Hubbry Logo
Refuse-derived fuelRefuse-derived fuelMain
Open search
Refuse-derived fuel
Community hub
Refuse-derived fuel
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Refuse-derived fuel
Refuse-derived fuel
Refuse-derived fuel
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Refuse-derived fuel pellets

Refuse-derived fuel (RDF) is a fuel produced from various types of waste such as municipal solid waste (MSW), industrial waste or commercial waste.

The World Business Council for Sustainable Development provides a definition:

"Selected waste and by-products with recoverable calorific value can be used as fuels in a cement kiln, replacing a portion of conventional fossil fuels, like coal, if they meet strict specifications. Sometimes they can only be used after pre-processing to provide ‘tailor-made’ fuels for the cement process".

RDF consists largely of combustible components of such waste, as non recyclable plastics (not including PVC), paper cardboard, labels, and other corrugated materials. These fractions are separated by different processing steps, such as screening, air classification, ballistic separation, separation of ferrous and non ferrous materials, glass, stones and other foreign materials and shredding into a uniform grain size, or also pelletized in order to produce a homogeneous material which can be used as substitute for fossil fuels in e.g. cement plants, lime plants, coal fired power plants or as reduction agent in steel furnaces. If documented according to CEN/TC 343 it can be labeled as solid recovered fuels (SRF).[1]

Others describe the properties, such as:

  • Secondary fuels
  • Substitute fuels
  • “AF“ as an abbreviation for alternative fuels
  • Ultimately most of the designations are only general paraphrases for alternative fuels which are either waste-derived or biomass-derived.

There is no universal exact classification or specification which is used for such materials. Even legislative authorities have not yet established any exact guidelines on the type and composition of alternative fuels. The first approaches towards classification or specification are to be found in Germany (Bundesgütegemeinschaft für Sekundärbrennstoffe) as well as at European level (European Recovered Fuel Organisation). These approaches which are initiated primarily by the producers of alternative fuels, follow a correct approach: Only through an exactly defined standardisation in the composition of such materials can both production and utilisation be uniform worldwide.

First approaches towards alternative fuel classification:

Solid recovered fuels are part of RDF in the fact that it is produced to reach a standard such as CEN/343 ANAS.[2] A comprehensive review is now available on SRF / RDF production, quality standards and thermal recovery, including statistics on European SRF quality.[3]

History

[edit]

In the 1950s tyres were used for the first time as refuse derived fuel in the cement industry. Continuous use of various waste-derived alternative fuels then followed in the mid-1980s with “Brennstoff aus Müll“ (BRAM) – fuel from waste – in the Westphalian cement industry in Germany.

At that time the thought of cost reduction through replacement of fossil fuels was the priority as considerable competition pressure weighed down on the industry. Since the eighties the German Cement Works Association (Verein Deutscher Zementwerke e.V. (VDZ, Düsseldorf)) has been documenting the use of alternative fuels in the federal German cement industry. In 1987 less than 5% of fossil fuels were replaced by refuse derived fuels, in 2015 its use increased to almost 62%.

Refuse-derived fuels are used in a wide range of specialized waste to energy facilities, which are using processed refuse-derived fuels with lower calorific values of 8-14MJ/kg in grain sizes of up to 500 mm to produce electricity and thermal energy (heat/steam) for district heating systems or industrial uses.

Processing

[edit]

Materials such as glass and metals are removed during the treatment processing since they are non-combustible. The metal is removed using a magnet and the glass using mechanical screening. After that, an air knife is used to separate the light materials from the heavy ones. The light materials have higher calorific value and they create the final RDF. The heavy materials will usually continue to a landfill. The residual material can be sold in its processed form (depending on the process treatment) as a plain mixture or it may be compressed into pellet fuel, bricks or logs and used for other purposes either stand-alone or in a recursive recycling process.[4] RDF or SRF is the combustible sub-fraction of municipal solid waste and other similar solid waste, produced using a mix of mechanical and/or biological treatment methods such as biodrying.[5] in mechanical-biological treatment (MBT) plants.[3] During the production of RDF / SRF in MBT plants there are solid loses of otherwise combustible material,[6] which generates a debate whether the production and use of RDF / SRF is resource efficient or not over traditional one-step combustion of residual MSW in incineration (Energy from waste) plants.[7]

In the process of making RDF pellets from shredded SRF, drying is often required. Typically, the moisture content needs to be reduced to below 20% to produce high-calorific, high-density RDF pellets. Drying RDF often requires a substantial amount of energy, so choosing an inexpensive heat source is preferable.

The production of RDF may involve the following steps:

  • Bag splitting/Shredding
  • Manual sorting (typically to remove inerts, PVC and/or other unwanted objects)
  • Size screening
  • Magnetic separation
  • Eddy current separation (non-magnetic metals)
  • Air classifier (density separation)
  • Coarse shredding
  • Refining separation by infrared separation
  • Drying
  • Pelletizing
  • Mixing/homogenization

End markets

[edit]

RDF can be used in a variety of ways to produce electricity or as a replacement of fossil fuels. It can be used alongside traditional sources of fuel in coal power plants. In Europe RDF can be used in the cement kiln industry, where strict air pollution control standards of the Waste Incineration Directive apply. The main limiting factor for RDF / SRF use in cement kilns is its total chlorine (Cl) content, with mean Cl content in average commercially manufactured SRF being at 0.76 w/w on a dry basis (± 0.14% w/wd, 95% confidence).[8] RDF can also be fed into plasma arc gasification modules & pyrolysis plants. Where the RDF is capable of being combusted cleanly or in compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, RDF can provide a funding source where unused carbon credits are sold on the open market via a carbon exchange.[clarification needed] However, the use of municipal waste contracts[clarification needed] and the bankability[jargon] of these solutions is still a relatively new concept, thus RDF's financial advantage may be debatable. The European market for the production of RDF have been grown fast due to the European landfill directive and the imposition of landfill taxes. Refuse derived fuel (RDF) exports from the UK to Europe and beyond are expected to have reached 3.3 million tonnes in 2015, representing a near-500,000 tonnes increase on the previous year.

