Iconic Waste to Energy Facility for Beirut, Lebanon
Advisors: Jaime Stein, Alec ApplebaumGeorge Boueri
Capstone Research in fullfillment of
M.S. in Urban Environmental Systems Management
Programs for Sustainable Planning and Development,
School of Architecture
Pratt Institute, December 2011
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I would like to express my gratitude to my advisors Jaime Stein and Alec Appelbaum for their guidance and efforts without which the completion of this thesis would not be possible.
Secondly, I would like to show my appreciation to the following people for provid-ing essential information needed for the project:
Professor Nicholas J. Themelis, Director of the Earth Engineering Center and Chair of U.S. Waste-to-Energy Research and Technology Council.
Ms.JihanSeoud,ProgrammeAnalyst/OfficerinCharge,Energy & Environment Programme, United Nations Development Programme.
Mrs.SabineSaba,ConsultantTechnicalOfficerattheMinistryoftheEnviron-ment of Lebanon
Dr. Najat Aoun Saliba, Director of the Nature and Conservation Center for Sustainable Future Ibsar.
In addition, I would like to acknowledge my colleagues and friends in the Urban Environmental Systems Management program at Pratt for their friendship, sugges-tion, and encouragement throughout the course.
Finally I would like thank my family in New York and Lebanon for their constant support in every way, especially my father, Mr. Antoine Boueri who guided me to pursue this topic.
Outline
I- Introduction
II- Introduction about Lebanon
a. Current Waste Management Practices
b. Current Electricity Sector Status
III- Introduction to Waste to Energy
IV- WTE in Lebanon
a. Determining Technology and Capacity
b.CostandBenefits
c.DefiningDesignParameters
V- Architectural Concept Drawings
VI- Conclusion
page 1
page 2
page 8
page 13
page 20
page 22
I- Introduction
The objectives of this study are to illustrate current energy and waste manage-
ment networks in Lebanon and portray the unsustainable cavities in the way they
currently operate. This thesis will follow through to propose reworking those sys-
tems through the implementation of a strategically located Waste to Energy Facil-
ity. The systems under study go beyond understanding conventional waste and
energy streams, to layering-in the social schemes affected as well. Potentially,
advocating the vitality of transforming such infrastructure into an architectural
Icon would put into effect a much larger outcome; one that is emblematic of the
local community’s aspirations as well as anchor a strong creed in government
functioning.
This thesis will start by informing the reader with a general overview about Leba-
non and this writer’s objective. It will then divulge the current working energy and
waste streams while keeping into perspective the environmental consequences
that are occurring. Further on, an overview of Waste to Energy technology and
facilities will be illustrated. Applying this to Lebanon’s local scenario will reveal
specific programmatic requirements for its relevant implementation, as well as an
adequate siting rationale.
The final portion of this thesis takes the reader into a more tangible extent to un-
veil architectural visions of Lebanon’s proposed iconic Waste to Energy facility.
II- Introduction about Lebanon
Lebanon is geographically located in Western
Asia, off the Eastern shore of the Mediterra-
nean Sea. This relatively small country spans
an area of 10,452Km2 or 4,000 square miles
(roughly half the size of the state of New Jer-
sey) and is home to about 4.2 million inhab-
itants with an average density factor of 404
inhabitants per km2 (1046 per square mile) [1].
The country is further subdivided into six dis-
tricts (called mouhaafazat) with Mount Leba-
non, Beirut and its suburbs containing about
49% of the population [1].
Politically, Lebanon has seen constant politi-
cal turmoil along with a civil war that took a
great toll on the country’s infrastructure and
economy. Instigated by religious strife, the civil
war started in 1975 and lasted fifteen years.
The result was massive human and property
loss as well as taking a devastating toll on the
economy. This war finally bread a confession-
al system of democracy, where parliament
seats are divided according to a demograph-
ic, religious distribution. This clearly shows
the deeply ingrained importance given to re-
ligious ideology in the society and in the way
the government is formed and represented.
Furthermore, in 2006, Lebanon’s civil infra-
structure was further damaged by a month
long war with Israel, impeding rehabilitation
efforts.
Religious building and icons have long been
a projection of their strong integration in the
Lebanese culture, granting religion a far
greater precedence over civic references.
Due to the dilapidated state of the country’s
infrastructure, from its bridges to its power
plants, monumental religious buildings have
long overshadowed any symbol of govern-
ment power. Proposing to create an “iconic”
piece of infrastructure, as the title of this pa-
per indicates, serves the intent to make an
emblematic mark in the urban landscape rep-
resenting a shift of trust towards government
institutions. An iconic waste to energy facility
will play a symbolic role on the national scale
on one hand, but also has a role in instigating
a cultural move towards civic institutions.
Above, Map of Lebanon with its seperate districts [1].
Current Waste Management Practices
Waste management refers to the multi-
ple processes involved in the handling of a
waste stream system, from the collection,
to the transportation, processing, disposing
and monitoring of waste materials. Municipal
Solid Waste (MSW) is what would be more
commonly referred to as garbage or trash of
the discarded items we consume and mostly
categorized under household waste, not to
include industrial, agricultural, medical, and
sewage waste types.
Presently, the problem of waste management
in Lebanon has reached a critical point due
to deficient national plans, lack of funding,
as well as an absence of environmental con-
sciousness as a priority given the economic
drain the government is trying to get out of
after years of war.
In a 2011 study, uncontrolled, open, Municipal
Solid Waste Dumps as well as Construction
and Demolition Waste Dumps reached the
number of 670 with an approximate volume of
6.7 million cubic meters [4], receiving 32% of
the country’s generated waste. The arbitrary
and unrestrained operation of the uncon-
trolled waste dumps has often led to soil, sur-
face, groundwater, as well as coastal water
contamination.
Moreover, the uncontrolled combustion of
MSW results in harmful air pollution. The de-
struction of extended area of land causes ad-
Above, Trash being openly dumped in Saida, Lebanon.
Above, Survey of uncontrolled dumps with their severity level [4].
verse effects towards the decline of tourism,
one of the country’s main revenue sectors.
