Scientific report: "The potential energy recovery from landfills and evaluate the environmental benefits of the generation system using gas from landfills in Nam Son landfill, Vietnam" docx

J. Sci. Dev. 2009, 7 (Eng.Iss.1): 70 - 78 HA NOI UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE
70
Energy recovery potential from landfill and
environmental evaluation of landfill gas power
generation system
at nam son landfill, Vietnam
Tiềm năng thu hồi năng lượng từ bãi rác và đánh giá lợi ích môi trường
của hệ thống phát điện sử dụng khí từ bãi rác tại bãi rác Nam Sơn, Việt Nam
Pham Chau Thuy
1
, Sohei Shimada
2
1
Department of Environmental Technology, Faculty of Natural Resource and Environment,
Hanoi Agricultural University, Trau Quy, Gia Lam, Hanoi
2
Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, Institute of Environmental Studies, The University of
Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8656, JAPAN
TÓM TẮT
Khí từ bãi rác là nguồn năng lượng xanh, sạch, có thể tái tạo được và có thể sử dụng để tạo ra
điện, hay sử dụng trong công nghiệp năng lượng. Bài báo này đánh giá tiềm năng thu hồi năng lượng
từ khí bãi chôn lấp chất thải rắn đô thị, mục đích làm giảm lượng phát thải methan nói riêng và giảm
phát thải khí nhà kính nói chung. Ngoài ra, bài báo cung cấp cách sử dụng mô hình đánh giá lượng
khí methan tạo ra từ bãi chôn lấp chất thải rắn đô thị và tiềm năng tạo ra năng lượng từ khí đã thu hồi.
Đặc biệt, bài báo sử dụng phương pháp đánh giá vòng đời để đánh giá việc giảm phát thải khí nhà
kính của hệ thống phát điện sử dụng khí từ bãi rác. Kết quả nghiên cứu chỉ ra rằng, bãi rác Nam Sơn
là một bãi rác có tiềm năng lương lượng lớn cần thu hồi và sử dụng, góp phần đáng kể vào việc làm
giảm phát thải khí nhà kính, hướng tới sự phát triển bền vững. Bài báo cung cấp một cách nhìn mới
về công nghệ năng lượng sử dụng khí từ bãi rác cho Viêt Nam: hệ thống phát điên sử dụng động cơ
khí và tuabin khí. Kết quả còn chỉ ra rằng, hệ thống phát điện bằng động cơ khí tỏ ra hiệu quả hơn về
lợi ích về môi trường so với hệ thống phát điện bằng tuabin khí. Hệ thống này có thể ứng dụng cho

bãi rác Nam Sơn và ứng dụng cho các bãi rác khác của Việt Nam trong tương lai.
Từ khóa: Đánh giá vòng đời, giảm phát thải khí nhà kính, khí từ bãi rác, mô hình phát thải khí
bãi rác.
SUMMARY
Landfill gas (LFG), a green, clean, and renewable energy source can be used for electricity
generation or fuel industries. This research presents an attempt to assess the energy recovery
potential from the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) landfill, targeting at gas recovery and gas utilization,
in mitigating methane emission in particular and green house gas (GHG) emission in general. Our
research provides the using of landfill gas emission model (LFGEM) to quantify the methane
generation volume for MSW landfill. We then evaluate of energy generation potential from recovered
gas. Especially, this research conducted the Life Cycle Inventory to evaluate GHG emission mitigation
of power generation system using LFG. The results show that the methane gas flow at Nam Son
landfill can provide a considerable energy potential. LFG recovery and utilization could contribute
remarkable to GHG emission mitigation, toward to sustainability. The research supplies a new vision
of energy technology from LFG for Viet Nam: Gas Engine and Gas Turbine. The research found that
Gas Engine is more attractive in term of environmental benefit, which can be applied primarily for
Nam Son landfill and continue applied for other landfill in Vietnam for the future.
Journal of Science and Development 2009: Tập VI, No 6: 69-77 HA NOI UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE
71
Key words: Green House Gas emission mitigation, landfill gas, landfill gas emission model, life
cycle Inventory.
1. INTRODUCTION
Climbing LFG is considered as the largest
anthropogenic emission source in the developed
countries and also as a considerable emission
source in developing countries up to now. Landfill
gas (LFG) is produced from anaerobic
biodegradable decomposition of organic content
of landfilled waste. Release of LFG is one of the
dangerous contaminations due to high methane

