As the representative of the PIB Waste2Value Consortium Netherlands, Mr. Rutger de Bruijn gave a presentation at the IFAT trade fair in Bombay Exhibition Center in Mumbai on 13th October 2015.

1. Unlocking the potential of
Swachh Bharat Mission

2. Waste to Value Consortium
MSWM Technologies
Case Study : Incineration
Case Study : Composting
Policy Impact
Indian Focus Solution
Contents
Waste Composition : Indian Vs Western
MSWM Solution Matrix

3. Waste2Value Consortium
Hanjer plant, Gurgaon

4. Bio methanisation
systems
Waste to Value Consortium
Consultancy and
engineering in a
broad spectrum of
waste management
topics
Currency, Service
Solutions and
Recycling Solutions
Waste segregation
equipment, biogas
installations and
electricity generation
Gas Treatment, Gas
Conversion and
Enclosed Flares
Leachate treatment
and Biogas upgrading
Trisoplast Landfill
lining and Multriwell
landfill gas extraction
Engineering of Waste
Management
Infrastructural projects
and soil remediation
Private members in the W2V
Consortium

5. • For IAS officers and senior bureaucrats
• Master classes in waste2value technology, policy and
management
• Certification program ideally to be supported by
Ministry of UD
• Nijenrode University to take lead in setting-up this
program
• Constitute an Advisory Board with both Dutch and
Indian experts; the Board could counsel the Indian
Government in the area of waste management policy
design and implementation (MSW 2013 and beyond)
• For stakeholders responsible for waste management
in state governments, pollution control boards,
municipalities
• Netherlands can provide a comprehensive course
• Make these courses available online. E.g. YouTube
lessons
• Localization of content
• NSWAI could have a key role in
dissemination/promotion of knowledge modules
(could also become an online training program/e-
learning). Further discussion needed with Dr. Sahu
Knowledge2Knowled
ge
Government2Governm
ent
Waste to Value Consortium

6. Ministry of
Infrastructure,
NL
W2V
MoUD, India
MH HP
MoU
MoU
MoU/FS
Empaneled
Waste to Value Consortium

7. Waste to Value Consortium

8. W2V signing MoU with MoUD, HP W2V signing MoU with MoUD, Maharashtra in
presence of Dutch Prime Minister
W2V delivering session at a National Workshop,
Chandigarh
W2V with officials of Karnal Municipality, Haryana
Waste to Value Consortium

9. Waste Composition : India vs
West
Waste Europe US India
Bio-
degradable
Less Less More
Recyclables More More Less
Inerts Less Less More
Moisture Less Less More

10. MSWM Various Countries
0 1 1 1 1 2 3 3
15
28
40
49 49
54
59 59
63 65 67
70 70
73
79 79 80 82
88 89
92 94
99
50
37
51
42
38
57 54
34
38
35
25
17
12
4
1
21
8
18
11
1
11 1
11
1
51
62
48
57
61
41 43
61
47
37 35 34
39 40 40
20
29
17
22
30 28
16
20
11
20 18
11 12
8 6
1
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
treatmentofMunicipalSolidWaste
Recycling
Incineration (R1+D10)
Landfill

11. MSWM Technology
Comparison
Region Technology Purpose Requirement
Indian
Scenario
West
Incineration
Volume
Reduction
1000 TPD +
Inorganic
MSW
60% plus
Organic content
Recycling Reuse
40-50%
recycling
materials
Less than 30%
India Composting Value Creation
Segregated
waste
•No segregation
at source
•Less market
value

12. A case financial case study on why they do not work in India
Incineration
Hanjer plant, Gurgaon

13. Incineration is Volume
Reduction
Country Model
Owne
r
Support
from
Governmen
t
Tipping Fee
[INR/t]
Tariff
[INR/Unit]
Sustainabili
ty
Japan
ULB
,DBO or
PFI
ULB Subsidy Paid by Tax 5.2 ○
China PPP
ULB
or D
Exemption
from Tax
1500 6.5 ○
Sri Lanka PPP D
Exemption
from Tax
260 13 ○
India PPP D × 0 3.25 ×
India
(proposal
)
DBOT
or
ULB,DB
ULB
Equity or
Subsidy
650 13 ○
D = Developer, ULB = Urban Local Body, Unit = kW

14. Soil Pollution Air Pollution
Incinerating Waste With High Organic and Moisture Content
Incineration is Volume
Reduction

15. Indians Against Incineration

16. A case financial case study on why they do not work in India
Composting plants
Hanjer plant, Gurgaon

17. Hanjer plant, Gurgaon

18. Hanjer plant, Gurgaon

19. 0 10 20 30 40 50
Revenue
Costs
CAPEX OPEX VGF TIPPING FEE Compost
MIXED WASTE COMPOST PLANT “COMPOST”
Tipping fee is the main
revenue contributor, not
compost

20. MIXED WASTE COMPOST PLANT “COMPOST”
0 10 20 30 40 50
Revenue
Costs
CAPEX OPEX VGF TIPPING FEE
Profitability gap
Tipping fee is the main
revenue contributor, not
compost

21. Problems plaguing composting
 Underinvestment
(L1)
 Low re-sale value
for compost
 Incentive to dump
not process (tipping
fee)
Manali plant, HP

22. Policy Impact

23. Policy Impact on MSWM
 Pay per ton : tipping free vs PPA
 Incentivizing dumping vs Incentivizing processing
 Tipping fee by Municipality vs PPA by State
Collection and
Transportation
Processing End Product
Tipping
Fee
PPA

24. Policy Impact – Hybrid Model
PPA
Tipping
Fees
Quantity of
waste
Quality of
waste
Biogas Electricity
Tipping Fee Model
Deciding
Factor
PPA Model
Municipality State

25. Solution for Indian specific waste composition
Indian Focus Solution

26. Hypothetical feasibility curves for
techniques

27. Cost Comparison for Different
Technologies
200
650
850
2000
3500
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Compost (@Rs. 1500/ton)
Tipping fee (landfill in India) (@Rs.
650/ton)
Waste to bio-energy PPA (@Rs. 8
/kWh) w2e
Incineration TF (Rs. 650) +PPA (Rs.
13)
Tipping fee (West)

28. Simplistic overview of solutions
Segregation at
source
Mechanical
segregation
Waste to energy
Low land
requirement
✔ ✔ ✔
Below < 300 TPD 300-1,000 TPD > 1000 TPD

29. Waste Management Solution
Matrix
 Thane
 Kalyan Dombivil
 Satara.
 Lonawala.
 Ahmednagar.
 Aurungabad
 Amravati.
 Malegaon.
 Degloor.
 Akola
 Nagpur
 Ballarpur.
 A knowledge tool kit that
will enable the
Government of
Maharashtra to map
solutions for their waste
management issues
 Comprehensive data will
be collected from the
select 12 cities
 Solutions will be proposed
based on the data
gathered and analyzed