Measurement of RDF and SRF properties: biogenic content

[edit]

The biomass fraction of RDF and SRF has a monetary value under multiple greenhouse gas protocols, such as the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme and the Renewable Obligation Certificate program in the United Kingdom. Biomass is considered to be carbon-neutral since the CO2 liberated from the combustion of biomass is recycled in plants. The combusted biomass fraction of RDF/SRF is used by stationary combustion operators to reduce their overall reported CO2 emissions.

Several methods have been developed by the European CEN 343 working group to determine the biomass fraction of RDF/SRF. The initial two methods developed (CEN/TS 15440) were the manual sorting method and the selective dissolution method; a comparative assessment of these two methods is available.[9] An alternative, but more expensive method was developed using the principles of radiocarbon dating. A technical review (CEN/TR 15591:2007) outlining the carbon-14 method was published in 2007, and a technical standard of the carbon dating method (CEN/TS 15747:2008) was published in 2008.[10] In the United States, there is already an equivalent carbon-14 method under the standard method ASTM D6866.

Although carbon-14 dating can determine the biomass fraction of RDF/SRF, it cannot determine directly the biomass calorific value. Determining the calorific value is important for green certificate programs such as the Renewable Obligation Certificate program. These programs award certificates based on the energy produced from biomass. Several research papers, including the one commissioned by the Renewable Energy Association in the UK, have been published that demonstrate how the carbon-14 result can be used to calculate the biomass calorific value.

Quality assurance of RDF and SRF properties: representative laboratory sub-sampling

[edit]

There are major challenges related to the quality assurance and especially the accurate determination of the RDF / SRF thermal recovery (combustion) properties, due to their inherently variable (heterogeneous) composition. Recent advances enable optimal sub-sampling schemes[11] to arrive from the SRF / SRF sample of say 1 kg to the g or mg to be tested in the analytical devices such as the bomb calorimetry or TGA. With such solutions representative sub-sampling can be secured, but less so for the chlorine content.[12] The new evidence suggests that the theory of sampling (ToS) may be overestimating the processing effort needed, to obtain a representative sub-sample.

Regional use

[edit]

Campania

[edit]

In 2009, in response to the Naples waste management issue in Campania, Italy, the Acerra incineration facility was completed at a cost of over €350 million. The incinerator burns 600,000 tons of waste per year.[13] The energy produced from the facility is enough to power 200,000 households per year.[14]

Iowa

[edit]

The first full-scale waste-to-energy facility in the US was the Arnold O. Chantland Resource Recovery Plant, built in 1975 located in Ames, Iowa. This plant also produces RDF that is sent to a local power plant for supplemental fuel.[15]

Manchester

[edit]

The city of Manchester, in the north west of England, is in the process of awarding a contract for the use of RDF which will be produced by proposed mechanical biological treatment facilities as part of a huge PFI contract. The Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority has recently announced there is significant market interest in initial bids for the use of RDF which is projected to be produced in tonnages up to 900,000 tonnes per annum.[16][17]

Bollnäs

[edit]

During spring 2008 Bollnäs Ovanåkers Renhållnings AB (BORAB) in Sweden, started their new waste-to-energy plant. Municipal solid waste as well as industrial waste is turned into refuse-derived fuel. The 70,000-80,000 tonnes RDF that is produced per annum is used to power the nearby BFB-plant, which provides the citizens of Bollnäs with electricity and district heating.[18][19]

Israel

[edit]

In late March 2017, Israel launched its own RDF plant at the Hiriya Recycling Park; which daily will intake about 1,500 tonnes of household waste, which will amount to around half a million tonnes of waste each year, with an estimated production of 500 tonnes of RDF daily.[20] The plant is part of Israel's "diligent effort to improve and advance waste management in Israel."[21]

United Arab Emirates

[edit]

In October 2018, the UAE's Ministry of Climate Change and Environment signed a concession agreement with Emirates RDF (BESIX, Tech Group Eco Single Owner, Griffin Refineries) to develop and operate a RDF facility in the Emirate of Umm Al Quwain. The facility will receive 1,000 tons per day of household waste and convert the waste of 550,000 residents from the emirates of Ajman and Umm Al Quwain into RDF. RDF will be used in cement factories to partially replace the traditional use of gas or coal.[22]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Refuse-derived fuel

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Refuse-derived fuel (RDF) is a combustible material derived from municipal solid waste through mechanical processing that removes recyclables, metals, and inert components to produce a fuel suitable for energy recovery. This processing typically involves shredding, air classification, and sometimes biological treatment or densification into pellets to enhance handling and combustion properties. RDF serves as an alternative to landfilling by enabling waste-to-energy conversion, often co-fired in industrial boilers, cement kilns, or dedicated power plants. The production of RDF diverts significant volumes of from landfills—potentially over 30% in optimized systems—while generating a with calorific values comparable to low-grade , typically ranging from 10 to 18 MJ/kg depending on composition. Key advantages include that displaces fossil fuels and reduces from anaerobic in landfills, with studies indicating up to 25% emission reductions relative to untreated disposal. However, RDF's variable composition, often including plastics and organics, poses challenges in consistent and combustion efficiency. Despite these benefits, RDF utilization raises environmental and health concerns due to emissions during , including dioxins, , and fine particulates, which can exceed those from some conventional fuels if emission controls are inadequate. highlights that while life-cycle analyses often show net reductions in CO₂ equivalents, localized impacts—particularly from high content contributing to incomplete —undermine claims of overall in poorly regulated facilities. These issues have fueled debates over RDF's role in strategies, balancing waste reduction against potential trade-offs in atmospheric loads.