content contributing to GHG emission and global
warming. Hence, collecting LFG and using it not
only to avoid the pollution and explosion, but also
can get attractive benefits. The main mechanism
for reducing future methane emission from landfill
sites is the use of engineered sites and the
collection and utilization of LFG.
There are several ways to utilize LFG. The
most prevalent use is converting LFG to electricity
for utilization. Power generation is advantageous
because it produces a valuable end product -
electricity – from waste. LFG recovery and
converting to electricity is optimum solution for
environmental burdens decrease by CH
4
emission
mitigation from landfills, a large emission source
from human’s activities. Hence, the purpose of this
study is to make an attempt to assess the energy
recovery potential from LFG and utilize it, targeting
at gas recovery and gas utilization, in mitigating
methane emission in particular and GHG emission in
general.
For initial assessment, an estimate of landfill
gas quantity is all needed to estimate power
potential, which is necessary for LFG power
generation design. This research presents the method
with the combination of using theoretical model and
experimental research to estimate LFG quantity in
more accurate. Then energy recovery potential from

LFG continuing is estimated.
Several good conversion technologies exist for
generating power from LFG – Internal combustion
engine (Gas Engine), combustion Turbine (Gas
Turbine) and steam turbine. Steam turbine is
applicable in very large landfill. Other technology is
fuel cell. However, this application is too expensive.
This research considers on Gas Engine (GE) and Gas
Turbine (GT) in converting LFG to electricity. Use
of Life Cycle Inventory will analyzed attractive in
term of environmental advantages obtained from
power generation plant.
Viet Nam has carried out a number of studies
and project relevant landfill gas recovery and power
generation, for example: project of Landfill gas
capture and power generation in Dong Thanh and in
Go Cat landfill. Landfilling is the common way for
Municipal Solid Waste treatment in Viet Nam. There
are a lot of landfills in Vietnam with high capacity
which are not considered in landfill gas capture and
power generation. The research approaches a new
vision of LFG technology, which is necessary in
environmental protection and sustainability
development for Viet Nam in particular and for the
world in general.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1. Case study- Nam Son landfill
Nam Son (NS) landfill is the biggest landfill in
Hanoi city, with the largest area (83.5 ha) compared
to other landfills opened in Hanoi. It is the important

site, which is active now and prospect of use is in a
long time (it will be closed in 2020). With a large
area and high capacity, NS landfill receives 1850
tons of solid waste per day today and more in the
future. The waste volume is expected to be 12
million tons when landfill close. Gas migration in
NS landfill has made serious consideration to the
government. The question to them is how to collect
landfill gas and how to use it with the aim of getting
advantages including environmental pollution
reduction and economic yield.
2.2. Materials and methods
The first method used in this study is
investigation at field and gas measurement. The
data obtained from this method includes:
characteristic and structure of the landfill, quantity
and composition of waste disposed at NS landfill
daily, local weather condition and other relevant
characteristics around the landfill. Gas
measurement includes sampling landfill gas and
analyzing the samples, which focused on methane
and carbon dioxide concentration determination.
Using vacuum pump and Tedlar bag carried out
Pham Chau Thu, Sohei Shimada
72
LFG sampling. GC-FID and GC-TCD machine
analyze gas samples.
The continuing method in this study is using
landfill gas emission model (LFGEM) to estimate
landfill gas emission and energy recovery potential

at NS landfill. There are several ways used to
evaluate the theoretical production of methane from
MSW landfill. This study uses the theoretical
model for evaluating of LFG emission. The model
is based on the first order decay equation, which
can be run by site-specific data for parameters need
to estimate emission. If the data is not available, the
method will use default value sets included in
landfill. Site-specific data in this study is
determined by on-site testing and through IPCC
guideline.
For the sites with known (or estimated) year-
to-year solid waste acceptance rates, the model
estimate LFG generation rate for given year using
the following equation:

i
n
kt
M 0 i
i 1
Q kL M (e )




