of the most crucial assumptions is evaluated by a sensitivity
analysis around the reference thermal input of 50 MWth. Such ref-
(i) improve the quality of solid residues, particularly metals

erence scale somewhat averages the size of the largest plants real-
Potential advantage/benefit of gasification vs. combustion

ized by Ener-G and Ebara.

more favorable than those achievable with MSW

1.4. Two-step oxidation plants

Rationale of waste gasification vs. waste combustion.

turbines and combined cycles, Otto engines)

A two-step oxidation plant comprises a sequence of two reac-

The reducing conditions in the gasifier:
Waste gasification vs. waste combustion

tors, which can feature a variety of operating conditions depending

gasoline or hydrogen) or chemicals

on whether each reactor is adiabatic or not and the type and flow
of oxidant (air, oxygen or oxygen-enriched air) used in each
efficiency and reduce costs

reactor.
The first reactor is the gasifier, where waste is partially oxidized
with a sub-stoichiometric amount of oxidant; the second is the
control than MSW

combustor, where the partially oxidized flow generated by the gas-

ifier is fully oxidized by adding further oxidant, generating a flue
gas flow nearly identical to the one generated by conventional
‘‘single-step’’ combustors. Depending on feedstock characteristics
and reactor conditions, gasification may not be complete, so that
Table 1

the raw syngas exiting the gasifier may still include some solid
1

combustible matter. If this is the case, either such matter is re-cir-

656 S. Consonni, F. Viganò / Waste Management 32 (2012) 653–666
culated to the gasifier or the combustor downstream is designed to
handle also some solid flow. Except for fly ash and some volatile
components, most of the inert, non-combustible material is col-
lected at the bottom of the gasifier, with metals mainly in non-oxi-
dized form. If the gasification temperature is high enough, dioxins
and furans possibly contained in the waste are destroyed; given
the scarcity of oxygen, their re-formation ahead of the combustor
is unlikely, while the presence in the flue gases downstream of
the combustor depends on how combustion is carried out and
how syngas and flue gases are treated.
Between the gasifier and the combustor, raw syngas may un-
dergo cooling and some sort of treatment. However, syngas treat-
ment is generally mild (typically, removal of coarse particular
matter) because the homogeneous combustion process down-
stream can easily handle high contents of acid gas, impurities,
tar, etc. In fact, the homogeneous gas–gas oxidation taking place
in the combustor constitutes one of the major strengths of the
two-step oxidation scheme: being much easier to control than
the heterogeneous solid–gas oxidation taking place in a conven-
tional WtE plant, it allows reducing excess air and possibly realize
pre-mixed flames. Lower excess air reduces heat losses at the stack
and thus increases energy recovery efficiency, while pre-mixed
flames can yield substantial reduction of NOX emissions.
2. Technologies analyzed in this paper
As already mentioned, the basic goal of this paper is to compare
two selected gasification plants with state-of-the-art, conventional
WtE plants. The reference WtE plant consists of a grate combustor
integrated with the boiler, flue gas treatment, steam Rankine cycle
for power production. The two gasification plants are meant to rep-
resent the technologies offered by the English company Ener-G
(which has taken up the technology formerly offered by the Nor-
wegian company Energos; http://www.energ.co.uk, accessed on
May 2010) and by the Japanese company Ebara (http://www.ebar-
a.com, accessed on May 2010):
– the plant resembling the Ener-G technology features a grate
gasifier operating at about 900 °C, and will be called here High
Temperature Grate Gasifier (HTGG),
– the plant resembling the Ebara technology is based on a fluid-
ized bed operating around 600 °C, and will be called here Low
Temperature Fluidized-Bed Gasifier (LTFBG).
Both these technologies consist of an air-blown, two-step oxi-
dation process. They are far from representing the variety of sys-
tems pursued or proposed all around the world, but they are
among the few that have operated commercially for some years
and for which some data for model verification are publicly avail-
able. Table 2 summarizes the basic features of the three technolo-
gies, while the following paragraphs give a detailed description of
the plant configurations and their operating parameters.
Other gasification-based technologies adopted in a number of
commercial plants, mainly in Japan, are the Direct Melting System
(DMS) offered by the Nippon Steel company and the Thermoselect
process. In the former, MSW (or RDF) and coke are co-gasified at
high temperature with oxygen-enriched air to generate high heat-
ing value syngas and vitrified solid residues (Chiappero, 2008). So-
lid residues are vitrified also in the Thermoselect process, where
waste is gasified with oxygen and, after proper treatment, syngas
is fed to an internal combustion engine (http://www.thermose-
lect.com, accessed on May 2010). The same in plasma gasification,
where the waste feedstock is brought to very high temperature,
and thus converted to syngas, by an electric arc (Heberlein and
Murphy, 2008; Gomez et al., 2009).
2.1. High temperature grate gasifier (HTGG)
In the technology proposed by Ener-G (formerly Energos, see
http://www.energ.co.uk, accessed on May 2010) the gasifier con-
sists of a moving grate very similar to a conventional grate com-
bustor (Fig. 2). The basic differences with respect to conventional
combustion plants are the primary air flow rate, which is about
half the amount needed for complete oxidation, and the absence
of tube walls. Adiabatic gasification conditions are preferable be-
cause they increase the syngas heating value, which in turn facili-
tates the attainment of stable combustion conditions. The low flow
rate of air is inadequate to cool the grate, whereby the need for a
dedicated cooling system; Energos has opted for oil cooling,
although water could also be used. Presumably for this same rea-
son, air is not pre-heated. Low air flow rates also raise concerns
about the carbon content in the bottom ash, which are likely to
be higher than those achievable by a conventional combustor;
everything being equal, one would expect that achieving the same
carbon content of a conventional grate combustor requires a longer
residence time, i.e. a larger grate and thus higher capital costs.
According to the provider of the technology, operating the grate
gasifier at about 900 °C gives a nearly complete conversion of solid
combustible material into syngas. Such complete conversion is
important to carry out combustion under homogeneous condi-
tions, with a large recirculation of flue gases (30% of flow at HRSG
outlet) which levels temperature profiles and limits NOX produc-
tion. Combustion takes place in a large oxidation chamber at very
low temperature (around 1000 °C), at conditions resembling what
is called ‘‘mild’’ or ‘‘flameless’’ combustion. Such ‘‘mild’’ conditions
may allow complying with NOX emission limits without adopting
abatement systems (even if, given the trend toward lower and low-
er emission limits, the adoption of at least a Selective Non-Catalytic
Reduction (SNCR) system, is likely to be necessary). The oxidation
chamber plays a role similar to the post-combustion chamber of
conventional plants, i.e. it insures the residence time and temper-
ature required for the destruction of most dioxins and furans.
In the package offered by Ener-G, the HRSG placed downstream
of the oxidation chamber has a rather unconventional arrange-
ment, since after a first water-tube section it comprises a smoke
tube section. The proponents claim that such smoke tube section
warrants faster flue gas cooling across the temperature window
250–400 °C, thus minimizing dioxins ‘‘de novo’’ formation (Lago,
2008). In the absence of quantitative data on the impact of dioxins,
we can observe that the smoke tube arrangement is very likely to
increase gas-side pressure losses and that its application is re-
stricted to low evaporation pressures, which however penalize en-
ergy conversion efficiency (the package described on the company
website features steam conditions of 22 bar, 380 °C).
The absence of syngas treatment determines the same risks of
HRSG corrosion and erosion experienced in conventional combus-
tion plants, as well as flue gas treatment requirements very similar
to those of conventional WtE plants – except possibly for NOX
abatement, as discussed above. Consequently it is reasonable to as-
sume the same flue gas treatment line of the reference combustion
plant, described in Section 2.3.
2.2. Low Temperature Fluidised-Bed Gasifier (LTFBG)
The gasification technology proposed by the Japanese company
Ebara (http://www.ebara.com, accessed on May 2010) consists of
an air-blown, two-step oxidation process carried out in two highly
turbulent reactors: a fluidized bed for gasification followed by a
‘‘cyclonic’’ furnace for combustion (Fig. 3). The small particle size
required for proper operation of the fluidized bed and the high tem-
peratures required for proper operation of the furnace make the
technology suitable to the treatment of RDF or other pre-treated,
 S. Consonni, F. Viganò / Waste Management 32 (2012) 653–666 657