The city of Saida, along the southern sea front,
has amassed tons of MSW on its sea front
since 1982. Today referred to as the “garbage
mountain”, this enormous open dump is a
grave environmental hazard, threatening the
remaining touristic shore line of the city with
its odors and uncontrolled seeping leachates.
A study conducted by the World Bank in 2004
on the cost of environmental degradation
caused by pollution and waste burning to be
around $10 million per year, and rising [2].
Long term planning and political commitment
form the basis for any Solid Waste Manage-
ment (SWM) solution to be effective. Unfortu-
nately, to this day, the Lebanese Government
has not been able to pursue the implementa-
tion a SWM plan continuously and effectively,
some of the reasons being a constantly un-
stable political environment complemented
by a recent war in 2006 which has taken a big
financial toll on the country.
Today, Solid Waste Management relies on
an Emergency Plan put in effect in 1997 and
has been the working strategy ever since. It
grants private contracting companies, Averda
Group Sukleen - Sukomi, the directive of col-
lecting and landfilling of solid wastes in the
greater Beirut and Mount Lebanon Areas.
Outside these areas, municipalities assume
responsibility for collecting, treating and dis-
posing of their waste. Due to the high and un-
supported financial burden of managing their
wastes, quick solutions and fixes, including
open dumping, are the strategies resorted to [2].
This study focuses on the two regions of Bei-
rut and Mount Lebanon which serve 49% of
the population [1]. These two regions can be
grouped due to their similar, urban to semi-ur-
ban, fabric on one hand, as well as their cur-
rently combined waste management stream,
merged by Sukleen. Today, they face a great
challenge concerning SWM. The majority of
MSW generated along this waste stream is
disposed at the Naameh Landfill (one of two
landfill in the country dealing with MSW, with
a third being one for inert materials).
10%
39% 20%
13%
18%
Population Distribution Beirut
Mount Lebanon
North Lebanon
Beqaa
South Lebanon
Landfilled 51% 32%
9% 8%
Fate of MSW
LanfilledOpen DumpedCompostedRecycled
10%
39% 20%
13%
18%
Population Distribution Beirut
Mount Lebanon
North Lebanon
Beqaa
South Lebanon
Landfilled 51% 32%
9% 8%
Fate of MSW
LanfilledOpen DumpedCompostedRecycled
17%
11%
15% 57%
MSW Generation by Wasteshed North Lebanon & Akkar
Bekaa & Baalbeck
South Lebanon &Nabatiyye
Beirut & MountLebanon
Above, Chart showing that 49% of the population live in Beirut and Mount Lebanon.
Below, Chart showing that the Beirut & Mount Leba-non is contributes to 57% of the total waste gener-ated in Lebanon
Below, Chart showing 51% of MSW generated end up in Landfills
Currently, household trash are amassed in
dumpsters and garbage barrels before col-
lection. The private contractor, Sukleen, is
charged with the collection and transporta-
tion to two sorting facilities in Aamrousieh and
Quarantina. Running under the jurisdiction
of the Emergency plan, it was assumed that
Sukleen would collect 1,700 tons per day of
which 9.41% would be recovered as recycla-
bles. As the geographic coverage of Sukleen
expanded, the capacity exceeded its original
assumptions to 2,300 tons per day in 2010
with recycled waste recovery rates dropping
to 6-7% [2].
Out of the current 2,300 tons of daily collected
MSW, 1,470 tons (64%) go through the Quar-
antina collection point and sorting facility,
and 1,800 tons (78%) end up in the Naameh
Landfill.
This particular landfill is located in the district
of Shouf in an old quarry site, across from a
seasonal watercourse, 15 km south of Beirut.
This landfill was originally intended to receive
2 million tons of waste in 2 cells. In 2001,
these 2 cells reached their capacity [2].
From 2001 through 2011, this landfill has
been periodically expanded to accommodate
Above, Diagram Map of the Waste Management Stream in Beirut and Mount Lebanon [2].
growing capacities. Expanding the landfill re-
quired expensive land expropriations and has
faced stiff public opposition and protests by
local residents [2]. Moreover, the Landfill site
has become a great environmental burden on
the country. It produces 250 tons of leachate
daily (about 90,000 tons annually), which af-
ter being pretreated on-site, get shipped off
to the Ghadir Waste Water Treatment plant
only to be mixed with raw sewage discharge
and dumped in the sea. Accordingly, these
amounts of leachate produced account for
40% of the total leachate amounts of Leba-
non’s landfills and dump sites [5]. The State
and trends of the Lebanese Environment Re-
port published in 2010 finds it “very unlikely
that Lebanon will be able to accommodate a
second Naameh Landfill on its territory”.
This current waste management system has
very well proven itself unsustainable function-
ally as well as environmentally. Therefore, it is
quite evident that a search for a new solution
system should be the goal of any new strate-
gy. A promising long-term technique that may
be investigated as a treatment process is the
incineration of waste to generate thermal and
electric energy. (Waste-to-Energy - WTE).
WTE facilities save valuable landfill space,
as they can reduce the waste volume by up
to 90% and can be used in perpetuity with
proper maintenance. About 130 million tons
of MSW are combusted annually in over 600
WTE facilities worldwide that produce steam
and electricity as well as recovering metals
for recycling [14]. For this reason, a study for
the implementation of WTE as a possible so-
lution to the waste problem in Lebanon is con-
sidered as crucial.
The Lebanese Government has already fore-
seen the possibility of using waste to ener-
gy technologies as a valid alternative to the
current situation that could both help protect
the environment and as a valid energy con-
servation method [10]. Pursuant to the above,
the Ministry of the Environment incorporated
SWM as one of its top 15 priority themes into
its Work Program for 2011-2013 further in-
cluding the setting up of a detailed plan for
waste to energy under its short and long term
goals.
Current Electricity Sector Status
Coinciding with the unsustainable level of the
current SWM problem in Lebanon, the elec-
tricity sector has also reached unmaintain-
able conditions that require immediate inter-
ference. The following paragraphs will briefly
provide an overview of the electricity sector’s
current situation.