(1)
Where:
M
Q

= Maximum expected generation flow
rate of methane for Mi tons of solid waste
(m
3
/year)


n
i 1
= Sum from opening year + 1 (i=1)
through year of projection (n)
k = methane generation rate constant (1/year)
Lo = methane generation potential (m
3
/t)
Mi = mass of solid waste disposed in the i
th

year (ton)
t
i
= age of the waste disposed in the i
th
year
(years).
The life cycle inventory of power plant was
considered in four lifecycle phases, namely,
upstream LFG, construction, operation, and
decommissioning. Upstream landfill gas includes
waste collection, transportation and operation of

landfill. The construction phase considered both of
LFG collection system and power plant construction.
In the decommissioning phase, demolition of power
plant, material recycling and material reusing was
included within the system boundary. LFG
recovery and utilization of it is optimum solution
for environmental burdensdecrease by CO
2
and CH
4


emission mitigation from landfills, a large emission
source from human’s activities. The aim of this
method is to evaluate environmental impacts
associate to the whole life cycle of LFG energy
conversion systems. This method is important in
accounting of GHG emission mitigation from
utilization of recovered LFG.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1. Determining site-specific input of NS landfill
3.1.1. Determining the concentration of LFG in Nam
Son landfill
To define the concentration of landfill gas,
total 9 samples were taken in the different cells and
locations and analyzed on GC machine. Using of
vacuum pump and Tedlar bag carried out LFG
sampling. Microclimate factors including
temperature, moisture, and wind velocity were
measured also. The samples were analyzed on GC-

FID or GC-TCD in laboratory. LFG analyzing
focuses on the measurement of methane and carbon
dioxide concentration.
By volume, LFG typically contains 45% - 65%
methane and 40-60% carbon dioxide. The rate and
volume of LFG produced at a specific site depends
on characteristic of waste (waste composition and
age of refuse) and a number of environmental factors
(present of oxygen in the landfill, moisture content
and temperature). Typically, the more organic waste
present in the landfill, the more landfill gas produces.
Waste component in NS landfill was described in
Fig. 1. The results of sample analysis are shown in
Table 1. These results are not so different due to a
stable component of waste and the time of refuse of
each cell. The result of analyzing samples is around
50% of CH
4
in LFG (53% CH
4
concentration in
average level).







51.9

2.7
3.1
1.3
1.6
0.5
6.1
0.9
31.9
organic
papers
plastic
leather, rubber, wood
textile
glass
stone, clay,percelain
metal
fine fraction
1.
31.9

51.9


0.
6.
1

0.5

2.7

3.
1

1.
Energy recovery potential from landfill and environmental evaluation
73




Figure 1. Composition of Municipal Solid Waste
Table 1. Results of LFG sample analysis at NS landfill
Microclimate
Location of
sampling
No of Sample
Temperature
(
0
C)
Moisture
(%)
Wind velocity
(m/s)
CH
4

(%)
CO

2
(%)
1 20.2 66.9 0.12 57.6 40.3
2 19.8 65.3 0.15 56.2 34.5
Cell 1
3 19.2 67.9 0.14 55.2 0.92
4 18.4 74.2 0.17 55.2 42.0
5 23.5 75.3 0.11 50.2 36.5
Cell 3
6 21.3 77.4 0.15 54.2 35.6
7 18.4 74.2 0.11 53.2 12.3
8 19.2 78.3 0.12 50.1 33.5
Cell 4B
9 20.1 75.6 0.15 48.2 45.3

Table 2. Input parameters used in calculation of Lo
Input parameters
Category
MCF DOC (%) DOC
d
F (%)
Lo
Result 1 26.6 0.84 0.53 158 m
3
CH
4
/ton of waste

3.1.2. Determining methane generation potential of
waste disposed at NS landfill (Lo)

This data was defined through IPCC guidelines.
IPCC guidelines presented that Lo correspond
to MCF x DOC x DOCd x 16/12 x F.
Where:
MCF = methane correction factor (= 1 with
well managed landfill, supposing that
MCF of NS landfill is 1)
DOC = fraction of degradable organic carbon
DOCd = fraction DOC dissimilate
F = fraction of CH
4
in landfill gas
Defining of DOC and DOCd was carried out
depending on waste component, calculated by
IPCC guideline also. DOC = 0.4 (A) + 0.17(B) +
0.15 (C) + 0.3 (D), where A: percentage of paper
and textile; B: percentage of garden waste, park
waste and other non-food organic putrescible
waste; C: percentage of food waste; D: percentage
of wood or straw. Apply datum from analyzed
sample of waste in Nam Son landfill, the
percentage of DOC is 26.6%.
DOCd is calculated based on the theoretical
model that the variation depends on the temperature
of anaerobic zones of the landfill.
DOCd= 0.014 x T + 0.28
Where: T is temperature.
This factor may vary from 0.42 for 10
0
C to