Table 2
Main features of the three technologies considered in this paper.

Technology High Temperature Grate Gasifier (HTGG) Low Temperature Fluidised Bed Gasifier (LTFBG) Grate Combustor (GC)
Distinctive aspects NOX control Vitrified solid residues Conventional technology
Thermal treatment Two-step oxidation Two-step oxidation Direct combustion
Oxidant Air Air Air
Gasifier Cooled by stand-alone circuit Adiabatic –
Combustor Adiabatic Cooled by stand-alone circuit Cooled by boiler tube banks
Boiler Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG) Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG) Integrated with combustor
Power cycle Steam Rankine cycle Steam Rankine cycle Steam Rankine cycle
Syngas cleanup Not applied but potentially applicable Not desirable –

Fig. 2. Schematic representation of the High Temperature Grate Gasifier (HTGG), which is meant to reproduce the technology proposed by Ener-G. The flue gases exiting the
adiabatic oxidation chamber go to a Heat Recovery Steam Generator that feeds a conventional steam Rankine cycle for the production of power.

high-heating value material like Automotive Shredded Residues
(ASR: see Selinger and Steiner, 2004).
Gasification takes place in a fluidized bed operated at low tem-
perature, about 600 °C, to prevent the fusion of low-melting point
metals like aluminum. This allows extracting most of the metals at
the bottom of the gasifier in non-oxidized and thus easily market-
able form; in fact, the high recovery rate of metals is one of the dis-
tinctive features of this technology, which makes it particularly
attractive for the treatment of materials with high metal content
like ASR. On the other hand, low temperatures slow down gasifica-
tion reactions, so that the solid particles entrained in the flow at
the exit of the gasifier still include combustible material.
The combustor is designed to handle a flow with a significant
content of solids at a temperature above their melting point (more
than 1400 °C). Pushed by the strong swirl effect created by the
injection of air along the tangential direction, molten ashes end
up on the water-cooled refractory-lined walls and are eventually
collected in the quenching bath at the bottom of the cyclonic fur-
nace, where they solidify in vitrified granular form. The discharge
of most of the ashes from the combustor in vitrified, inert form is
another significant feature of the technology, particularly appreci-
ated in countries with very low landfill capacity like Japan.
The hot flue gases leaving the furnace go through a Heat Recov-
ery Steam Generator (HRSG). Since no sort of treatment is applied
to syngas, the HRSG is exposed to the same risks of corrosion end
erosion that jeopardize the boiler of conventional WtE plants. In
fact, the Ebara design conditions are more severe, because flue
gases enter the HRSG at a temperature significantly higher than
that reached in conventional grate combustors, which always
operate below the ash melting point. In the plant realized by Ebara
for the treatment of ASR, where the risk of acidic corrosion is even
higher due to the high-chlorine content of the feedstock, steam is
generated at the extremely conservative conditions of 30 bar,
325 °C. While these moderate conditions help achieving an accept-
able life of the steam generator, they penalize the performances of
the steam cycle and the plant energy efficiency (Viganò et al.,
2010).
The absence of syngas treatment also determines flue gas treat-
ment requirements very similar to those of a conventional WtE
plant. Consequently, it is reasonable to assume the same flue gas
treatment line of the reference combustion plant, described in Sec-
tion 2.3.
2.3. Conventional WtE plant
The reference plant consists of a conventional WtE system
(Fig. 4) where MSW (or possibly RDF) is fed directly to a moving
grate combustor integrated with the steam generator. The moving
grate supports waste throughout the combustion process and
makes it travel from the feeding section to the ash discharge
658 S. Consonni, F. Viganò / Waste Management 32 (2012) 653–666
Fig. 3. Schematic representation of the Low Temperature Fluidized-Bed Gasifier (LTFBG), which is meant to reproduce the two-step oxidation technology proposed by Ebara.
The flue gases exiting the cyclonic combustor go to a Heat Recovery Steam Generator that feeds a conventional steam Rankine cycle for the production of power.
section. The oxidizing agent is air, supplied underneath the grate
(primary air) and over the flame region (secondary air). A moderate
fraction of flue gas (15% of flow at boiler exit) is recirculated to the
secondary air port for NOX control.
Flue gases leave the combustion chamber through a series of
radiant channel cooled by evaporator tube walls. After such radiant
cooling, flue gases go through the convective section of the boiler,
where they are cooled by the remaining tube banks of the evapo-
rator, the superheater and the economiser. To prevent/limit corro-
sion, flue gas temperature at the inlet of the convective section is
limited to about 650 °C.
The flue gases exiting the boiler (economiser outlet) at 180–
200 °C enter a dry flue gas treatment system that includes, along
the direction of the gas flow: electrostatic precipitator (ESP); reac-
tor with injection of sodium bicarbonate and activated carbon; fab-
ric filter; low temperature Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)
reactor for NOX abatement. Across the treatment line some heat
is recovered for condensate and feed-water preheating. While flue
gas treatment has minor effects on energy recovery, it is obviously
crucial for emissions and environmental performances.
The power section comprises a conventional superheated steam
cycle with moderate regenerative feed-water preheating.
3. Plant modeling
To develop coherent estimates of the performances of the three
plants to be compared, a detailed model of each of them has been
set up with the same simulation tool: a proprietary code named
GS. By calculating mass flow, composition and thermodynamic con-
ditions (pressure, temperature, enthalpy, etc.) at inlet and outlet of
each component, the code allows evaluating the power output and
the efficiency of the whole plant – as well as of its subsections.
3.1. GS simulation software
GS is a proprietary simulation code originally developed at
Princeton University for the analysis of gas/steam power cycles
(Consonni, 1992) and then extended at the Department of Energy
of Politecnico di Milano (Macchi et al., 1995; Consonni and Larson,
1996; Campanari and Macchi, 1998) to handle nearly all energy
conversion systems fired with either conventional and non-con-
ventional fuels. The system to be simulated is described as an
ensemble of elementary components (pump, compressor, combus-
tor, cooled or uncooled gas turbine, heat exchanger, regenerative
steam cycle, chemical reactor, etc.) connected by material flows.
GS evaluates sequentially and iteratively the mass and energy bal-
ances of each component, until the conditions of all material flows
and the properties of each component reach stable values. After
convergence is achieved, the code can carry out a full second law
analysis.
Each component is evaluated by a dedicated model, with a par-
ticular attention to the components crucial to the production of
power like turbo-machines. To account for the most relevant ef-
fects that determine their performance, the expansion carried
out in steam turbines is modeled by estimating the efficiency of
each turbine stage based on similarity and size parameters (Baljé,
1981; Macchi and Perdichizzi, 1981; Lozza, 1990). The resulting
correlation between isentropic expansion efficiency and gross
electric power output reported in Fig. 5 is particularly relevant
to the plants considered here, where the energy conversion effi-
ciency of the plant varies significantly not only with the steam cy-
cle parameters (steam conditions at turbine inlet, condensation
pressure, steam cycle configuration, etc.) but also with power
output. Such well-known scale effect on the efficiency of the tur-
bo-generator is basically due to the impossibility of maintaining
 S. Consonni, F. Viganò / Waste Management 32 (2012) 653–666 659