Definition and Fundamentals

Definition and Composition

Refuse-derived fuel (RDF) is the combustible fraction extracted from (MSW) or industrial refuse through mechanical processing, which separates high-energy components such as , plastics, and textiles from non-combustible materials like metals, , and inerts. This processing aims to produce a with sufficient calorific value for , typically serving as an alternative to landfilling by enabling in industrial boilers, kilns, or dedicated facilities. RDF is distinguished from raw waste by its reduced moisture and inert content, enhancing its viability as a supplemental that displaces fossil fuels while adhering to emission standards in permitted operations. The physical composition of RDF varies by source waste and processing method but generally comprises shredded or pelletized fractions dominated by cellulosic materials (e.g., and , 20-40% by weight), plastics (20-50%), and textiles or (10-20%), with residual organics contributing to volatility. Non-combustible removal targets content below 20%, though typical levels range from 5-20% on a dry basis, influencing . Moisture is controlled to 5-20% to prevent handling issues and maintain energy output. Chemically, RDF exhibits an ultimate analysis with carbon at 41-58 wt.%, 5-10 wt.%, oxygen 20-30 wt.%, 0.8-2.5 wt.%, 0.1-0.5 wt.%, and 0.5-2 wt.%, reflecting its mixed biogenic and fossil-derived origins. Proximate analysis shows volatile matter at 70-85 wt.%, fixed carbon 5-15 wt.%, and the aforementioned , yielding a net calorific value of 10-25 MJ/kg, often averaging 16-18 MJ/kg depending on plastic enrichment. These position RDF as a heterogeneous requiring quality controls to mitigate emissions like dioxins from chlorine content.

Production Processes

Refuse-derived fuel (RDF) is produced primarily through mechanical processing of (MSW) in front-end subsystems designed to separate combustible organic fractions from non-combustible residues, recyclables, and inert materials. The process begins with receiving MSW directly from collection vehicles, followed by size reduction and separation to yield a with targeted properties, such as a heating value of 12–16 MJ/kg, moisture content of 15–25%, and ash content of 10–22%. These systems mechanically shred the waste, remove contaminants like metals and , and classify materials by density to enhance combustibility, avoiding chemical alterations. Key steps include initial shredding to reduce , typically targeting 90% of material under 250 mm using double-shaft shredders with capacities up to 25 tons per hour. Screening follows, often via rotary trommels or disc screens with apertures around 60 mm, to remove fines (e.g., food scraps and ) comprising up to 55% of input by weight, which have low calorific value. Magnetic separators then extract metals at multiple stages to recover valuables and protect equipment, while eddy current separators remove non-ferrous metals like aluminum. Air classification, or wind sifting, separates light combustible fractions (e.g., , plastics) from heavier inerts via differences, often using cyclones, which can increase heating value by up to 20% by excluding wet organics and . Secondary shredding refines the output to 95% under 40 mm, ensuring uniformity for . Optional biological or drying reduces moisture, and pelletization densifies the RDF into pellets or briquettes for easier handling, storage, and transport, producing densified RDF (d-RDF) suitable for dedicated boilers. Process variations depend on input waste composition and end-use specifications, with integrated systems combining pre- and post-screening shredders for optimized contaminant removal.

Historical Development

Origins and Early Innovations

The earliest documented efforts to derive fuel from refuse trace to mid-19th-century England, where destructor plants processed municipal waste into combustible forms. In 1846, the first briquetting works were established to densify refuse-derived material from these destructors, aiming to create a more consistent and efficient fuel by compressing shredded waste with binders. This innovation addressed the irregular burning characteristics of raw refuse, enabling its use in industrial boilers and furnaces. By the 1860s, such processed refuse was routinely employed in steam generation, predating modern RDF classifications but establishing the principle of waste-to-energy conversion through mechanical preparation. Widespread adoption of unprocessed —termed RDF-1 in contemporary nomenclature—emerged in the last quarter of the 19th century, initially in for direct in power plants and heating systems. This raw application quickly proliferated to the , , and other industrialized nations by the early , driven by urban waste accumulation and shortages. Early innovations emphasized basic preprocessing, such as manual sorting to remove non-combustibles and rudimentary drying to boost calorific value, which averaged 8-10 MJ/kg for shredded refuse compared to raw waste's variability. These methods laid the groundwork for refuse as a supplementary , though was limited by inconsistent composition and ash content exceeding 20%. The mid-20th century saw targeted advancements in industrial applications, with the sector pioneering waste-derived fuels in the by co-processing tires and other high-calorific refuse to displace fuels, achieving substitution rates up to 10-15% without alterations. Concurrently, U.S. experiments in the 1960s introduced mechanical shredding and air classification to produce RDF-3 (shredded, ferrous-removed waste), enhancing uniformity for use. These techniques, spurred by post-World War II resource constraints, marked a shift from opportunistic burning to engineered fuel production, with pilot facilities demonstrating net yields of 4-6 MJ/kg after processing losses.

Expansion and Technological Advancements

Following the enactment of the Resource Recovery Act in 1970, which spurred modern refuse-derived fuel (RDF) initiatives, significant expansion in resource recovery capacity occurred starting in 1974, particularly in the United States where RDF processing facilities proliferated during the late 1970s through construction of dedicated systems. This growth reflected increasing recognition of RDF's potential for from , with early facilities focusing on mechanical processing to enhance combustibility. By the 1980s, RDF use extended beyond the US to , where adoption accelerated in countries like the and , driven by landfill diversion policies and energy needs. Technological advancements in RDF production emphasized improved material preparation to boost heating value and reduce impurities. In the mid-1970s, the University of California demonstrated mechanical screening techniques that yielded RDF with low moisture content, high heating value, and reduced ash, using trommel screens to remove fines and thereby increasing energy content by approximately 20%. During the 1970s and 1980s, core processes evolved to include primary size reduction via shredding followed by screening, while air classification was largely abandoned due to inconsistent performance in separating light combustibles. Further innovations in the and addressed operational challenges, such as incorporating pre-trommel screening to minimize shredder wear and contamination, alongside secondary shredding to mitigate risks from unprocessed materials. By the and into the 2000s, additional screening stages were integrated to further lower ash and inert content, enabling more reliable co-combustion in ; concurrent advances in and protective coatings for boiler tubes substantially diminished fire-side , enhancing long-term viability of RDF-fired systems. These developments collectively improved RDF quality standards, facilitating broader industrial applications like cement kilns, where RDF substitutes for fossil fuels with consistent performance.