Formally, Electricite du Liban (EDL), a state
owned entity under the jurisdiction of the Leb-
anese Ministry of Energy and Water, has been
granted monopoly over electricity production
in the country. Today, EDL operates seven
thermal power plants and six hydro-electric
power plants. Yet, it is only able to meet 71%
of the average load (estimated at 2,100MW in
2009), and supply about 70% of yearly elec-
tric energy consumption (estimated at 15,000
GWh in 2009) [3]. It is safe to say that the
country is suffering from a serious problem
of power availability. Throughout its territory,
citizens are exposed to daily and prolonged
electricity blackouts due to this shortage in
generation capacity. Moreover, the existing
infrastructure has been suffering from struc-
tural and operational deficiencies for the past
three decades. The EDL’s mounting debt due
to technical losses as well as “non-technical
losses” such as theft and uncollected bills, is
further straining the public sector debt, and
depreciating the Government’s ability to in-
tervene in its repair. Today, citizens have in-
formally, through acquiring private electric
generators, been able to compensate for the
shortages in power generation. It was esti-
mated that in 2007, 61% of citizens have ac-
quired or gained access to private generators,
even spending more on private sources than
on EDL. With the passing of time and with no
substantial investment being infused in the
sector, nearly half of EDL’s generating capac-
ity is currently nearing retirement, while the
other half is running on suboptimal levels[3].
Lebanon is an energy poor country, importing
around 97% of its energy needs. An overview
of EDL’s generating and import capacity (refer
to the above table) presents that the primary
fuel source used by power plants is heavily
reliant on Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) and Light
Fuel Oil (LFO). HFO and LFO are considered
as relatively dirty sources of fuel, promoting
high levels of atmospheric pollution.
Considering HFO is mostly consumed by the
electricity sector (up to 85% of total HFO im-
ports) [3], it becomes evident that public ac-
ceptability of power plants in their neighbor-
hoods has been tarnished by the unappealing
sight of black fumes exiting their smoke
stacks; one that has branded iconic the Zouk
and Jieh power plants, posing as symbols of
this dilapidating sector.
Above, Table showing the 7 Power Plant in Leba-non and their fuel source [3].
Above and Below, The Zouk Power Plant, located in a dense residential area, showing cloud of smoke emitted.
The future might not be as grim a picture
though. A recent Government endorsement
of the Policy Paper for the Electricity Sec-
tor aims to increase the country’s generating
capacity to 4000 MW by 2014 [15]. This goal
relies mostly on new thermal power plants
(2200MW), and rehabilitating and upgrading
the existing facilities in Zouk, Jieh, Beddawi,
Zahrani, Baalbak and Tyre (245MW). Also,
increasing hydropower capacity, currently
at less than 80MW generation, by 40MW is
part of the strategy along with harvesting 60-
100MW through wind power. More important
to the topic of this report, the endorsed strat-
egy goes further to mention the possibility of
relying on WTE plants to generate 15-25 MW
of power. This is well timed with the Ministry
of the Environment’s work plan for 2014 that
proposes the study of the potential of waste to
energy technology.
heavy fuel oil power plant electricity we
landfillprivate collectionsolid wastewe
III- Introduction to Waste to Energy
Waste to Energy is the process that uses the
incineration of waste to create energy in the
form of electricity or heat. It is a very basic,
and relatively old, method of dealing with Mu-
nicipal Solid Waste that entails using every-
day garbage as a fuel source, burning it to
boil water and transforming it into steam. The
steam is then directed through steam genera-
tors to produce the electricity used in our ev-
eryday lives. To fully understand the benefits
and burdens of such a process it is important
to understand the bigger workings and look at
it through the systems it taps into.
The current working streams of waste gener-
ation and energy production can be described
as singularly directional; meaning there is but
a one way direction in the production of the
end result.
The classical waste and energy stream sce-
nario goes as follows: we use basic fuel
sources (typically nonrenewable) in our pow-
er plants in order to produce energy to trans-
form raw material into a final product which
we consume and then throw away as waste.
This waste is then collected and ends up
dumped or buried in a landfill. Therefore the
initial fuel source and energy (initial input) is
ending up as buried waste (final output). This
cradle to grave approach has two loose ends
on either side. We constantly require more
initial, finite input to carry on producing, and
we constantly amass more waste as output
which we can’t keep on burying forever. This
clearly illustrates the current crisis in Leba-
non which persistently imports fuel at ever
increasing costs to power its power plants,
and has reached a crisis level in managing its
waste now that landfilling has become a non-
viable option. This is where Waste to Energy
plays a role in fixing the above described sys-
tem by simply closing the loop and reconnect-
ing the final output with the initial input; Fuel
becomes waste which in turn is reprocessed
as fuel for the cycle. That is why Waste to En-
ergy is considered an Energy Recovery pro-
cess whereby the input energy is recovered
from the end of the waste stream.
But the production of electricity from a practi-
cally free source and drastically reducing the
amounts of landfilled waste are not the only
proponent reasons for adopting WTE technol-
ogy. Implementing a WTE facility not only re-
pairs the MSW management stream, but can
work towards enhancing the quality of life of
its surrounding area. Surplus heat from the
electricity generation process can be distrib-
uted to neighboring building for cooling/heat-
ing purposes. Metals can be recovered by
processing the ash produced after the com-
bustion of waste [14]. The ash itself also has
several beneficial uses in road construction
and landfill construction and maintenance for
620kwh/ton1.8 million pple
2234 Tons/day
1 kg/day
Free Fuel
WTE
Waste To
Energy80% less
example. More importantly, if appropriately
designed, WTE facilities can become attrac-
tion sites in their neighborhoods, boosting
property value and playing an educational
role regarding waste management rather
than being faced with public opposition (as is
currently the case with landfills) and being a
sign of disgrace.
The word “iconic” introduced in the title of this
paper pushes to involve this crucial piece of
infrastructure in a much greater role, beyond
that of functionality, to become a manifesta-
tion of a solid government presence in solving
peoples’ day to day problems and as a sym-
bolic shift from preceding dividing religious
and cultural dogmas to a more cohesive, con-
structive civic society.
In Copenhagen, Denmark, Ulla Tottger, the
Director of Amagerforbraending WTE com-
pany recently unveiled the design of their
new WTE plant describing the proposal as
one that is “useful and beautiful” with which
they can showcase Danish technology and
knowledge to the world. Instead of consider-
ing the new facility as an isolated architectural
object, BIG architects conceived it as a des-
tination by turning the roof into a 31,000 m2
ski slope of varying skill levels. The architects
themselves title this new breed as Hedonistic
Sustainability, a project that is “ecologically,
economically, and socially sustainable”.