Fig. 4. Schematic representation of the conventional Grate Combustor (GC) technology assumed as reference for our analyses.

Fig. 5. Isentropic expansion efficiency of axial steam turbines vs. gross electric power output as predicted by the GS software. The curve refers to fixed inlet steam conditions
(65 bar, 450 °C) and fixed discharge pressure (0.09 bar). Below 40 MW rotational speed is increased above 3000 rpm, thereby preventing direct connection with the electric
generator, to avoid a sharp drop in efficiency. At very small power outputs rotational speed is limited to 12,000 rpm to avoid an inconvenient design of the gearbox that
connects the turbine to the generator, which at those power outputs typically rotates at 1500 rpm.

perfect geometric similarity between large and small machines1
(Csanady, 1964).
3.2. Model setup and calibration
The models of the GC plant and of the LTFBG plant have been
taken from Consonni et al. (2005a) and Viganò et al. (2010), respec-
1
In a small-size machine the penalties due to the finite size of blade tip clearances
and trailing edge thickness are higher, because operating and manufacturing
constraints set a minimum value to clearances and edge thicknesses.
tively, while the model of the HTGG plant has been adapted from
Reggi (2010). Running these models with GS gives the steady-state
performances and the mass/energy balances of each plant compo-
nent – whereby the performances of the whole plant.
The model of each technology has been calibrated to reproduce
as closely as possible available data on the operating conditions and
the performances of actual commercial plants. Data for model cal-
ibration have been collected from selected publications (Selinger
and Steiner, 2004; Lago, 2008) or companies’ websites (http://
www.energ.co.uk, accessed on May 2010; http://www.ebara.com,
accessed on May 2010), which however are somewhat incomplete
660 S. Consonni, F. Viganò / Waste Management 32 (2012) 653–666

Table 3
Outcome of the calibration carried out for the HTGG plant. Figures in italics are simulation inputs.

Published data Simulation

Ambient conditions Temperature (°C) n.a. 15.0
Pressure (bar) n.a. 1.01325
Humidity (%) n.a. 60.0
Treated waste (t/y) 43,395 43,395
Equivalent working hours (h/y) 7850 7850
Waste flowrate (kg/s) n.a. 1.536
Composition (% by mass on wet basis)
Feedstock C n.a. 33.022
Cl n.a. 0.400
F n.a. 0.000
H n.a. 1.438
N n.a. 0.600
O n.a. 28.407
S n.a. 0.050
Ash n.a. 21.083
Moisture n.a. 15.000
LHV (MJ/kg) n.a. 8.409
Thermal input (MWLHV) n.a. 12.913
Gasifier Syngas temperature (°C) 900 900
k gasifier (O2 /stoichiometric O2) 0.5 0.45
Syngas composition (% volume, dry) CO 14 13.89
H2 5 4.84
CH4 4 4.00
CO2 /CO molal ratio 1.56 1.58
Boiler Flue gas temperature at inlet (°C) 900–1000 959
Exchanged thermal power (MWth) n.a. 10.84
Steam generation (t/h) n.a. 14.50
O2 at exit (% volume dry) 7.0 7.0
Steam cycle Steam pressure (bar) 22 22
Steam temperature (°C) 380 380
Condensing pressure (bar) n.a. 0.07
Energy recovery Gross power output (MWE) n.a. 1.72
Gross electricity production (kWhE /y) 13, 356 13,502
Thermal power cogenerated (MWth) n.a. 4.56
Heat cogenerated (kWhth /y) 36, 070 35,804
Net power output (MWE) n.a. 1.03
Net electricity production (kWhE /y) n.a. 29,108
Total 1st law efficiency (gross basis, %LHV) 48.6
45.0
Total 1st law efficiency (net basis, %LHV) 43.3

Table 4 Table 5
Waste composition and heating value assumed for all simulations. Assumptions that define the reference plant size.

Reference waste Treatment capacity (t/y) 135,000

Design LHV (MJ/kg) 10.34
Composition % by mass, wet basis C 27.59
Design yearly operating hours (h/y) 7800
Cl 0.26
Nominal thermal input (MWLHV) 50
F 0.004
Energy production Only electricity
H 4.23
N 0.67
O 17.39
S 0.04
Ash 16.46 For both gasification systems it is assumed that syngas compo-
Moisture 33.37
sition is at equilibrium except for methane, for which we have
Total 100.0
assumed the concentration indicated by the technology suppliers.
Heating value (MJ/kg) Lower (LHV) 10.34
As discussed in Viganò et al. (2010) this assumption may be inac-
Higher (HHV) 12.08
curate, especially for the LTFBG gasifier. However, in the plants
analyzed here approximations on syngas composition have mini-
mal effects on mass/energy balances, because the overall amount
and fragmentary. The gaps left by the scarcity of publicly available of oxidation air depends solely on the oxygen concentration in
data have been filled with assumptions representative of waste the flue gases.
treatment practice (e.g. consumption of auxiliaries for feedstock
and ash handling, flue gas cleaning, etc.) and/or with back-calcula- 3.3. Technology simulation
tions (e.g. the composition of the waste fed to the HTGG plant has
been determined from the syngas composition published in the After the three GS models have been calibrated, they have been
company’s website http://www.energ.co.uk, accessed on May utilized to evaluate the performance of each plant under the same
2010). Table 3 reports the outcome of the calibration of the HTGG operating conditions: same waste composition (Table 4), same
plant. treatment capacity and operating hours (Table 5), same steam
 S. Consonni, F. Viganò / Waste Management 32 (2012) 653–666 661

Table 6
Variation of design parameters with plant size assumed for all simulations. For all sizes, the temperature of primary air has been assumed as follows. HTGG: ambient temperature
(no preheating). LTFBG: 225 °C. GC: 150 °C. In all cases, carbon content in bottom ash is 2% (by mass) of dry ash.