Physical and Chemical Properties

Key Characteristics


Refuse-derived fuel (RDF) possesses variable physical and chemical properties influenced by composition and processing techniques, resulting in inherent heterogeneity that affects performance. Physically, RDF is commonly processed into shredded fluff, loose granules, or densified pellets to improve , handling, and storage; pelletized forms typically feature particle sizes of 10-50 mm, with bulk densities enhanced from 150-250 kg/m³ for fluff to higher values post-pelletization. content, a key determinant of fuel quality, generally ranges from 15% to 25% on a wet basis, though advanced can lower it to 4-23%, as excessive diminishes calorific value and increases energy needs for ignition. Chemically, RDF exhibits ash contents of 10-22%, exceeding those of (5-10%) and leading to elevated and residue production during . Higher heating values (HHV) on a wet basis typically fall between 12 and 16 MJ/kg for processed RDF, with untreated variants ranging 8.4-27 MJ/kg; high-quality grades surpass 15 MJ/kg to ensure viability as a substitute. Proximate analysis reveals volatile matter levels of 50-80%, promoting rapid ignition but necessitating emission controls, alongside fixed carbon around 5-20%. Elemental composition includes 40-50% carbon and 5-7% hydrogen, derived largely from plastics and paper (50-80% of mass), with oxygen at 20-30%; nitrogen and sulfur remain low (<1% each), but chlorine content is elevated at 0.5-3% due to polyvinyl chloride, risking hydrochloric acid formation and equipment corrosion. Standards such as EN ISO 21640:2021 classify RDF quality into five grades based on net calorific value (≥3 to ≥25 MJ/kg as received), chlorine (≤0.2% to ≤3% dry basis), and mercury, enabling tailored applications in energy recovery. This variability underscores RDF's challenges, including low friability and potential for inconsistent burning, mitigated through rigorous sorting and pretreatment.
PropertyTypical Range (wet basis unless noted)
Moisture (%)15-25
Ash (%)10-22
HHV (MJ/kg)12-16
Chlorine (%)0.5-3
Volatile Matter (%)50-80

Quality Assessment and Standards

Quality assessment of refuse-derived fuel (RDF) focuses on physical, chemical, and combustion-related parameters to determine its viability as a supplemental fuel, ensuring efficient energy recovery while mitigating risks such as corrosion, emissions, and ash residue buildup. Key metrics include net calorific value (NCV), typically required to exceed 10-15 MJ/kg for industrial applications, with higher-grade RDF surpassing 15 MJ/kg to compete with fossil fuels like . Moisture content is limited to under 20% to prevent combustion inefficiencies and spontaneous degradation, as excess moisture dilutes energy density and promotes microbial activity. Chlorine levels, often capped below 1% (dry mass basis) to avoid hydrochloric acid formation and equipment corrosion, are scrutinized alongside sulfur, nitrogen, and heavy metal concentrations like mercury (≤5 mg/Nm³ emissions threshold in some guidelines). Particle size uniformity (e.g., 3-5 cm) and low impurity rates, including ash (<20% dry basis) and non-combustibles, further define quality, with proximate and ultimate analyses conducted via standardized sampling protocols. In Europe, RDF meeting specified criteria is classified as solid recovered fuel (SRF) under EN ISO 21640:2021, enabling standardized trading and co-processing in cement kilns or power plants. This standard delineates classes (e.g., Class I: NCV ≥25 MJ/kg, Cl <0.2%; Class III: NCV ≥15 MJ/kg, Cl <1.8%) based on mean values for NCV, chlorine, mercury, and other contaminants, with compliance verified through laboratory testing of representative samples. Quality assurance involves end-to-end monitoring during production, including shredding, separation, and pelletizing, to maintain consistency; non-compliance risks rejection by end-users demanding guaranteed specifications. Outside Europe, standards are less harmonized: in the United States, no federal RDF specification exists, though state-level guidelines (e.g., California's emphasis on low heavy metals) and voluntary industry practices prioritize heating value (>10 MJ/kg) and low pollutants, often aligned with EPA combustion testing for emissions control. In regions like , regulatory minima include NCV ≥6.3 MJ/kg (1500 kcal/kg) for eligibility, reflecting adaptation to local waste compositions.
SRF Class (EN ISO 21640)Net Calorific Value (MJ/kg, mean)Chlorine Content (% dry mass, mean)Mercury (mg/MJ, mean)
Class I≥25<0.2<0.02
Class II≥20<0.6<0.04
Class III≥15<1.8<0.07
These thresholds facilitate risk-based utilization, with higher classes suited for sensitive applications; however, empirical data from field trials underscore that actual performance varies with feedstock variability, necessitating ongoing quality control to align with end-user tolerances.

Applications and Utilization

Industrial Co-Processing

Industrial co-processing involves the integration of refuse-derived fuel (RDF) into high-temperature manufacturing processes, primarily cement kilns, where RDF serves as a substitute for fossil fuels such as coal or petcoke, and its mineral content is incorporated into the final product as a raw material component. This method leverages kiln temperatures exceeding 1400°C to achieve complete thermal destruction of organic matter, pathogens, and persistent pollutants like dioxins, while enabling energy recovery without generating residual waste. The process typically entails preprocessing RDF to meet stringent quality standards for calorific value (often >15 MJ/kg), low moisture, and controlled contaminant levels before injection into the kiln's precalciner or main burner. In , cement plants have achieved average thermal substitution rates of 53% of with alternative fuels including RDF, with individual facilities reaching up to 100% substitution; for instance, Germany's industry averaged 65% substitution in 2017. Globally, adoption varies, with higher rates in regions like and , where co-processing has been practiced since the , supported by regulatory frameworks ensuring best available techniques () for emission control. Empirical studies demonstrate environmental benefits, including reduced CO₂ emissions from displacement; for example, life-cycle assessments indicate RDF co-processing lowers net CO₂ in production compared to conventional fuels, while diverting waste from landfills mitigates releases equivalent to broader savings. emissions remain below regulatory limits under controlled conditions, with processes deactivating catalysts and minimizing precursors, as evidenced by field measurements in Chinese and European plants showing concentrations orders of magnitude lower than without residue utilization. Ash from RDF contributes to clinker formation, reducing virgin needs by up to 5% in European operations. Challenges include variability in RDF composition, which can elevate risks of leaching or localized emission spikes if preprocessing is inadequate; however, adherence to standards like those from the ensures and heavy metal outputs are comparable to or lower than baselines, with multi-case analyses confirming net positive outcomes for non-recyclable wastes. Economic viability is enhanced by lower fuel costs and credits, though initial infrastructure investments are required.