0.98 for 50
0
C. In fact, in many deep landfills
(>20m), temperatures of more than 50
0
C have been
registered in gas streams from highly productive
gas wells (thus clearly anaerobic). In the Nam Son
landfill, the height of site now is 18 m. Expected
height in the future is 30m. In this case, assumption
of average temperature of anaerobic zone is 40
0
C,
therefore DOCd = 0.84. Taking account the value
of methane concentration in landfill gas F, fraction
of degradable organic content DOC and dissimilate
fraction of degradable organic content DOCd, Lo is
calculated in the Table 2.
Lo calculated in NS landfill is suitable with
range of Lo in IPCC guidelines and also suitable
with two set of default value used in US-EPA
standards.
3.1.3. Methane generation rate constant k
As mentioned above, k is a parameter to
reflect the LFG emission rate. The k relates to
waste component, landfill condition and local
weather. Commonly, if easy-digest organic waste
has a higher proportion, landfill is under the
Pham Chau Thu, Sohei Shimada
74

warmer climate condition, and waste has a
reasonable press by compactor, the k will be larger,
waste easy to digest; the time of digestion will be
shorter. In converse, if the waste has a lower
proportion of easy-digest organic waste, landfill is
under the colder climate condition, waste has an
un-well press, k will be smaller, waste difficult to
digest, and time of digestion will be longer. For a
landfill, the k can be obtained via site test for
accurate calculation. In this study, a k value was
suggested depending on the consideration to the
climate condition at Nam Son landfill, landfill
design, landfill condition, and reference of other
default k values. K = 0.04 is assumed for using in
estimation of landfill gas in Nam Son landfill.
3.2 Estimation of methane emission at NS landfill
This study used Landfill gas emission model
(LFGEM) to evaluate methane emission from
landfill. This model was be run by site - specific
data supplied by above calculation. With the
methane concentration of 53% in LFG, methane
generation potential Lo of 158 m
3
CH
4
per ton of
waste, and the methane generation rate constant
k of 0.04, landfill gas emission model calculates
the methane emission for NS landfill and
presents the development of methane emission

with the time.
Figure 2 shows the change of methane
emission at NS landfill with time. Methane
emission from landfill decreases according to the
exponential curve after reaching peak gas
production. The results show Nam Son landfill has
been exposed with an abundant volume of
methane. Maximum of methane emission occurs
at the time of closed landfill operation. It takes
account for 60 million m
3
at 2020 approximately.
Minimum of emission is 2.3 millions m
3
of
methane at the second year of landfill operation
(2000). Suppose that gas collection efficiency of
recovery system is 70%, maximum of methane
collected will be 42 millions m
3
. These results will
be used to estimate energy recovery potential of
NS landfill, which can be useful for good design
of power generation plant in energy recovery
orientation.
3.3. Energy recovery potential of NS landfill
Methane has a high calorific potential
considered as ideal energy source (39700 MJ/m
3
).

Estimation of energy recovery potential from LFG
is useful for good designing power capacity of
plant. Figure 3 shows the possible ways for using
recovered gas and energy generation potential
attaining from recovered gas.
Energy generation potential in Nam Son
landfill can be started to exploit in 2006 for power
generation. At this time, methane flow can support
enough for power generation with a minimum
capacity of 6MW. The lifetime of power plant is
projected for 20 year. In the case of LFG flow
excess the design capacity of generator, the gas
redundancy should be treated and sale for nearby
site. Other incentive is burning excess gas in
purpose of environmental pollution mitigation only.
The designed capacity for LFG power
generation system at Nam Son landfill further
depends on the energy consumption requirement in
Nam Son commune. The electricity capacity of
6MW could provide enough for the resident’s
consumption need located nearby Nam Son area. In
the Nam Son landfill, there will have compost
processing plant, incineration plant and plant for
industrial waste treatment in the future. Therefore,
recovered gas can be also supplied for waste
treatment units located on site as a replacement of
energy power or supplementary fuel.