Nominal thermal input (MWLHV) 12.5 25 50 100 200 300

Waste flowrate (kg/s) 1.209 2.418 4.836 9.671 19.342 29.014
Treatment capacity (at 7, 800 h/y) (t/y) 33,913 67,826 135,652 271,304 542,609 813,913
O2 in flue gases at boiler exit (%vd)
HTGG 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.0 4.5 4.0
LTFBG 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1
GC 7.5 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.5
Steam pressure at turbine inlet (bar) 30 35 40 45 65 70
Steam temperature at turbine inlet (°C) 350 380 400 420 440 450
No. of steam bleedings for air preheating
HTGG – – – – – –
LTFBG 1 1 2 2 2 2
GC 1 1 2 2 2 2
Condensate preheating with flue gas No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
LP regenerative condensate preheater No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Feedwater temperature at boiler inlet (°C) 120 120 140 140 140 140
O2 in flue gas at stack (%vd)
HTGG 8.0 7.5 7.0 6.0 5.5 5.0
LTFBG 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1
GC 8.5 8.0 7.5 7.0 6.5 6.5
Flue gas temperature at stack (°C) 180 180 135 135 135 135

cycle configuration and basic parameters, same flue gas tempera-
ture at boiler exit, etc.
The waste composition, very similar to the one already used in
Consonni et al. (2005a,b), is meant to reproduce the mean compo-
sition of the Unsorted Residual Waste (URW) of an Italian waste
management system with 35% overall source separation for
recycling.
3.4. Parametric analysis of scale effects
The design criterion of a plant for the thermal treatment of
waste typically refers to the size of the population to be served,
so that its thermal power (rarely above 250–300 MWLHV) turns
out to be much smaller than that of a power station designed for
electricity production (1000–2000 MWLHV and more). At the small
scale typical of waste treatment plants, efficiency varies very sig-
nificantly with plant size due to two effects:
(1) strong variation of steam turbine efficiency with its power
output (see Fig. 5),
(2) strong ‘‘economies of scale’’ on the cost of major compo-
nents (boiler, turbine, flue gas treatment systems, etc.), i.e.
the specific cost (€ per ton/h or € per kWLHV) of large plants
is much smaller than the specific cost of small plants.
As a consequence of economies of scale (item 2 above), the con-
figuration and the operating conditions adopted in large plants are
more sophisticated than those adopted in small plants; the ensuing
efficiency benefits add to the benefit of higher turbine efficiencies
and enhance the superiority of large-scale plants. It is worth men-
tioning that higher efficiencies increase avoided emissions, so that
large-scale plants feature better outcomes not only in terms of en-
ergy efficiency and economic return, but also in terms of environ-
mental indicators (Consonni et al., 2005b).
Given the utmost relevance of scale effects on the thermal treat-
ment of waste, we’ve carried out a parametric analysis over a range
of thermal inputs from 12.5 to 300 MWLHV . To account for the vari-
ations of configuration and design parameters adopted in commer-
cial plants we’ve varied the inputs of our GS simulations as
reported in Table 6. The range of steam cycle parameters in the ta-
ble is coherent with the overview given by Kamuk (2010), while
the variation with plant size is coherent with the state-of-the-art
of WTE plants in Europe and the characteristics of small-medium
scale turbo-generators offered by major manufacturers (Alstom,
2010, 2011; Siemens, 2009).
The O2 content assumed for the flue gases at the stack (see bot-
tom section of Table 6) decreases with plant size to account for the
better control typically achievable in large installations – a circum-
stance well established in conventional GCs which should be
attainable also in the two-step oxidation processes considered
here.2 The lower values (with respect to GCs) assumed for the gasi-
fication plants are meant to signify the impact of more favorable
combustion conditions, which are nearly homogeneous in the com-
bustor of the LTFBG and fully homogeneous in the HTGG.
The preheating temperature assumed for primary air is the
same for all sizes and varies with the technology:
– no preheating for the HTGG, where the very low flow of air
makes grate cooling critical,
– preheating to relatively high temperature (225 °C) for the
LTFBG, where such preheating is necessary to reach a combus-
tion temperature (about 1400 °C) above the ash melting
temperature,
– preheating to 150 °C for the GC, a typical value adopted in com-
mercial plants.
In all cases air is preheated by steam bled from the steam tur-
bine or, when needed, from the boiler drum. In the LTFBG, the air
pre-heat temperature needed to achieve the required combustion
temperature of 1400 °C depends on the heating value of the waste
feedstock; for small plants with low steam evaporation pressure
(30 bar, see Table 6), the value of 225 °C considered here is some-
what extreme, because the steam drawn from the boiler drum con-
densates at just 234 °C.
Given the requirements on the quality of bottom ashes, the car-
bon content in the solid residues of the grate (HTGG and GC) and of
2
The combustor of a large plant has a lower surface-to-volume ratio, which
facilitates the complete oxidation of the combustible matter. As a consequence, in
modular plants the reduction of the O2 content in the flue gases is less likely.
Table 7

662
Energy balances of the fuel conversion section (gasification + combustion) at the reference size of 50 MWLHV .

HTGG LTFBG GC
Description % of waste LHV Description % of waste LHV Description % of waste LHV
Gasifier
a Air preheating (by steam bled from None – Up to 225 °C +2.9 – –
steam turbine)
b Grate cooling 0.5 – – – –
c Ash discharge 0.136 kgash /kgwaste at 900 °C 1.3 0.025 kgash /kgwaste at 590 °C 0.1 – –
d Heat from bottom ash to air Ash cooled down to 400 °C +0.7 None – – –
e Thermal loss of bottom ash 10% of heat released to air 0.1 – – – –
f Vapor from bottom ash quench Mixed with syngas +0.0 Mixed with syngas +0.0 – –
g Unburnt carbon in bottom ash 2% by mass of dry ash 0.9 2% by mass of dry ash 0.2 – –
h Other thermal losses – 0.2 – –
Syngas
i Chemical energy (LHV) 65.2% of waste LHV 82.5% of waste LHV –
j Thermal energy 32.7% of waste LHV 19.9% of waste LHV –
Combustor