Dedicated Energy Recovery Facilities

Dedicated energy recovery facilities process refuse-derived fuel (RDF) through specialized thermal conversion technologies to generate and heat, often employing (CFB) boilers or systems for efficient combustion. These plants are engineered to handle RDF's variable composition, incorporating advanced pollution controls to mitigate emissions while maximizing energy output from non-recyclable waste fractions. One prominent example is the Robbins Resource Recovery Facility in Illinois, which commenced operations with a capacity to process 1,600 tons of per day, recovering 400 tons for and utilizing CFB boilers to produce for power generation. In , facilities like the Klingele EBS power plant in Weener, , burn RDF to generate approximately 80 million kilowatt-hours of annually, supplying reliable to adjacent production operations. Similarly, HoSt constructs RDF-fired combined heat and power (CHP) plants with capacities ranging from 10 to 20 megawatts, targeting industrial applications for renewable heat and production. Recent developments include a new RDF power plant in , , which became operational by mid-2024 and supports sustainable wax production through waste and . These dedicated installations typically achieve higher energy recovery rates compared to mass-burn incinerators by using pre-processed RDF with consistent calorific values, often exceeding 10-15 MJ/kg, though operational challenges such as slagging in boilers necessitate robust and maintenance protocols. In the United States, RDF systems form part of power plants, contributing to paid via tipping fees, as seen in California's sector.

Environmental and Health Impacts

Positive Effects and Empirical Benefits

Refuse-derived fuel (RDF) facilitates significant diversion of from s, thereby preventing the anaerobic decomposition that generates , a with a global warming potential approximately 25 times that of over a 100-year period. Empirical studies indicate that technologies incorporating RDF can divert over 30% of solid waste from s and achieve up to a 25% reduction in overall compared to traditional landfilling practices. In specific implementations, such as RDF utilization at industrial sites, waste volumes can be reduced by up to 60%, conserving space and minimizing long-term environmental burdens associated with and gas migration. Life cycle assessments demonstrate that RDF combustion for energy recovery yields substantially lower net greenhouse gas emissions than landfilling. For instance, daily emissions from RDF incineration processes have been quantified at 4,499 kg CO2 equivalent, in contrast to 92,170 kg CO2 equivalent for equivalent waste landfilled, highlighting a marked reduction primarily due to avoided methane releases. When RDF substitutes for fossil fuels in applications like cement production, it further mitigates emissions of acidifying compounds and greenhouse gases, with peer-reviewed analyses confirming environmental gains from such co-processing. Documented cases, including RDF facilities in operation as of 2020, have certified greenhouse gas emission reductions totaling 4,613 metric tons of CO2 equivalent annually through waste diversion and energy substitution. From a perspective, RDF-based systems offer advantages over landfilling, which is linked to risks such as contamination from , explosive gas accumulations, and chronic exposure to odors and bioaerosols. Systematic reviews of emissions indicate that facilities using sorted RDF feedstock, when properly designed and operated, exhibit reduced potential for adverse effects compared to unmanaged landfilling or unsorted incineration. These benefits stem from controlled processes that minimize uncontrolled releases inherent in decomposing landfills, though empirical outcome remains limited and site-specific.

Criticisms, Emissions, and Risk Mitigation

Criticisms of refuse-derived fuel (RDF) primarily center on potential and risks from , particularly in facilities lacking advanced controls. Poorly operated (WtE) plants using unsorted or contaminated RDF can release s, furans, and , which bioaccumulate in food chains and pose risks such as respiratory issues and cancer, as evidenced by elevated toxin concentrations in gases from inadequate . Worker exposure studies have documented higher incidences of , skin rashes, and gastrointestinal issues among RDF processing staff, attributed to dust, bioaerosols, and volatile organics during handling. Environmental advocates argue that RDF production and , often containing plastics like PVC, perpetuate trade and undermine by diverting materials to , with generating persistent pollutants even under regulation. These concerns are amplified by variability in RDF quality, where inconsistent sorting leads to chlorine-rich feeds that elevate formation precursors. RDF combustion emissions include (CO2) from fossil-derived fractions (typically 40-60% of RDF calorific value), particulate matter, nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), and trace organics like polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins/furans (PCDD/Fs). Empirical tests show baseline PCDD/F emissions from RDF co-firing can reach 0.1-1 ng TEQ/Nm³ without , though biogenic content offsets some CO2 equivalents compared to . such as mercury, lead, and volatilize during high-temperature burning (800-1000°C), with residues partitioning to ash (70-90%) or , potentially exceeding risks if not captured. Compared to landfilling, avoids methane emissions (a potent GHG equivalent to 1.5-2.5 times CO2 over 100 years from anaerobic ), but life-cycle analyses indicate net GHG benefits only if displaces fossil fuels and biogenic credits are applied; otherwise, can increase total emissions by 20-80% due to ash disposal and use in processing. Risk mitigation relies on feedstock preprocessing, combustion optimization, and end-of-pipe controls. Sorting RDF to remove metals, PVC, and inerts (achieving <10% chlorine content) reduces dioxin precursors, while co- with limestone or calcium additives inhibits PCDD/F formation by 50-90% via adsorption and chlorination suppression. Flue gas treatment systems—electrostatic precipitators for particulates (>99% removal), for (80-90% efficiency), wet for acids and metals, and injection for dioxins—enable modern facilities to meet EU limits (e.g., 0.1 ng TEQ/Nm³ for PCDD/F since ). Real-time monitoring and feed-forward controls, such as for RDF composition, further minimize variability and overload risks. Systematic reviews conclude that well-designed RDF WtE plants with these measures exhibit levels comparable to or below , mitigating risks when biogenic fractions dominate and ash is stabilized for . However, legacy or underdeveloped sites without such upgrades persist in emitting elevated toxins, underscoring the need for stringent enforcement over reliance on self-reported compliance.

