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