S. Consonni, F. Viganò / Waste Management 32 (2012) 653–666

k Air preheating (by steam bled from None – Up to 225 °C +7.7 Up to 150 °C +6.8
steam turbine)
l Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) 30% of flue gas at boiler exit +0.4 None – 15% of flue gas at boiler exit +0.2
m Thermal losses 1.5% of syngas LHV 1.0 1.5% of syngas LHV 1.3 1.5% of waste LHV 1.5
n Combustor cooling system – 0.5 MJ/kg of slag 0.5 Air cooled grate –
o Ash/slag discharge 0.021 kgash /kgwaste at combustion 0.2 0.102 kgslag/kgwaste at combustion 2.0 0.149 kgash /kgwaste at combustion 1.9
temperature temperature temperature
p Heat from bottom ash/slag to air None – None – Ash cooled down to 400 °C +1.4
q Thermal loss of bottom ash/slag 10% of heat released to air – – – 10% of heat released to air 0.1
r Final cooling of bottom ash/slag None (dry discharge) Water quench Water quench
s Vapor from bottom ash quench – – Mixed with flue gas +0.1 Mixed with flue gas +0.0
t Unburnt carbon in bottom ash None – 2% by mass of dry ash 0.7 2% by mass of dry ash 1.0
Boiler
u Thermal losses 1% of exchanged heat 0.9 1% of exchanged heat 0.9 1% of exchanged heat 0.9
v Steam generation 85.2 93.6 91.8
w Flue gas fan +0.6 +0.6 +0.6
x Condensate preheating 3.9 3.9 3.9
y Stack loss 7.7 7.9 7.9
z Net energy to steam cycle 89.1 86.9 88.9

(a) The HTGG comprises a moving grate similar to those adopted in conventional grate combustors. In combustors, the grate temperature is typically controlled by feeding combustion air underneath the grate. In the HTGG this
grate cooling technique becomes much more challenging, because the flow of gasification air is about half the flow of stoichiometric combustion air. Consequently, for the HTGG we have assumed that air is not pre-heated.
Although it eases grate cooling, no air pre-heat penalizes efficiency. These considerations do not apply to the LTFBG, where gasification air is not used as cooling medium and therefore can be pre-heated to high temperature to
improve efficiency.
(b) HTGG is equipped with a dedicated oil-cooling system. Following the configuration proposed by Ener-G (http://www.energ.co.uk, accessed on May 2010) it is assumed that the heat picked up by the cooling oil is rejected to
ambient. As for the LTFBG, it is assumed that its operation is nearly adiabatic.
(c) Since it is assumed that all plants are fed with the same waste, the amount of ash discharged depends only on the technological features of each process. Our estimates are based on extrapolations of data published by
technology suppliers – which, however, are affected by the characteristic of their reference waste.
(d) For the HTGG we assume that bottom ash, before its discharge, is cooled by the gasification air fed underneath the grate – the same as in a conventional grate combustor. Instead, in the LTFBG the contact time between bottom
ash and gasification air is kept short to avoid the oxidation of metals, whereby the amount of heat transferred is negligible.
(e) It is assumed that 90% of the heat released by bottom ash is recovered through air preheating, while the remaining 10% is lost.
(f) In both gasifiers bottom ash is eventually cooled in a quenching bath, which besides removing the ash allows sealing the gasifier against air and syngas leakages. The vapor (and possibly other gases) generated in the quenching
bath goes into the gasification reactor and contributes to the final composition and mass flow of syngas. Its energy content is negligible, since its temperature is about 100 °C.
(g) Unburnt carbon is discharged from the gasifier together with ash. The corresponding energy loss has been evaluated by assuming that its LHV is the same as graphite (33.5 MJ/kg).
(h) Since no other loss is considered for the LTFBG, this penalty has been introduced to account for the imperfect thermal insulation of the reactor.
(i and j) The ratio between chemical energy in the syngas and chemical energy in the feedstock is called ‘‘Cold Gas Efficiency (CGE)’’ of the gasifier. For the two technologies considered here where raw syngas is directly combusted,
both chemical and thermal energy in the syngas are available for energy recovery.
(k) For the LTFBG and the GC we have assumed high air preheating temperature to improve energy efficiency. The preheating temperature assumed for the LTFBG is actually higher than that reported in available performance
estimates, because the moderate LHV would otherwise prevent from reaching the ash melting temperature (1400 °C). The 150 °C assumed for the GC is coherent with state-of-the-art air-cooled combustors (higher values may
require water cooling). For the HTGG we have assumed no combustion air preheating to limit the flame temperature and thus NOX production – a distinctive feature of this technology.
 S. Consonni, F. Viganò / Waste Management 32 (2012) 653–666 663

the melting combustor (LTFBG) has been assumed 2% of dry ashes

(t) The HTGG features nearly homogeneous gas-phase combustion with little ash content. Instead, the LTFBG combustor handles also unburnt solid fuel with significant amounts of ash. Consequently, despite its high temperature

(y) Since the stack temperature assumed for all the three technologies is the same, differences in stack losses are due to differences in flow rate and flow composition, which in turn are determined by the O2 content and the amount
(o) In the HTGG combustor, ash is collected at the bottom of the oxidation chamber. In the LTFBG cyclonic combustor molten ash flows along the refractory-lined walls down to the quenching bath. In the GC bottom ash is

(z) Since air preheating is carried out with steam drawn from the steam cycle, the net energy to the steam cycle is the sum of the energy devoted to steam generation (value on line v), the energy recovered for condensate
for all technologies and all sizes. As already mentioned, for the
(n) The refractory-lined walls of the LTFBG combustor are cooled by a dedicated cooling circuit. Since the walls collect the molten ash, the heat removed has been assumed as proportional to the amount of ash collected.

HTGG this is likely to require a residence time much higher than

for the GC, and thus higher costs.
(s) Vapor (and possibly other gases) released from ash solidification and quenching in the LTFBG combustor is sent to the main flow of flue gases. The same applies for the hot bottom ash discharged by the GC.
3.5. Sensitivity analysis

To appreciate the relevance of the most influential hypotheses

adopted for the parametric analysis of scale effects, for the plant
with nominal thermal input 50 MWth we have carried out a sensi-
(p) In the combustor of either the HTGG and the LTFBG the contact time between ash and combustion air is too short to give significant heat recovery. The opposite holds for conventional GCs.
(l) EGR aims at reducing the flow of secondary air and the flame temperature, increase turbulence and limit NOX formation. The positive energy contribution in the table is due to the EGR fan.

tivity analysis to the assumptions subjected to the largest uncer-

tainties/variations:
some carbon is likely to end up in the slag collected in the quenching bath. The GC handles all the solid fuel and its ash content, so that bottom ash always include some unburnt carbon.