Economic and Policy Dimensions

Market Dynamics and Cost Structures

The global refuse-derived fuel (RDF) market was valued at USD 4.6 billion in 2023 and is projected to reach USD 9.3 billion by 2033, expanding at a of 8.2%, primarily due to escalating diversion mandates, rising prices, and industrial demand for lower-carbon alternatives in systems. This growth reflects causal linkages between volumes—estimated at over 2 billion s of annually worldwide—and processing efficiencies in mechanical-biological treatment facilities, which convert 50-86% of residual into RDF with calorific values of 12-15 GJ/. Market expansion is tempered by regional disparities, with leading due to taxes exceeding €100/ in countries like the , spurring RDF exports of around 800,000 s annually to high-demand nations such as . Supply-side dynamics hinge on feedstock availability from sorted non-recyclable municipal waste, with large urban processors yielding 50,000-52,000 tons of RDF per year from inputs like Vancouver's 111,000 tons of residual waste in 2020. Demand is concentrated in kilns, which substitute 13-44% of with RDF globally (e.g., 16% in the , higher in ), as its use avoids carbon taxes on biogenic content and leverages existing infrastructure for thermal recovery. In , facilities consumed 193,000 tons of alternative fuels like RDF in recent years, with projections reaching 283,000 tons annually, underscoring scalability where long-term contracts mitigate price volatility. Prices fluctuate from USD 20-40 per ton for baseline RDF to USD 100 for premium grades (>10 MJ/kg), often negative or fee-supported due to disposal value, contrasting 's higher and more volatile costs on an energy-equivalent basis. RDF production cost structures typically include upfront capital for like shredders and pelletizers (USD 150,000-500,000 per unit) and ongoing operational expenses, which constitute 30-40% of total and encompass (0.8-1.2 kWh/), labor, , and auxiliary . In a 2024 Indonesian facility analysis processing 26,578 annually, per- production totaled IDR 342,388 (approximately USD 22 at prevailing exchange rates), with revenues of IDR 414,000 per yielding net benefits of IDR 1.24 million per after accounting for displaced savings. Gate fees from waste suppliers frequently offset these, rendering RDF economically competitive; for users, substitution reduces energy expenditures—which comprise 39% of operations—by providing a often 50-70% cheaper than per gigajoule, though transport adds USD 1.90-2.00 per for short hauls.
Cost Component (Annual Operational, Example Facility)Approximate Share
Maintenance34%
Labor24%
Fuel22%
Electricity20%
These structures highlight RDF's viability in regulated markets but sensitivity to local waste logistics and quality consistency, where suboptimal preprocessing can elevate rejection rates and erode margins. Empirical benefits for end-users, such as USD 10-30 per ton producer profits and broader fuel cost reductions in kilns, underscore causal advantages over pure fossil reliance, provided supply chains minimize contamination.

Regulatory Frameworks and Incentives

In the , RDF production and utilization are regulated under the Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC, as amended), which mandates adherence to the —prioritizing prevention, , , and recovery over disposal—and specifies that RDF must derive from non-recyclable, non-hazardous wastes to qualify for operations. RDF and related solid recovered fuels (SRF) remain classified as waste materials, subject to ongoing environmental permitting and controls, with the rejecting end-of-waste status to maintain regulatory oversight on emissions and handling. Quality standards, such as EN 15359, establish classification systems for SRF (encompassing RDF) based on parameters like net calorific value, content, mercury levels, and particle size, enabling standardized trading and use in facilities like kilns, while EN ISO 21640:2021 provides guidelines for RDF/SRF systems to ensure consistency and . These frameworks aim to mitigate risks from heterogeneous waste composition, with compliance verified through sampling and analysis protocols outlined in associated CEN/TC 343 standards. In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) oversees RDF under the (RCRA) and Clean Air Act, treating RDF as a processed form of (MSW) for combustion in facilities, which must meet stringent emissions standards for pollutants like particulate matter, , SO2, and dioxins/furans. Facilities co-processing RDF, such as those in cement kilns or dedicated plants burning over 30% MSW, fall under the Other Solid Waste Incinerators (OSWI) rule (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart EEEE), which imposes numerical emission limits and operator training requirements; recent 2025 amendments tightened controls for smaller units (under 10 tons per day) while allowing compliance flexibilities like credits. The EPA's withdrawn comparable fuels exclusion (previously under 40 CFR 261.4(a)(16)) now subjects certain waste-derived fuels to scrutiny if they fail to meet product-like specifications, emphasizing combustion efficiency over fuel equivalence to fossil alternatives. Policy incentives for RDF adoption often stem from broader waste-to-energy and goals rather than direct subsidies. In the , RDF co-processing in industrial kilns supports the Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC, recast as 2018/2001), where biogenic fractions of RDF (determined via EN 15440 radiocarbon methods) can contribute to targets, potentially accessing feed-in tariffs or guarantees of origin in member states like and the , which reported substituting up to 60-85% of fossil fuels in cement production with RDF/SRF equivalents by 2023. Economic drivers include CO2 emissions reductions—estimated at 0.8-1.0 tons per ton of RDF substituted for —and decreased reliance on imported fossil fuels, aligning with . In the , incentives are limited but include state-level renewable portfolio standards crediting output (e.g., up to 50% biogenic efficiency in some jurisdictions) and federal investment tax credits under the (2022) for qualifying clean energy projects involving RDF, though federal programs like the Renewable Fuel Standard exclude most RDF due to its mixed fossil-biogenic profile. Jurisdictions like enforce RDF standards under the Environment Protection Act (1993), with incentives tied to diversion mandates exceeding 70% rates. Overall, incentives prioritize empirical benefits like avoidance from landfilling over unsubstantiated greenwashing, with adoption varying by local enforcement rigor.