The project further extends parks for informal
sports throughout the seasons and connects
them to the neighboring residential quarters.
Scheduled to be completed in 2016, this proj-
ect is a prime example of an iconic piece of
infrastructure that promotes Danish culture,
and reflects their knowledge of sustainability
while creating ground to enrich the local com-
munity [13].
Today, over 600 WTE facilities burn though
130 million tons of MSW, producing electric-
ity, steam for district heating, and recovered
metals for recycling; all while substantially re-
ducing the volume of waste to be disposed [14].
So how does this all work? Collection trucks
haul in the trash through the dumping hall and
unload it into the waste bunker. The waste
bunker ensures that there will be a constant
quantity of waste stored within the facility so
as not to disrupt the incineration process. A
crane then lifts up the garbage and feeds it
through the combustion box into the furnace
and onto the grate system that shuffles the
waste while it is being incinerated.
A series of water pipes run along the fur-
nace’s outer wall and use its heat to evapo-
rate the water into steam. The steam is direct-
ed through a Steam Turbine that converts the
heated steam into electricity. An ash handling
Above, A Diagram showing the integration of parks and a skiing facility within the WTE facility [13].
EMISSIONS,Mg/Nm3
AVERAGE of 10 WTEs
E.U.STANDARD
WTEs as % of E.U.
STANDARDParticulates 3.06 10 31%
SO2 12.2 50 24%
NOx 123 200 61%
HCL 7.88 10 79%
CO 26.3 50 53%
Mercury 0.01 0.05 20%
TOC 0.92 10 9%
Dioxins, ngTEQ/m3
0.02 0.1 21%
system collects the ash from the incineration
process while a series of scrubbers which
comprise the Air Pollution Control unit that
captures the emissions from the combustion
process (further discussed later). The steam
and remaining emissions are then funneled
into the smoke stack where they are released.[6]. (appendix 1 with more detailed section)
It is important to note that the heart of the WTE
process is the combustion chamber in which
the MSW is introduced and reacts with oxy-
gen at high temperatures. Most WTE plants
operate in the range of 980 to 1090°C, which
ensures good combustion and elimination of
odors, and is still sufficiently low to protect the
lining of the combustion chamber. The tem-
perature within the combustion chamber is
critical for successful operation. If it is too low,
then combustion may be incomplete. Above
1090 °C, the refractories in the furnace will
have a short life. Thus the window for effec-
tive operation is not large, requiring close
control be kept on the charge to the combus-
tion chamber and the amount of underfire and
overfire (secondary) air [14].
One serious problem associated with incin-
erating MSW are the pollutants that are re-
leased into the atmosphere when burning the
garbage that powers the generators. These
pollutants are extremely acidic and have
been reported to cause serious environmen-
tal damage by turning rain into acid rain. One
way that this problem can be significantly re-
duced is through the use of lime scrubbers on
smokestacks. The limestone mineral used in
these scrubbers has a pH of approximately
8, making it is a base. By passing the smoke
through the lime scrubbers, any acids that
may be in the smoke are neutralized which
prevents the acid from reaching the atmo-
sphere and hurting our environment [14].
The following table shows the average emis-
sions of 10 WTE plants (4 of which were in
the US) that participated in the WTERT 2006
competition (won by the Brescia, Italy WTE).
One can perceive that a well maintained WTE
plant produces emissions well below the Eu-
ropean and U.S. standards [8].
A New York Times Article published in April
2010 states that modern incineration plants
have become so clean that “many times more
Above, Diagram showing the multiple processes of a WTE plant.
Above, Table showing Average Emissions of 10 WTE facilities as compared to EU standards
Emissions of WTE Facilities competing for
2006 Columbia/WTERT Industry Award
dioxin is now released from home fireplaces
and backyard barbecues than from incinera-
tion” [17].
Moreover, while describing the possible ben-
efits of adopting WTE technologies, the State
of the Environment Report issued by the Leb-
anese Ministry of the Environment indicates
that implementing a WTE reduces the carbon
footprint where WTE facilities are considered
to produce 0.336 kg of CO2/kwh as compared
to 0.594kg of CO2/kwh for power plants and
1.037kg of CO2/kwh (more than twice as
much as WTE) for landfill cells [2]. A WTE
plant that provides 550 KWh/ton of MSW of
net electricity output to utilities is equivalent
to a saving of 1.43 barrels (190 liters) of fuel
oil per ton [14]. Furthermore, the combined bot-
tom and fly ashes, residues of the incineration
process, only amount to 15-25% of the weight
of the original MSW.
Beyond issues of emissions and emission
control, the burdens on a community that
should be foreseen range within various cat-
egories from odors released due to the pres-
ence of large volumes of trash, heightened
noise levels from the machinery and trucks
rolling in and out, as well as substantial in-
crease in amounts of vehicle emissions from
*
Above, Diagram Map of the Waste Management Stream in Beirut and Mount Lebanon locating where a proposed WTE facility would be integrated.
the trucks flowing through the neighborhoods,
ones that escape the scope of Air Emissions
Control within the plant. Therefore it is cru-
cial that these burdens be considered as they
heavily affect the local community’s everyday
lives. As will be discussed in the following sec-
tion, most of these burdens can be addressed
by appropriately siting the facility, away from
residential neighborhoods, close to main ve-
hicular access roads that ease the course of
trucks. In terms of controlling odors, the com-
bustion chamber injects the air from outside
the chamber in order to control the combus-
tion process. Seeing as the entire system,
even the waste bunker, is placed indoors, the
building is constantly negatively pressurized,
deterring any odors from seeping out.
IV- WTE in Lebanon
The following will analyze the hypothetical im-
plementation of a WTE facility in Lebanon. As
a first step, the chosen scope of implementa-
tion for the project will be discussed to deter-
mine the proper siting, sizing, and technolo-
gies to be used. In researching potential ways
to incorporate WTE into the current Waste
Management system, it was important to in-
tegrate this new link in the already existing
flow and have it plug in instead of reconfigur-
ing the entire network. It was also important to
pinpoint an area that would have the greater
impact and yield optimum beneficiary results.