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
Time(year)
Methane emission (millions m3)
Lo=158,k=0.04
Figure 2. Development of methane emission in NS landfill
LFG emission curve by
the waste filled in a
year (
for Mi tons of
waste)

Total methane emission
volume in a year

(for


n
i
Mi
1
tons of
Energy recovery potential from landfill and environmental evaluation
75
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
Time(year)
Electricity Capacity (MW)
Sale medium
Btu LFG
Power generation

Sale medium Btu
LFG or LFG
burning

Figure 3. Energy recovery potential from LFG at Nam Son landfill

3.4. Life Cycle Inventory of LFG power
generation system
28%
Landfill gas
Gas Engine Gas Turbine
2 MW

2 MW

2 MW

6 MW
Annual electricity
generation:42,048 MW
37.7%

20 years

Total life cycle electricity outputs: 840,960 MW
Steam Turbine
Applicable in very
large landfill
Figure 4. Outline of Nam Son Landfill gas power generation system

Pham Chau Thu, Sohei Shimada
76
3.4.1. Options to be compared for LFG conversion
systems
Due to high landfill gas generation potential of
Nam Son landfill, the most appropriate use for
landfill gas is as a fuel for power generation.
Several good conversion technologies exist for
generating power: Internal Combustion Engines,
Combustion Turbine, and Boiler/Steam Turbine.
Among them, both Gas Turbine and Gas Engine are
capable used in the Nam Son landfill, where
landfill gas volumes are sufficient to generate a
minimum of 3 to 4 MW. The comparison should be
done between 3 units of GE with a 2MW capacity
of each and 1 unit of GT with a 6MW capacity. The
next section will analyze and compare energy
consumption and emission each system. The
electricity can be used on-site to displace purchased
electricity or be sold to a nearby electricity user.
Table 3. Summary of energy consumption and CO2 emission in whole lifecycle of GE power plant
Phases
Energy consumption
(kcal/kWh)

CO
2
emission
(kg/kWh)
E.C
(%)
CO
2
emission
(%)
Upstream material 72.6 0.0225 3.047 4.099
Construction phase 5.59 0.0016 0.234 0.297
Operational phase 2307.7 0.513 96.7 95.3
Decommissioning phase -0.046 0.0016 -0.0019 0.3055
Total 2385.8 0.538

Table 4. Summary of energy consumption and CO
2
emission in lifecycle of G.T power plant
Phases
Energy consumption
(kcal/kWh)
CO
2
emission
(kg/kWh)
E.C
(%)
CO
2

emission
(%)
Upstream material 72.63 0.0221 2.176 2.910
Construction phase 4.93 0.00148 0.1477 0.195
Operation phase 3259.58 0.732 97.67 96.690
Decommissioning phase 0.063 0.0015 0.00189 0.200
Total 3337.21 0.759

3.4.2. Life cycle energy use and CO
2
emission of Gas
Engine power generation system
The results were attained from analytical
accounting of the matter and energy flux, which
can enter or go out of system. The energy per
functional unit (kcal/kWh) was calculated from the
life cycle energy use and total electricity generation
during the entire lifetime of power plant.
The results in Table 3 show that the energy-
intensive phase is operational phase. Operational
phase consumed 2307.7 kcal/kWh while total
thermal energy consumption for lifecycle of system
is 2385.8 kcal/kWh (accounting for 96.7% of total
energy consumption (EC) of system). The negative
value in decommissioning phase shows that energy
can be saved from reusing of materials. The primary
source of used energy was traced back to estimate
the CO
2
emission then GHG emission evaluation.

