4.6 Article

A Techno-Economic Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Conversion to Energy in Indonesia

Journal

SUSTAINABILITY
Volume 13, Issue 13, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su13137232

Keywords

techno-economic analysis; waste to energy; municipal solid waste; Indonesia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Municipal solid waste processing in Indonesia still faces challenges, and there is a need to accelerate the adoption of waste-to-energy plants. This study demonstrates the importance of maintaining regulated electricity prices for the sustainability of WtE plants in Indonesia.
Municipal solid waste (MSW) processing is still problematic in Indonesia. From the hierarchy of waste management, it is clear that energy recovery from waste could be an option after prevention and the 5R (rethink, refuse, reduce, reuse, recycle) processes. The Presidential Regulation No 35/2018 mandated the acceleration of waste-to-energy (WtE) plant adoption in Indonesia. The present study aimed to demonstrate a techno-economic evaluation of a commercial WtE plant in Indonesia by processing 1000 tons of waste/day to produce ca. 19.7 MW of electricity. The WtE electricity price is set at USD 13.35 cent/kWh, which is already higher than the average household price at USD 9.76 cent/kWh. The capital investment is estimated at USD 102.2 million. The annual operational cost is estimated at USD 12.1 million and the annual revenue at USD 41.6 million. At this value, the internal rate of return (IRR) for the WtE plant is 25.32% with a payout time (PoT) of 3.47 years. In addition, this study also takes into account electricity price sales, tipping fee, and pretreatment cost of waste. The result of a sensitivity analysis showed that the electricity price was the most sensitive factor. This study reveals that it is important to maintain a regulated electricity price to ensure the sustainability of the WtE plant in Indonesia.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available