Controversies and Scientific Debates

Public Opposition and Misconceptions

Public opposition to refuse-derived fuel (RDF) facilities frequently arises from concerns over potential , risks, and localized nuisances such as odors and increased truck traffic, often manifesting as "Not In My Backyard" () resistance that delays or halts projects. In Baltimore, Maryland, protests against the BRESCO incinerator, which processes RDF-like materials, led demonstrators to claim it was poisoning nearby families with emissions, prompting calls for closure in October 2020. Similarly, in Jakarta, Indonesia, hundreds of residents protested the Rorotan RDF plant in March 2025, citing and environmental during test runs that released visible and odors. These actions reflect broader patterns where groups, environmental activists, and local residents rally against facilities, as seen in a 2023 at Minnesota's Hennepin Center over alleged toxic emissions from trash . Opposition has also targeted RDF co-processing in industrial settings, such as cement kilns, where campaigns frame it as disguised rather than . In , a growing movement since the mid-2010s has challenged RDF use in kilns, arguing it undermines waste reduction hierarchies and poses unmonitored risks, leading to policy scrutiny and public dissent. In Bengaluru, , resident protests in December 2017 halted operations at waste processing plants producing RDF, demanding closure due to fears of contamination and air quality degradation from improper handling. Such resistance contributes to the rarity of new RDF infrastructure; in the United States, only one major facility opened in the past two decades amid high costs and public pushback. Common misconceptions portray RDF combustion as equivalent to unregulated trash burning, exaggerating risks of dioxins, , and acid gases despite empirical data from controlled facilities showing emissions well below regulatory limits through cleanup systems. For instance, characterizations of RDF incinerators indicate very low stack concentrations of trace organics and high removal efficiencies for pollutants, countering fears rooted in outdated technologies from pre-1990s eras lacking modern pollution controls. Another prevalent error is the belief that RDF production and use compete with or fail to reduce overall waste volumes; in reality, RDF derives primarily from non-recyclable residuals after sorting, diverting materials from landfills where anaerobic decomposition releases —a potent —while substituting for fossil fuels in energy-intensive processes. Critics sometimes claim RDF exacerbates environmental harm by generating toxic ash, yet proper management, including stabilization and landfilling under regulations, mitigates leaching risks, with studies showing no significant impacts from compliant operations. The "zero waste" advocacy movement amplifies misconceptions by equating RDF with linear waste disposal, overlooking its role in hierarchies as a mid-tier option for residual streams when higher-value recovery is infeasible. Activist sources, such as those from incinerator-alternative alliances, often amplify unverified narratives without acknowledging site-specific data from peer-reviewed environmental assessments, which demonstrate RDF's net benefits in reducing virgin resource extraction when integrated with waste hierarchies.

Comparative Efficacy Versus Alternatives

Refuse-derived fuel (RDF) typically exhibits a lower calorific value of 10–22 MJ/kg compared to 's 20–30 MJ/kg, necessitating higher volumes for equivalent energy output in co-combustion scenarios, such as kilns where RDF substitution rates often reach 20–30% without compromising process . However, RDF's integration in industrial boilers or kilns yields net CO₂ emission reductions of up to 30% relative to pure firing, as the biogenic fraction in RDF qualifies for partial carbon neutrality credits, while avoiding carbon inputs. Empirical studies on production confirm that RDF co-processing lowers overall by displacing , with life-cycle assessments showing 0.5–0.8 tons of CO₂-equivalent savings per ton of RDF used, contingent on effective scrubbing to manage non-CO₂ pollutants like dioxins. In contrast to landfilling, RDF energy recovery provides a superior net energy balance, generating 500–700 kWh per ton of processed waste versus landfills' reliance on methane capture yielding only 100–200 kWh per ton after accounting for collection inefficiencies and decomposition losses. This advantage stems from direct thermal conversion avoiding methane's 25–80 times greater global warming potential over 20–100 years, with RDF pathways reducing total GHG emissions by 40–60% compared to anaerobic decomposition in modern landfills. Direct incineration of unprocessed municipal solid waste (MSW) achieves similar energy yields to RDF but incurs higher operational costs due to heterogeneous feedstock handling, whereas RDF's preprocessing enhances combustion stability and reduces ultrafine particle emissions by up to 14-fold relative to coal-only systems. Economically, RDF undercuts fossil fuels through negative or low gate fees—often $20–50 per ton for input waste—yielding fuel costs of $10–30 per GJ versus coal's $15–40 per GJ, driven by avoided landfill tipping fees averaging $50–100 per ton in regions like Europe. Against biomass alternatives, RDF offers comparable calorific values (both ~15–20 MJ/kg) but superior waste diversion efficacy, processing non-biodegradable residuals that biomass cannot, though biomass edges out in lower ash content and more consistent supply chains. Natural gas, with its higher efficiency (up to 50% in combined-cycle plants versus RDF's 20–30% in grate furnaces), remains preferable for baseload power but lacks RDF's dual benefit of volume reduction (up to 90% mass loss) and circular economy integration.
MetricRDFCoalLandfillingBiomass
Calorific Value (MJ/kg)10–22N/A (methane yield low)
GHG Savings vs. Baseline30–60% vs. /landfillBaselineHigh Biogenic neutrality
Cost per GJ (~USD)10–30Disposal 5–10 equiv. (feedstock variability)
RDF's efficacy hinges on site-specific factors like preprocessing quality and emission controls, with peer-reviewed analyses indicating it outperforms landfilling in 80–90% of modeled scenarios for combined energy and environmental metrics, though it trails in pure efficiency without credits.