– O2 content in flue gases at boiler exit and stack (±1 percentage

point),
– steam pressure and temperature at turbine inlet (from 30 bar,
350 °C to 70 bar, 450 °C),
– LHV of waste (from 9 to 11.7 MJ/kg, following variations of
moisture content).

Notice that the LTFBG cannot meet its design specifications over
all the ranges indicated above. Operating with O2 content in flue
gases +1 percentage point or waste LHV 9 MJ/kg would prevent
from reaching a combustion temperature of at least 1400 °C, which
is necessary to generate ashes in vitrified form. For this reason, the
LTFBG has been simulated only for O2 content 1 percentage point
and waste LHV 11.7 MJ/kg.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Energy balance

Table 7 reports the energy balances of the fuel conversion sec-

tion (gasification + combustion) of the three plants at the reference
size of 50 MWLHV , while Fig. 6 gives overall gross and net electric
discharged at the end of the grate and, after releasing heat to combustion air, it falls into a quenching bath.

efficiencies. The values in each column of Table 7 are percent of the

LHV of the waste feedstock.
In the HTGG plant, syngas carries 97.9% of the energy input:
65.2% as chemical energy (LHV of syngas) and 32.7% as thermal en-
preheating (value on line x), and the energy used for air preheating (values on lines a and k).

ergy. The complement to 100 is the sum of losses and gains in the
(x) Energy transferred to liquid water from low-temperature flue gases ahead of the stack.

grate gasifier, where the former are due to grate cooling, ash dis-
charge, unburnt carbon and thermal losses; the latter are the heat
recovered from bottom ashes.
In the LTFBG plant the energy content of the syngas sums to
more than 100 due to the energy brought in by preheated air,
which more than compensates the marginal losses of the small
amount of ash discharged from the fluidized bed. The fraction of
syngas energy carried as chemical energy (85.2% of waste LHV,
vs. 19.9% as thermal energy) is much higher than in the HTGG
(w) Energy transferred to flue gases from the flue gas fan.

due to the low gasification temperature.

(m) Due to thermal dissipations from the combustors.

The combustor of the HTGG is subject to minor energy ex-

changes – the most relevant due to thermal losses. Instead, the
combustor of the LTFBG and the GC feature a significant energy in-
(u) Thermal dissipations to the environment.
(v) Total heat transferred to the steam flow.

of vapor coming from the quenching baths.

put from preheated combustion air; in the slagging combustor of

the LTFBG such input is essential to reach the temperature needed
to melt the ash (see note to line k of Table 7). Following the rela-
tively large flow of ash, the energy loss due to ash discharge is large
– about 2% of the energy in the waste feedstock.
(q) See comment to line e.
(r) See comment to line o.

Mainly as a consequence of the energy carried in by preheated

air, the energy released to steam in the boiler of the LTFBG and the
GC is significantly higher than that released in the boiler of the
HTGG: 93.6% of waste LHV in the LTFBG and 91.8% in the GC, vs.
85.2% in the HTGG. Notice however that these values are not boiler
efficiencies, which must obviously account for the energy brought
in by air, and that the larger steam production of the LTFBG and GC
has to make up for the steam needed for air preheating.
664 S. Consonni, F. Viganò / Waste Management 32 (2012) 653–666

Fig. 6. Gross and net electric efficiencies at the reference plant size of 50 MWLHV .

Fig. 7. Gross and net electric efficiencies vs. plant size. The increasing trend exhibited by all plants is due to the scale effect on turbine efficiency shown in Fig. 5 and the
improvements in design parameters reported in Table 6. The last part of the curves for the HTGG and the LTFBG are dashed because the feasibility at such large scale has yet to
be demonstrated.

Finally, the stack losses of the HTGG are slightly lower due to the
lower O2 content in the flue gases which, as already mentioned, is
made possible by the more favorable, homogeneous combustion
conditions.
The bottom line of Table 7 (line z) gives the net energy input to
the power cycle. Given that air preheating is carried out with steam
drawn from the steam cycle, such net energy is the sum of the
energy devoted to steam generation (value on line v), the energy
recovered for condensate preheating (value on line x), and the
energy used for air preheating (values on lines a and k).
The net input to the power cycle of the LTFBG (86.9%) is about 2
percentage points lower than the input to the HTGG (89.1%) and
the GC (88.9%); this difference is mainly due to the larger energy
loss associated to the discharge of high-temperature, melted ash.
Gross power output is determined by the net input on line z and
by the efficiency of the steam cycle, which increases with air
preheating.3 The combined effect of these two elements gives the
3
Air preheating allows increasing the production of high pressure steam at the
expense of the medium-low pressure steam used for preheating, thereby increasing
power output and efficiency.
situation in Fig. 6: while the two gasification technologies are
approximately equivalent, GC stands out because its power cycle
benefits of both relatively high net energy input (88.9% of waste
LHV) and relatively high conversion efficiency (due to air preheating).
This is even more the case for net electric efficiency because, due to
their complexity, gasification plants require higher auxiliary power
consumption.
4.2. Scale effects
Fig. 7 shows the variation of gross and net electric efficiencies
with plant size. The efficiencies achievable by the two gasification
technologies are about the same because the advantages of the
HTGG (lower stack losses, lower ash discharge losses, lower thermal
losses) approximately breakeven with the advantages of the LTFBG
(air preheating). The GC stands out because it benefits of either air
preheating and moderate losses. As discussed in Section 3.4, the
increasing trends shown in Fig. 7 are the consequence of the
improvements (from small- to large-scale) in design parameters
reported in Table 6, and the improvements in steam turbine effi-
ciency shown in Fig. 5.