The waste shed of Greater Beirut and Mount
Lebanon were a prime choice as a zone of
implementation not only because they repre-
sent the greatest bulk of MSW and because
they affect a greater portion of the overall
population, but primarily because, and un-
like other municipalities, the currently running
1997 Emergency Law has consolidated this
great bulk under a single private contractor,
funneling it through a single waste stream.
1.89 million Inhabitants, 49% of the country’s
overall population, live within the borders
of the districts of Greater Beirut and Mount
Lebanon. This waste shed collects 2234 tons
of MSW per day and represents 57% of the
total MSW generation in the country. Out of
the current 2,234 tons of daily collected MSW,
1,470 tons (64%) go through the Quarantina
collection point and sorting facility before they
are further processed and forwarded to the
Naameh Landfill [2].
Intervening at the Quarantina collection point,
where the greatest bulk of the MSW in the
country is collected, permits to build on the
existing waste management infrastructure
without rerouting it and yet still have a pro-
nounced effect on the waste stream (refer to Appendix 2). Moreover, the site itself, being
in an industrial area disconnected form resi-
dential neighborhood and with direct connec-
tion to the main coastal highway would not
further impede any transportation network. In-
stead, if applied there, the WTE facility would
decrease the number of trucks having to
transfer the waste from the collection point to
the landfill, located 15km away, since it will be
incinerating the waste on site and drastically
reducing its volume. In addition, the current
existing sorting facility could be integrated
into the envisioned WTE plant to shrink the
area of the newly proposed building. (refer to
Appendix 2)
Determining Technology and Capacity
This section will investigate the application of
the most suitable technology to be applied. It
further details the estimated capacity of the
WTE facility based on MSW composition and
collected quantity. Then, we will elaborate on
some of the unique specification required to
guide the design of this facility.
There are 2 main technologies used for the
combustion of MSW: Mass- burn or Refuse
Derived Fuel (RDF). They are at their core
very similar systems in terms of steam gen-
eration, air pollution control and waste han-
dling; yet, the fact that Lebanon does not im-
pose waste source separation at their initial
dispatch favors the use of the Mass-burn ap-
proach. This method is comparatively simpler,
flexible, more reliable, more economical, and
more commonly widespread than RDF burn-
ing. The only advantage of an RDF system is
that it can produce about 5% more energy be-
cause it screens out types of waste that have
a low heating value. But, this requires more
complex processing lines as well as operators
with a greater skill set. Seeing as this WTE is
the first of its kind to be implemented in Leba-
non, and due to the nature of the mixed waste
stream, a Mass- burn system is recommend-
ed. One of the additional advantages of using
a Mass- burn system is that it offers flexibility
in the type of staple supplied. With a Mass-
burn system, co-firing other types of fuels
such as sewage sludge residues from waste
water treatment plants can take part of solv-
ing other concurrent waste water problem [6].
The potential amount of energy production
relies heavily on the energy content, calorific
value, of the waste combusted. The amount
of energy released from an unknown fuel,
such as is the case with the mixed compo-
nents of MSW, is based, in this study, on their
compositional quotas.
MSW are composed of different types of
waste, each with different moisture content.
The moisture content of a waste type affects
its combustion and the amount of heat it re-
leases. For example, food wastes have a high
moisture content of about 70% which reduc-
es their overall calorific value and thus the
amount of heat you can generate from them [9].
Food Waste50%
Plastics
13%
Paper17%
Glass4%
Metal6%
Misc10%
Material Composition
The following table associates the overall
percentage composition of MSW in Lebanon
Above, Chart showing the average material composition of MSW in Lebanon [2].
with their respective heat values, estimating
an overall average heat value for the Greater
Beirut and Mount Lebanon region of 9796 kj/
kg [9].
Material Composition %
Heat Value kj/kg
Food Waste 50 4647
Plastics 13 32531
Paper 17 16730
Glass 4 0
Metal 6 0
Misc 10 4000
100 9796.63
The minimum Heat Value required for a WTE
facility to work with no additional fuel is 7000
kj/kg. Thus, the high value represented would
be sufficient to make the plant work with no
supplemental fuel [9].
Heat value(kJ/kg)
Net electricity output*(Kwh/ton)
7,000 3508,000 4509,000 550
10,000 65011,000 750
* This is considering the net electricity to be
sold commercially[6].
It is expected that, at such a calorific value
and working 24 hours for 330 days a year, the
WTE facility can possibly produce 620kwh/
metric ton of MSW, of net electricity to be sold
commercially. With the abundant 2234 tons
of MSW generated per day, we would ex-
pect the WTE plant to process an estimated
2234tons/day x 330 days (number of yearly
working days) = 737,220 tons of MSW per
year. Therefore, an expected contribution of
620kwh/metric ton x 737,220 tons/year yields
457,076,400 kwh/year worth of electricity out-
put is readily available, yet completely over-
looked [6].
Costs&Benefits
While it is not within the scope of this report to
perform an accurate financial analysis of the
feasibility of a WTE plant for the districts of
Greater Beirut and Mount Lebanon, we will try
to illuminate major beneficial as well as pos-
sibly aversive factors to be considered.
Although it is difficult to estimate the con-
struction costs of a WTE with the proposed
above capacity due to it being the first to be
implemented in the country, it is important to
estimate high upfront costs owing to the high
price tag of the Air Pollution Control Systems.
The Waste-to-Energy Research and Technol-
ogy Council appraises the average capital
cost per annual ton of capacity of a WTE facil-
ity to be $650/annual ton of capacity [8]. Con-
sidering, as is proposed in this report, that the
WTE facility will be running 330 days a year
on a 24 hour basis, it can be inferred that the
capital cost would be of $200,000 per daily
ton capacity ($600 x 330 days). Of course the
Above, Table showing average heating value by composition of MSW in Lebanon [9].
Below, Table showing estimated Net Electricity Out-put per Average Heating Value [9].
capital costs would vary depending on the
size of the plant and its location, so account-
ing for the lower construction cost in Lebanon
due to the cheap labor force should be con-
sidered in the construction cost analysis.