The result presents the emission in operational phase
contributed 95.3% of total emission from whole life
cycle of system. It can be recorded that most of EC
and emission occurs on the operational phase of GE
power generation system using LFG.
3.4.3. Life cycle energy use and CO
2
emission of Gas
Turbine power generation system
Calculating of LCI energy used and GHG
emission of G.T system was carried out similar to GE
system. The results once more demonstrates that energy
consumption and GHG emission of LFG power
generation system concentrated mainly on operational
Energy recovery potential from landfill and environmental evaluation
77
phase. Gas Turbine has a high compression
requirement, but lower lubricating oil consumption than
Gas Engine. The results in Table 4 shows that energy
consumption is accounted for 97.67% and CO
2

emission is 96.69% in operational phase of GT system,
slightly higher than that of GE system.
3.4.4. Comparison of energy consumption and GHG
emission between G.E and G.T power
generation system
G.T power generation system using LFG
consumed energy and emitted CO
2

much more than
that of GE system. The different of them shows in
Table 5. Although the difference of each phase, Gas
Turbine power plant presents energy consumption
and also CO
2
emission is higher than that of Gas
Engine power plant. The reason for this mainly is
efficiency of G.T (27%) is lower than that of G.E
(37.7%). This estimation is important in
comparison of GHG emission mitigation obtained
from each of LFG power generation alternative.
Table 5. Comparison between Gas Engine power plant and Gas Turbine power plant
Thermal energy consumption
(%)
CO
2
emission
(%)
Phase
G.E G.T G.E G.T
Upstream LFG 3.04 2.18 4.1 2.92
Construction 0.23 0.148 0.297 0.195
Operation 96.72 97.67 95.3 96.69
Decommissioning -0.0019 0.0019 0.306 0.200
Total
2385.8
(kg/kWh)
3337.2
(kg/kWh)

0.538
(kcal/kWh)
0.759
(kg/kWh)

3.4.5. Green House Gas (GHG) emission mitigation
attained from LFG power generation system
GHG emission mitigation obtained from
installation of LFG power generation system is
evaluated from total emission reduction by methane
combustion, CO
2
emission from whole life cycle of
electricity production (as calculated in previous
section), and CO
2
emission offset for electricity
production. Because methane emission is a global
climate change agent with 23 times the negative
impact of CO
2
.
Hence:
GHG emission mitigation from whole life
cycle of Gas Engine power plant is:
-[(1*22-5695*0.538/1000)+5695*0.5/1000]*28.88*365*20
= - 4.6 million tons (CO
2
equivalent)
= - 2.35 billion m

3
(CO
2
equivalent)
Where:
1*22 is CO
2
mitigation from 1 ton CH
4

combustion
5696*0.538/1000 is CO
2
emission from whole
life cycle of LFG power generation system by
combustion of 1ton methane
5695*0.5/1000 is CO
2
emission offset for
electricity production
GHG emission mitigation from whole life
cycle of Gas Turbine power plant is:
-[(1*22-4283*0.759/1000)+4283*0.5/1000]*28.88*365*20
= - 4.4 million tons (CO
2
equivalent)
= - 2.24 billion m
3
(CO
2

equivalent)
Negative sign indicates the net positive
reduction of CO
2
emission

using power generation
system.
Both Gas Engine and Gas Turbine contribute
remarkable to GHG emission mitigation. The
results indicate that Gas Engine power generation
plant was considered more friendly environmental
than Gas Turbine system. In the consideration of
environmental benefits, Gas Engine system appears
more attractively than Gas Turbine. Gas Engine
power generation system could be an ideal style
insuring sustainable development for converting
LFG to electricity for Nam Son landfill.
4. CONCLUSION
By using of LFGEM, the study found the
methane gas flow at Nam Son landfill could
provide a considerable potential that has many
options to be used as a source of energy, where
Pham Chau Thu, Sohei Shimada
78
LFG electricity generation option is most
preferable. Both of GE and GT contribute
remarkable to GHG emission mitigation.
Comparison between two LFG power generation
systems with the same capacity, the analysis shows