15
HTGG LTFBG
10
Overall net power variation,
+1.02 +0.82
-1.32
-5
-10
O2 content in fluegas
-15 -1 percentage point
+1 percentage point
-20
Fig. 8. Results of sensitivity analysis. The bars report the variation of net power output with respect to the net power output of the plant with reference thermal input of
50 MWLHV , i.e. 9.85 MW for HTGG, 9.80 MW for LTFBG, 10.25 MW for GC. For the LTFBG, two bars are missing because O2 content +1 percentage point and waste LHV 9 MJ/kg
would prevent from reaching the required combustion temperature.
4.3. Peculiarities of the technologies analyzed
Figs. 6 and 7 show that the ‘‘two-step oxidation’’ version of
waste gasification does not give advantages in terms of energy effi-
ciency. On the contrary, due to additional loss mechanisms and
higher auxiliary power consumption the efficiencies reached by
the HTGG and LTFBG plants are lower than those achievable by
GC plants.
The distinctive features and the potential benefits that may jus-
tify the adoption of the gasification schemes analyzed here lie in
areas different from energy recovery. More specifically, the HTGG
technology:
– allows better control of combustion, which takes place in
homogeneous gas conditions,
– allows reducing the generation of some pollutants, particularly
NOX and those more easily controlled by homogeneous com-
bustion (CO, hydrocarbons),
while the LTFBG technology:
– allows separating most of the metals in non-oxidized form (in
the gasifier),
– allows collecting most of the ashes in inert, vitrified form.
4.4. Sensitivity analysis
Fig. 8 reports the results of the sensitivity analysis on the overall
net power output of the plants with reference size (thermal input
50 MWLHV) with respect to O2 content in flue gases, steam condi-
tions and waste LHV.
As already mentioned, the LTFBG cannot operate with O2 con-
tent +1 percentage point or waste LHV 9 MJ/kg, because under
those conditions the required combustion temperature of 1400 °C
would not be reached.
In the HTGG, the temperature of the combustion flame is main-
tained at 1000 °C (the value indicated by the technology supplier –
Lago, 2008; http://www.energ.co.uk, accessed on May 2010) by
adjusting the EGR; at low O2 contents and/or high waste LHV, this
may lead to very high flow rates of recirculated gas, which increase
S. Consonni, F. Viganò / Waste Management 32 (2012) 653–666 665
GC HTGG LTFBG GC HTGG LTFBG GC
+10.50
+6.81 +7.23
+0.78 +1.42 +1.22 +1.37
-0.98
-1.83 -1.86
-7.52
-8.69
Steam parameters Lower Heating Value
“veryconservative” 9.0 MJ/kg
“advanced
” 11.7 MJ/kg
-15.70
(Ref. 10.35 MJ/kg)
either investment cost and fan consumption; should these penal-
ties become too large, one would presumably accept higher flame
temperatures, which however tend to increase NOX production.
The figure shows that the steam conditions at turbine inlet have
an overwhelming effect on plant efficiency. Going to ‘‘advanced’’
steam conditions (70 bar, 450 °C) increases net power output by
7–10%, which means an efficiency increase of 2–3 percentage
points. The opportunity to pursue such improvement must be eval-
uated by weighing it against the higher investment and mainte-
nance costs of operating at such advanced conditions, which
inevitably enhance corrosion in the evaporator and the super-
heater. The larger gains achievable by the LTFBG follow from
preheating combustion air to high temperature (225 °C); when
evaporation pressure goes up, the steam used for air preheating
can generate extra-work in the high-pressure section of the tur-
bine, which adds to the extra-work attributable to higher pressure
and temperature at turbine inlet. The same consideration explains
why the GC gains more than the HTGG, where air is not preheated.
The reduction of O2 content in flue gases is more likely to be
achieved in the HTGG, where homogeneous gas-phase combustion
allows better flame control; as shown in the left section of the fig-
ure, the ensuing power output increase is around 1%, i.e. efficiency
increases by 0.2–0.3 percentage points.
Higher waste LHV increases power output mainly by reducing
heat losses at the stack. The improvement is perceptible but small:
going from the reference LHV of 10.35 MJ/kg to 11.7 MJ/kg (+13%)
increases power output by nearly 1.5%, which means an efficiency
increase of 0.2–0.3 percentage points. These values give a sense of
the (marginal) improvements achievable by treating waste to pro-
duce high-quality RDF.
5. Conclusions
Waste gasification can be implemented according to two, basic
conceptual schemes: ‘‘two-step oxidation’’ and ‘‘full’’ gasification.
The former can be regarded as a particular type of combustion
and, as such, it gives features and performances very similar to
those of conventional WtE plants. The latter gives access to the full
range of potential advantages of gasification, but it requires over-
coming much more challenging issues.
666 S. Consonni, F. Viganò / Waste Management 32 (2012) 653–666
The difficulties of realizing ‘‘full’’ gasification schemes have in-
duced most of the proponents of waste gasification to pursue more
manageable ‘‘two-step oxidation’’ schemes like those analyzed
here. Their energy performance is basically determined by the con-
figuration and the operating parameters of the steam cycle and by
auxiliary power consumption. Due to additional loss mechanisms,
plants featuring two-step oxidation give efficiencies lower than
those achievable by conventional GCs.
For all the technologies analyzed here, the crucial factors that
determine energy efficiency are (i) scale and (ii) steam conditions
at turbine inlet. Large-scale GCs (thermal input 250 MWLHV and
above) can reach net efficiencies in excess of 28%, which falls below
16–18% when thermal input is smaller than 25 MWLHV . The same
holds for gasification plants, which however reach net efficiencies
1–2 percentage points lower than GC plants across most of the
power range considered here (the difference vanishes when ther-
mal power becomes very small). For a medium–low scale plant
(thermal input 50 MWLHV) the increase of steam pressure and tem-
perature to the values adopted in large scale plants can generate
efficiency improvements of 2–3 percentage points, with the higher
values reached by the LTFBG as a consequence of strong air
preheating.
The potential benefits that may justify the adoption of the gas-
ification technologies analyzed here lie in areas different from
energy recovery. For HTGG, better combustion control and lower
production of some pollutants, particularly NOX; for LTFBG, separa-
tion of metals in non-oxidized form and collection of ashes in inert,
vitrified form.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of Regione
Emilia-Romagna within the framework of project ‘‘Tecnopoli della
Regione Emilia Romagna – Tecnopolo di Piacenza – Attività I.1.1 –
Asse 1 POR FESR 2007-2013’’.
References
Aiken, R., Ditzel, K.H., Morra, F., Wilson, D.S., 2004. Coal-Based Integrated
Gasification Combined Cycle: Market Penetration Strategies and
Recommendations. Study prepared for US DOE-NETL-GTC (Gasification
Technology Council) by Booz-Allen-Hamilton under contract DE-AM26-
99FT40575, September 3, 2004, pp. 1–100.
Alstom, 2010. Steam Product Solutions – MT Steam Turbine – Mid-sized Turbine.