On the other hand, if we are to value the price
of purchasing electricity at its current rate of
9.4 US cents per kwh (refer to table below) [2]
(not to mention that due to the energy sector’s
high reliance on non-renewable fuel sources,
it is expected that the price of electricity will
inevitably increase over the years to come),
one can assume a return rate of 0.094$/
kwh x 457,076,400kwh/year = $42,965,182
per year. Instead of shipping in the fuel from
abroad, the WTE facility makes use of a much
cheaper local fuel source, local municipal sol-
id waste.
Adding on to the revenue stream, and con-
sidering that the cost of collecting the MSW
is almost equal to the price of its disposal, ad-
ditional benefits can be considered from the
costs of landfilling.
The above table shows the costs of landfill-
ing in Beirut and Mount Lebanon to range
between $38-54 per ton. Depending on the
amount of ash being reused from the WTE,
the amount of waste that would eventually
reach the landfill would range between 15 and
25% by weight or 10% by volume [6]. At these
estimated coefficients, we can easily assume
that 1500 tons of MSW is diverted from going
to the landfill.
1500 daily tons of MSW x $38/ton (minimal
cost of landfilling) = $57,000 of daily diverted
costs. We can consider that the cost of abated
landfilling eliminates the cost of operating the
WTE plant, although, considering landfilling
involves buying land which is highly expen-
sive, the costs of operating the plant would be
drastically cheaper. This would render a safe
assumption that the power generated from
the WTE plant can be considered as pure
net revenue. Moreover, by diverting the need
to move 1500 tons of MSW from the collec-
tion point in Quarantina to the Naameh land-
fill (15km away), we are eliminating up to 60
hauling trucks from the streets (25ton load per
truck); thus reducing traffic pressure, 1800km
(1,118 miles) traveled daily, and abating ex-
haust fumes.
Beyond financial benefits of WTE plants, one
has to consider the social costs of building
such a facility. A lot of concerns regarding de-
creasing the neighboring land values as well
as environmental concerns have to be taken
into account. Seeing as in this particular sce-
nario the WTE plant will simply plug into exist-
ing waste management facilities, it would not
be the cause of diverting waste into the Burj
Hammoud neighborhood, since this is already
an existing condition.
Typical criticism of WTE facilities are claims of
Above, Table showing Landfilling and Waste Collection prices in Lebanon [2].
possible adverse health effects from danger-
ous pollutant emissions. While there are his-
torical evidence for these claims, WTE tech-
nology has evolved at a fast rate in the past
20 years and become a very well-refined and,
above all, safe technology [14]. Many modern
plants now include real-time emissions moni-
toring systems with outputs publicly available
to demonstrate a commitment to accountabil-
ity for health and safety awareness. Concerns
related to dioxins, and other common pollut-
ants like SO2 and NO3 are minimized by air
pollution control technologies, and fall safely
within EPA regulations under the Clean Air
Act and EU regulations [8].
The following table shows the average emis-
sions of 10 WTE plants (4 of which were in
the US) that participated in the WTERT 2004
competition for “one of the best WTEs in the
world (won by the Brescia, Italy WTE). It can
be seen that the WTE emissions were well
below the European, and also the U.S. stan-
dards [8].
Emissions of most major pollutants due to
WTE combustion decreased by upwards of
95% between 1990 and 2005, and continue
to fall as Air Pollution Control technologies
develop. It has been shown from a public
health standpoint that disposal via WTE is
less damaging than landfilling in many cases [18]. Still, since such information is not widely
known, a public outreach agenda should be
put in place. The Spittelau WTE plant in Vi-
enna, Switzerland implemented within the
residential city quarters is a prime example of
how such a project can be integrated in the
local community and be accepted by it. Its
key features of success are the aesthetically
designed facade done by local artist Frieden-
sreich Hundertwasser and their transparency
in publishing emissions in real time through
an electronic billboard outside the facility [12].
These two features have allowed the local
community to reference a sense of pride in
having this beautiful piece of urban art in their
neighborhood and has ensued trust that their
wellbeing is being considered. On the other
hand, the public display of emissions in real
time exerts a sense of moral pressure on the
people managing the facility since they are
unable to cover up any corners cut in emis-
sions control.
Therefore, personalizing and integrating icon-
ic features in its architecture is a main drive
to gathering local community acceptance. In-
volving the local community in imbedding this
iconic infrastructure in their community, be it
through its construction, it architectural sym-
bolism or its energizing secondary program is
EMISSIONS,Mg/Nm3
AVERAGE of 10 WTEs
E.U.STANDARD
WTEs as % of E.U.
STANDARDParticulates 3.06 10 31%
SO2 12.2 50 24%
NOx 123 200 61%
HCL 7.88 10 79%
CO 26.3 50 53%
Mercury 0.01 0.05 20%
TOC 0.92 10 9%
Dioxins, ngTEQ/m3
0.02 0.1 21%
Above, Table showing Average Emissions of 10 WTE facilities as compared to EU standards
Emissions of WTE Facilities competing for
2006 Columbia/WTERT Industry Award
of huge profit, crucial to transform this project
into an appreciated symbolic icon.
DefiningDesignParameters
In order to bring this facility to life, this sec-
tion will examine the required technical pa-
rameters that define the physical scope of
implementing the proposed WTE facility in
the Quarantina area in the neighborhood of
Burj Hammoud.
a. Programmatic analysis
(refer to Appendix 1)After having pinpointed the expected capacity
of the WTE plant (2234tons/day), this section
will deal with identifying the proper sizing of
the main entities of the facility [19].
• A Scale House located at the entrance
of the facility is needed to weigh the collec-
tion trucks through under-floor computerized
scales. Closely monitoring the quantity of in-
coming waste allows proper planning of the
WTE process.
• An enclosed Tipping floor with unob-
structed openings of 5m in width and 5m in
height (proportional to the size of the garbage
trucks) and with an overall minimum height of
10m is required. The floor area would assume
10 trucks unloading at the same time giving it
an overall floor area of 1800m2. Housing an
indoor tipping floor helps control dissipating
odor by enclosing the facility operations and
having it negatively pressurized.