that the Gas Turbine power generation system
presents a higher thermal energy consumption and
also higher GHG emission. However, considering
in whole life cycle, G.E contributes to GHG
emission mitigation more remarkably than that of
G.T system. Gas Engine system should be used for
converting LFG to electricity in the consideration
both of environment protection and economic
interest. Gas Engine power generation system could
be an ideal style in LFG management orientating to
sustainable development of society.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the help
provided by Ha Noi Urban Environment
Company (URENCO) and Ha Noi Department of
Science, Technology and Environment in
fieldwork testing.
REFERENCES
Brown, S.P., (1989). Engineering Aspects of
Landfill Gas Recovery and Utilization.
International Biodeterioration, 25 (1989), pp.
65-69.
Byard, M. W., Czepiel, P.C., Shorter, J., Allwine,
E. Harriss, R.C., Kolb, C., Lamb, B., (1996).
Mitigation of methane emissions at landfill sites
in New England, USA. Energy Conversion and
Management, June 8, 1996, 37 (6-8): 1093-1098.
Desideri, U., Di Maria, F., Leonardi, D., Proietti, S.,
(2003). Sanitary landfill energetic potential
analysis: a real case study. Energy Conversion

and Management, July 2003, 44 (12): 1969-1981.
Doorn, M., Pacey, J. and Augenstein, D., (1995).
Landfill Gas Energy Utilization Experience:
Discussion of Technical and Non-Technical
Issues, Solutions, and Trends. US EPA,
Research Triangle Park NC., May 1995.
Fache, G. (2003). The Study of the Utilization of
the Waste Landfill Methane in Ji Nan. 3rd
International Methane & Nitrous Oxide
Mitigation Conference, Beijing, China, 17-31.
Goralczyk, M.,(2003). Life-cycle assessment in the
renewable energy sector. Applied Energy, July
2003, 75 (3): 205-211 (7).
Handong, Y., L. Yuhong and Y. Dajun., (2003).
Potential of Gas Turbine Co-Generation in
China. Energy Policy, August 2003, vol. 31, iss.
10, pp 931-36 M. Tsang, 2004. Power from
waste- Landfill gas power generation plant at
Mont-Saint-Guibert, Waste Management World,
May-June 2004, pp. 71-74.
Kannan, R., Tso, C.P., Osman, R., Ho, H.K. (2004).
LCA-LCCA of oil-fired steam turbine power
plant in Singapore, Energy Conversion and
Management.
Lunghi, P., Bove, R., Desideri, U.,(2004). Life
Cycle Assessment of fuel-cells-based landfill-
gas energy conversion technologies. Journal of
Power Source 131, 120-126.
Meier, P. J.,(2002). Life-Cycle Assessment of
Electricity Generation Systems and Applications

for Climate Change Policy Analysis. University
of Wisconsin-Madison, August, 2002.
Ngnikam, E., Tanawa, E., Rousseaux, P.,
Riedacker, A., Gourdon, R.,(2002). Evaluation
of the potentialities to reduce greenhouse gases
(GHG) emissions resulting from various
treatments of municipal solid wastes (MSW) in
moist tropical climates: Application to Yaounde,
Waste Management and Research, 1 December
2002, 20 (6): 501-513(13).
Shekdar, A. V., (1997). A strategy for the
development of landfill gas technology in India.
Waste Management & Research, June 1997, 15
(3): 255-266 (12).
Spath, P. L., Mann, M. K., (2000). Life Cycle
Assessment of a Natural Gas Combined-Cycle
Power Generation System. NREL, Colorado,
2000.
Sudhakar, Y., Jyoti, K.P., (2002). Development of a
purpose built landfill system for the control of
methane emissions from municipal solid waste.
Journal of Waste Management 22,501-506.
Tanapat, S., Thompson, S., (2004). Applying a
Waste Management Model to Analyze Options
for Greenhouse Gases at A Specific Landfill:
Feasibility of Methane Recovery at Brady Road
Landfill. ESAC/ACEE Conference, June 3,
2004, Journal of Power Sources 131 (2004) pp.
120-126.
Tchobanoglous, G., Theisen, H., Vigil, S., (1993).

Integrated solid waste management Engineering
Principles and Management Issues. New York,
NY: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Energy recovery potential from landfill and environmental evaluation
79
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (2005). Landfill gas capture and power
generation in Dong Thanh, Vietnam, CDM
Project design document.
White, P. R., Franke, M., Hindle, P. (1999).
Integrated solid waste management a lifecycle
inventory, Aspen Publishers, Inc., Maryland,
1999.
Xiulian, H., Kejun, J., Cheng, C., (2003).
Municipal Solid Waste Incineration for
Electricity Generation-A CDM Case Study. 3rd
International Methane & Nitrous Oxide
Mitigation Conference, Beijing, China, 17-31.