Company brochure available on the website. <http://www.alstom.com/power/>
(accessed on November 2011).
Alstom, 2011. Steam Product Solutions – GRT – Steam Turbines. Company brochure
available on the website. <http://www.alstom.com/power/> (accessed on
November 2011).
Arena, U., 2011. Gasification: an alternative solution for waste treatment with
energy recovery. Waste Management 31, 405–406.
Arena, U., 2012. Process and technological aspects of municipal solid waste
gasification. Waste Management 32, 625–639.
Baljé, O.E., 1981. Turbomachines: A Guide to Design Selection and Theory. John
Wiley, NY, USA (pp. 1–526, ISBN 0471060364).
Bechtel, Global Energy and Nexant, 2003. Gasification Plant Cost and Performance
Optimization. Final Report prepared for US DOE/NETL by Bechtel Corp.
(Houston, TX), Global Energy Inc. (Houston, TX) and Nexant Inc. (San
Francisco, CA) under contract DE-AC26-99FT40342, pp. 1–79.
Belgiorno, V., De Feo, G., Della Rocca, C., Napoli, R.M.A., 2002. Energy from
gasification of solid wastes. Waste Management 23, 1–15.
Campanari, S., Macchi, E., 1998. Thermodynamic analysis of advanced power cycles
based upon solid oxide fuel cells, gas turbines and Rankine cycles. ASME Paper
98-GT-585.
Chiappero, A., 2008. La tecnologia DMS per la gassificazione di Rifiuti Solidi Urbani.
In: Proceedings of the Workshop ‘‘Le tecnologie per il recupero di energia da
rifiuti a confronto’’. Politecnico di Milano, Sede di Piacenza, 18 June, 2008 (in
Italian).
Collot, A.-G., 2006. Matching gasification technologies to coal properties.
International Journal of Coal Geology 65, 191–212.
Consonni, S., Larson, E.D., 1996. Biomass-gasifier/aeroderivative gas turbine
combined cycle. Part A – Technologies and performance modelling; Part B –
Performance calculations and economic assessment. Journal of Engineering for
Gas Turbines and Power 118, 507–525.
Consonni, S., 1992. Performance Prediction of Gas/Steam Cycles for Power
Generation. MAE Dept. Ph.D. Thesis No. 1983-T, Princeton University,
Princeton, NJ, USA.
Consonni, S., Giugliano, M., Grosso, M., 2005a. Alternative strategies for energy
recovery from municipal solid waste. Part A: Mass and energy balances. Waste
Management 25, 123–135.
Consonni, S., Giugliano, M., Grosso, M., 2005b. Alternative strategies for energy
recovery from municipal solid waste. Part B: Emission and cost estimates.
Waste Management 25, 137–148.
Csanady, G.T., 1964. Theory of Turbomachines. McGraw-Hill, NY, USA, pp. 1–378.
E4tech, 2009. Review of Technologies for Gasification of Biomass and Wastes.
NNFCC project 98/008. Available from: <www.nnfcc.co.uk>.
Gomez, E., Amutha, D., Rani, Cheeseman C., Deegan, D., Wisec, M., Boccaccini, A.,
2009. Thermal plasma technology for the treatment of wastes: a critical review.
Journal of Hazardous Materials 161, 614–626.
Gray, D., Salerno, S., Tomlinson G., 2004. Current and Future IGCC Technologies:
Bituminous Coal to Power. Technical Report MTR 2004-05 prepared for US DOE
Office of Coal and Environmental Systems Gasification Technologies Program by
Mitretek Systems, Falls Church, Virgina, August 2004.
Gumz, W., 1950. Gas Producers and Blast Furnaces. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Heberlein, J., Murphy, A.B., 2008. Thermal plasma waste treatment. Journal of
Physics D: Applied Physics. 41 (Art. No. 053001).
Heermann, C., Schwager, F.J., Whiting, K.J., 2001. Pyrolysis & Gasification of Waste,
second ed. Juniper Consultancy Services Ltd..
Higman, C., Van Der Burgt, M., 2003. Gasification. Gulf Professional Publishing,
Elsevier Science, Burlington, MA, USA (ISBN 0-7506-7707-4).
Holt, N., 2005. Gasification Technology Status – December 2005. EPRI report
1010460, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, December 2005.
Lago, A., 2008. La tecnologia Energos per la produzione di energia dalla
gassificazione dei rifiuti. In: Proceedings of the Workshop ‘‘Le tecnologie per
il recupero di energia da rifiuti a confronto’’. Politecnico di Milano, Sede di
Piacenza, 18 June, 2008 (in Italian).
Lozza, G., 1990. Bottoming steam cycles for combined gas-steam power plants: a
theoretical estimation of steam turbine performance and cycle analysis. In:
Proceedings of 990 ASME Cogen-Turbo Symposium, New Orleans, USA, August
1990, pp. 83–92.
Juniper, 2007. Advanced conversion technology (gasification) for biomass projects.
Commercial Assessment prepared by Juniper Consultancy Services Ltd. for
Renewables East, Stroud, UK, pp. 1–50.
Kamuk, B., 2010. Consequences by operating at extreme steam parameters. WTERT
Annual Meeting Europe: ‘‘Waste-to-Energy in Eastern Europe’’, Brno, Czech
Republic, 12–14 October, 2011.
Knoef, H. (Ed.), 2005. Handbook on Biomass Gasification. In: Knoef, H. (Ed.), Biomass
Technology Group (BTG) BV, Enschede, The Netherlands, January 2005, pp. 1–
378 (ISBN 90-810068-1-9).
Macchi, E., Perdichizzi, A., 1981. Efficiency prediction for axial flow turbines
operating with non-conventional working fluids. ASME Journal of Engineering
for Power 103, 712–724.
Malkow, T., 2004. Novel and innovative pyrolysis and gasification technologies for
energy efficient and environmentally sound MSW disposal. Waste Management
24, 53–79.
McKendry, P., 2002. Energy production from biomass (part 3): gasification
technologies. Bioresource Technology 83, 55–63.
Minchener, A.J., 2005. Coal gasification for advanced power generation. Fuel 84,
2222–2235.
Macchi, E., Consonni, S., Lozza, G., Chiesa, P., 1995. An assessment of the
thermodynamic performance of mixed gas-steam cycles. Part A: Intercooled
and steam-injected cycles. Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power
117, 489–498.
NETL, National Energy Technology Laboratory, 2007. Gasification World database
2007. Current Industry Status, October 2007. Available from: <http://
www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/gasification/>.
Osowski, S., Neumann, J., Fahlenkamp, H., 2005. Gasification of biogenic solid fuels.
Chemical Engineering and Technology 28, 596–604.
Reed, T.B., 1981. Biomass Gasification: Principles and Technology. Noyes Data
Corporation, Park Ridge, NJ, pp. 1–401 (ISBN 0-8185-0852-2).
Reggi, M., 2010. Analisi comparativa di processi di gassificazione dei rifiuti. Master’s
Thesis in Mechanical Engineering, Dept. of Energy, Politecnico di Milano, 4 May
2010 (in Italian).
Siemens, 2009. Industrial Steam Turbines – The comprehensive product range from
2 to 250 megawatts. Company brochure available on the website. http://
www.siemens.com/energy (accessed on November 2011).
Selinger, A., Steiner, C., 2004. Waste gasification in practice: Twinrec fluidized bed
gasification and ash melting – review of four years of commercial plant
operation. In: Proceedings of IT3’04, Phoenix, Arizona, USA, May 2004.
Simbeck, D.R., Korens, N., Biasco, F.E., Vejtosa, S., Dickenson, R.L., 1993. Coal
Gasification Guidebook: Status, Applications, and Technologies. EPRI Report TR-
102034, Elective Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, December, 1993.
Viganò, F., Consonni, S., Grosso, M., Rigamonti, L., 2010. Material and energy
recovery from Automotive Shredded Residues (ASR) via sequential gasification
and combustion. Waste Management 30, 145–153.