• The refuse bunker is proposed to ac-
commodate for possible unexpected loads
atop the designed 3000tons/ day. Since it is
essential for the facility to have constantly
available MSW for an efficient, continuous
combustion process, a total storage capac-
ity for 5 days, 18,000 tons would be recom-
mended as mitigation for possible bad weath-
er, strike, or any unforeseen circumstance.
• A mass burning system with a moving
grate combustion system is the most com-
monly used system type. This technology has
several benefits, identified in previous sec-
tions, and would be recommended especially
for its ability to accommodate variations of
types of waste allowing it to complement lags
in other infrastructural systems such as waste
Above, the facade of the Spittelau WTE facility.Below, the electronic board used to display emissions
water treatment.
• The number of Waste Processing
Lines should foresee the needs to perform
maintenance operations. Accordingly, three
1000tons/day processing lines would handle
the daily expected input of 2234 tons [2]. More-
over, the strategy should anticipate further
possibilities of growth as well.
• The Grate System serves two main
functions of shifting and mixing the waste on
one hand, while distributing the necessary air
for the combustion process. Longitudinal divi-
sion of the grate system, depending on the
type of waste, must be further recommended
by the suppliers.
• The Combustion Chamber design
should bear the objective of minimizing the
risk of slag deposits and ash fouling on the
furnace walls. Also, a large volume and height
of at least 20m is usually recommended in or-
der to make sure the flames from the com-
bustion process do not harm the inner lining
of the furnace walls.
• The Boiler System consists of a water-
wall running on the furnace walls where water
is evaporated into steam through the heat of
the combustion process, a convection section
which further heats the steam, and finally a
steam turbine to generate electricity.
• The Air Pollution Control System should
be specified of the most advanced level see-
ing as the plant is located in an urban setting,
in proximity of residential quarters. Such air
pollution control would include dry scrubbing,
injecting ammonia and activated carbon, and
baghouse filters.
• The Smoke Stack height ranges from
50 to 110 meters depending on the site’s ter-
rain, prevailing weather conditions, neighbor-
ing building heights as well as the Air Pollution
Control system. Located in an urban setting,
we will assume 110m to be the needed ap-
plied height.
• Complementary programs such as an
administration building, laboratory, employ-
ees’ facilities center as well as a maintenance
building should be included.
• A visitor’s center would be needed to
host educational programs. Designing prop-
er circulation throughout all processes of the
WTE plant should consider possible tours to
demonstrate the proper functioning of the fa-
cility.
Drawings appendixed (refer to appendix 1)
exemplify the design of a WTE plant of similar
proportions. The total expected building area
used is approximately 21,200 m2.
The above information simply identifies gen-
eral parameters of dimensions to be taken
into consideration in the design process. Fur-
ther research would be required to more ac-
curately detail the full scope of programmatic
requirements.
Beyond the basic building parameters, it is
wise to also highlight innate features that
make a WTE plant an iconic element in the
urban landscape. Three main characteristics
of a WTE facility should be taken advantage
of: First, the 110m high smoke stack is an im-
mediate visual allure that is unique in the city
skyline. It adds verticality to the building, in-
herently imposing its presence. Secondly, un-
like any other type of architecture, this build-
ing blows out steam! It is the waving flag of
the building and a keen visual indicator of the
building’s health and the soundness of its op-
eration. Steam is a natural attraction that calls
attention far beyond the height of the chim-
ney tower. Thirdly, and most importantly, the
building itself is alive. It has large scale mov-
ing parts such as the cranes and the grate
system. It also deals with chemical processes
of combustion and cooling. All these mechan-
ics of operation can be a great attraction and,
if exploited properly, can stir fascination in its
visitors which can prove to be a great educa-
tional tool.
b. Site analysis
Bourj Hammoud is a middle to low income
community mostly of residents from Armenian
descent with a strong cultural heritage. Re-
nowned for their craftsmanship and industri-
ous economy, this Armenian community set-
tled in Lebanon between 1915-1930 following
the Arminian Genocide. Around 150,000 resi-
dents, most live on the East side of the main
coastal highway separating residential from
industrial zones. Access to the site is made
fairly smooth for trucks and vehicles allow-
ing easy admission for collection vehicles
which already use the route. On the other
hand, pedestrian access is hard due to the
vast width of the highway with few pedestrian
bridges across. The site itself is immediately
connected to the Sukomi sorting facility which
provides an ideal plug in situation for the WTE
plant. To the North, the site connects to the
former notorious Burj Hammoud dump, the
iconic mountain open dump that has for years
caused numerous environmental concerns to
the community and local fishing port until it
was completely covered in 1997 [2].
In order to draw community acceptance and
try to erase the negative correlation the local
community sees in Waste management fa-
cilities being imposed in their areas, the WTE
should integrate itself not only programmati-
cally by introducing programs to serve the
community, but it should also seek to make
use of their skilled labor force and renowned
craftsmanship in its construction. This will
help create a sense of belonging, participa-
tion, and ownership from the locals and ease
any negative association they might have or
have had due to the site’s history. Moreover,
integrating ways of exhibiting and touring the
facility through educational programs in local
schools would broaden awareness of the fa-
cility’s work and benefits.
Above, street life in Bourj Hammoud’s residential zone
VI- Architectural Concept Drawings(refer to Appendix 3 & 4)The following is an exercise in rendering a
vision of how an Iconic Waste to Energy fa-
cility implemented in Quarantina might be
portrayed. This has a goal to visually express
the objectives that the previously mentioned
technical analysis has built the foundation for.
The technical program of the proposed WTE
was based and sized referencing plans made
for a WTE plant for Afval Energie Bedrijf in
Amsterdam of similar incineration capacity.
Taking the technical program as a rigid entity
that cannot be restructured easily if we are to
maintain optimum working efficiency for the
plant, a second level of program is overlaid
around the shell of the facility. This new layer
aims to infuse the facility with a social compo-
nent to attract and entice the local community.
Connecting the words “waste management”
with programs of enjoyment such as pools,
youth centers, fun, exhibitions, parks, and
recreation begins to redefine their meaning in
people’s minds from something once related
to odors, filth or even disgrace. Having the
public program wrapping around the facility
ignites the possibility of fueling an educational
component related to waste management and
the functioning of the WTE plant. It becomes
a tool for spreading awareness around issues
of waste management and sustainability and
reposes local concerns of any misconceived
environmental and health effects the project
might have. Having the watchful public eye
constantly around also engages the workers
and managers of the facility to maintain its
proper functioning.
Building on the resources already flowing
through the WTE plant such as the heat from
the furnace, the water and steam from the
boiler system and the electricity being gener-
ated, a new system of relationships between
programs materializes, resembling a sort of
ecosystem with the WTE at its heart. The
waste consumed in the waste shed of Beirut
and Mount Lebanon is being funneled to fuel
the WTE plant which in turn pumps out elec-
tricity to the residents on one hand, and on
the other provides the raw resources needed
to heat the pools and showers, irrigate the
parks and light the exhibition and gathering
spaces. Even the parks themselves start to
play a role in diminishing emissions released
by the plant.
The Architectural Visions portray an icon as-
sembled of different planes of assorted mate-
rials that reflect the mixture of waste flowing
through the facility on one hand as well as the
vibrant industrial zone in which it is located. A
play of lights on the façades becomes a spir-
ited way of portraying emission levels to the
public while reflecting the living nature of the
program that is constantly at work. A grow-
ing landscape depicting a symbol of health
is added to all this collage to culminate in a
communal hall that engulfs the height of the
smoke stack. This emerging crystal of light in
the skyline differentiates itself and begins to
compete with the monolithic architecture of
the religious buildings. It becomes a beacon
of trust in the urban landscape and an Icon of
a reborn government and civic institutions.
VII- Conclusion
Waste to Energy provides a viable solution for the waste and energy crises that
Lebanon is facing. Implementing it along the most waste generating waste-shed
of Beirut and Mount Lebanon yields the most efficient results in terms of quantity
of waste being managed, the number of people if affects, as well as the minimum
disturbance on restructuring the waste and energy streams since it is able to plug
into existing infrastructure. Pursuing current practices of landfilling and relying on
heavy fuel oil imports have already taken a big toll on the environment and have
reached unsustainable limits that impede the proper functioning of the sectors.
Waste to Energy technology will restructure both streams to function together
in manner that solves the issues of waste disposal on one hand and provides a
relatively free energy source to provision electricity and sustain the increasing
demand for power.
Investing in building an Iconic Waste to Energy facility should be recognized as
a unique opportunity to transform a simple piece of infrastructure to one that
becomes emblematic of civic institutions, one that garners trust in the presence
of the government in supporting people’s needs and as a mean to integrate it
in the local community of Bourj Hammoud, enrich its potential, and become an
educational tool to raise awareness around matters of waste management and
sustainability.
It goes without saying that Waste to Energy is but a portion of the efforts needed
to restructure the waste and energy sectors, one that can provide for an immedi-
ate solution. In the long run, it has to be complemented with an all-encompassing
Solid Waste Management Plan to include an awareness campaign that pushes
for recycling and reducing the amounts of waste produced as a primary tool in
waste management. Perhaps someday the mountains of trash we see in many
neighborhoods will then begin to disappear from our skyline.
Appendix1:DefiningDesignParameters[7]
Appendix 2: Site and Location of Proposed Facility [20]
Site
*
Local
Industrial Zone
Bourj Hammoud
**
Qurantina Dump
Appendix 3: New Programmatic Relationships
Waste Management
Steam
Water
Heat
Electricity
Community
Pool
Fun
Exhibition
Youth CenterCulture
Integration
Park
Free
Gathering Space
Transparency
Green
IconicLight
Youth Center
Exhibition
+ +
Appendix 4: Architectural Concept Drawings
Pool
Exhibition
Observation Deck
Youth CenterRecreation
Communal Hall
References
1. “Chapter 1 Population, Lebanon State of the Environment Report”, (2001).
2. Joy Jadam, “Chapter 8 Solid Waste, State and Trends of the Lebanese Environment”,
(2010).
3. Naji Tannous, “Chapter 9 Energy, State and Trends of the Lebanese Environment”, (2010).
4. Earth link and advanced resources development, “Provision of consultancy services for the
preparation of a master plan for the closure and rehabilitation of uncontrolled dumps throughout
the country of Lebanon, final report”, (May 27, 2011).
5. “Support to DG Environment for development of the Mediterranean De-pollution Initiative,
HORIZON 2020”, http://ec.europa.eu
6. T. Ramd, J. Haukohl, U. Marxen, “Municipal Solid Waste Incineration, Requirements for a
Successful Project”, The World Bank, (2000).
7. The City of Amsterdam Waste and Energy Company, “Value from Waste”.
8. Waste to Energy Research and Technology Council, Answers to FAQ http://www.seas.co-
lumbia.edu/earth/wtert/faq.html
9. P. Vesilind, W. Worrell, D. Reinhart, “Solid Waste Engineering”.
10. “The Work Program of the Ministry of Environment at the Government of “All to Nation…All
to Work”, (2011-2013)
11. Ministry of Energy and Water of Lebanon, www.moew.gov.lb
12. Waste to Energy Research and Technology Council, Energy Recovery – Austria, http://
www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/globalwte_AUT.html
13. Arcspace Feature, “BIG-Bjarke Ingels Group, Waste-to-Energy Plant, Copenhagen, Den-
mark”, http://www.arcspace.com/architects/big/wastetoeneryplant/wastetoenergyplant.html
14. Themelis, N.J., “An Overview of the global waste-to-energy industry,” WTERT, (July-August
2003).
15. Gebran Bassil, “Plan stratégique national pour le secteur de l’électricité Ministère de
l’Energie et de l’Eau”, (June 2010)
16. Nickolas J. Themelis and Karsten Millrath, “The case of WTE as a renewable source of en-
ergy”.
17. Elisabeth Rosenthal, “Europe Finds Clean Energy in Trash, but U.S. Lags, ( April 12, 2010).
18. “A Health Risk Comparison of Landfill Disposal and Waste-to-Energy Treatment of Munici-
pal Solid Wastes in New York City”, (2005), http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/rpublication.
html
19. Kamuk, B., “Waste-to-Energy: The Environmental Perspective in Europe”, North American
Waste-To-Energy Conference, Florida, USA, (2005).
20. Lebanese Ministry of Energy and Water, http://www.energyandwater.gov.lb