Global and Regional Implementation

European Practices

Europe leads global adoption of refuse-derived fuel (RDF), with the market valued at in 2024 and projected to reach by 2034 at a 4.2% CAGR, driven by stringent directives and needs. RDF, processed from by shredding and removing recyclables and inerts, substitutes in cement kilns, power plants, and industrial boilers, achieving on 41% replacement in EU cement production. EU policies, including the Waste Framework Directive, position RDF within tiers of the , supporting reduced imports and CO2 emissions while addressing from landfilling. In , RDF co-processing in cement kilns replaced 54% of conventional fuels by 2008, with ongoing domestic utilization in energy-from-waste facilities separating RDF from for kiln feed or power generation. The exceeds 80% substitution in cement kilns, importing RDF from the and elsewhere to fuel advanced incinerators, achieving high rates integrated with systems. and similarly import substantial RDF volumes for plants, processing over 50% of municipal via with output, though quality controls limit full utilization to about 48% of RDF under current standards. The produces RDF for export, shipping 819,000 tonnes in the first half of 2025 primarily to and , amid domestic capacity constraints and landfill diversion mandates, though exports declined 10% year-over-year due to rising European self-sufficiency. and other southern states focus on RDF for cement co-processing, facing challenges from variable waste composition but advancing via EU-funded quality standards to enhance combustion . Overall, RDF integrates into strategies, with the European RDF Industry Group advocating its role in decarbonizing industry while emphasizing end-of-waste criteria to avoid reclassification as uncontrolled fuel.
CountryRDF Substitution in Cement KilnsKey Practice Notes
54% by 2008Domestic RDF production for kilns and EfW plants
>80%Imports RDF for high-efficiency incineration with heat recovery
Export-focused819,000 tonnes exported H1 2025 to EU partners

North American Developments

In the , refuse-derived fuel (RDF) development began in the through federal research initiatives aimed at from , with early systems focusing on shredding waste and separating recyclables to produce a combustible product for boilers and industrial applications. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency notes that RDF processing involves mechanical shredding of incoming , removal of metals and inorganics, and densification into pellets or fluff suitable for combustion in facilities or as a supplemental in cement kilns and power plants. By the , dedicated RDF facilities numbered around 19 nationwide, though adoption remained limited compared to mass-burn technologies. Waste-to-energy plants incorporating RDF processing operated at 60 facilities across 23 states as of early 2022, with a combined generating capacity of 2,051 megawatts and annual processing of over 30 million tons of waste. However, sector capacity has contracted, with 188 megawatts retired between 2018 and 2022 due to low prices, high , and local opposition to emissions and odors. RDF's primary non-WTE application is co-processing in , where it substitutes for fuels; thermal substitution rates reached 16% in 2023, up from 14.6% in 2022, according to data from the American Cement Association, though this trails European averages of 58%. Refuse-derived fuels and together comprised about 23% of alternative fuel inputs in U.S. production in 2023, reflecting slower regulatory and infrastructural support relative to . In Canada, RDF adoption has accelerated under federal and provincial policies incentivizing waste diversion from landfills and renewable energy integration, with the market valued at approximately USD 3.5 million in 2024 and projected to grow amid initiatives. Key developments include Veolia's operations in RDF processing for and power generation, emphasizing low-carbon alternatives to traditional fuels. Recent projects feature a planned 60-tonne-per-day RDF facility at the Caledon Waste Management site in to process residual waste for , and expansions by Geocycle and Lafarge Canada, including a CAD 38 million at the Exshaw cement plant to substitute up to 50% of with waste-derived and other low-carbon fuels. Overall, the North American RDF market stood at USD 392.7 million in 2024, driven by industrial demand in production but constrained by stringent emissions regulations and competition from .

Asian and Middle Eastern Adoption

In , refuse-derived fuel (RDF) adoption has accelerated due to rapid , rising (MSW) volumes, and policies favoring alternatives to landfilling. Countries like and lead in large-scale RDF production for co-firing in cement kilns and industrial boilers, driven by the need to process high organic-content waste into high-calorific fuels. For instance, RDF utilization in 's cement industry has been optimized at 60-65% recovery from processing 1 million tons of MSW, enabling thermal substitution rates up to 100% in some European-influenced plants adapted locally. Indian regulations mandate industries within 100 km of RDF plants to procure and use the fuel, supporting plants like Ghazipur's facility, which processes 433 tons per day (TPD) of RDF to generate 12 MW of . China has integrated RDF into its waste management framework, particularly for industrial solid waste and MSW blending to enhance energy density. The Jieyang Green Fuel Plant, commissioned in 2022, converts 401,500 tons per annum of MSW into RDF with recyclables recovery, exemplifying scalable RDF production for domestic energy needs amid natural gas shortages. Studies confirm RDF's viability as a coal substitute in cement production, with life-cycle assessments showing reduced environmental impacts when sourced from sorted waste streams. In East Asia, Japan and South Korea promote RDF-like fuels (e.g., refused plastic fuel or pelletized RDF) through stringent landfill reduction policies, contributing to a regional market valued at US$339.3 million in 2024 and projected to grow at 4.7% CAGR through 2034. Southeast Asian nations, including and , are exploring RDF for cement co-processing, with feasibility studies in highlighting economic benefits from substituting with RDF derived from MSW. Critical success factors for RDF plants in include efficient sorting, regulatory support, and market demand from energy-intensive industries. In the Middle East, RDF adoption focuses on diverting MSW from landfills to fuel cement production, aligning with diversification from fossil fuels. The UAE leads with Ministerial Decree No. 98 of 2019 enabling RDF use in cement plants, supporting facilities like Imdaad's RDF plant at the FARZ facility, operational since December 2023 and processing 300 tons per day of non-recyclable waste into fuel. The Emirates RDF LLC plant in Umm Al Quwain, the region's first large-scale RDF facility, handles 1,000 tons per day of household waste from Ajman and Umm Al Quwain emirates, supplying RDF to cement kilns and preventing landfill diversion. Saudi Arabia advanced RDF initiatives in 2024 with the Saudi Investment Recycling Company (SIRC) launching a project to process 3 million tons per year of MSW across six governorates into RDF, emphasizing integration for goals. The and RDF market, valued at US$1.38 billion in 2024, reflects growing regulatory pressures for reduction and .

References

  1. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/biomass/waste-to-energy-in-depth.php
  2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9739972/
  3. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/seas/earth/wtert/newwtert/Research/sofos/MEQ-01-2015-0012.pdf
  4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11732546/
  5. https://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article/2681/1/020031/2832301/Greenhouse-gas-emission-reduction-in-refuse
  6. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S259017452400165X
  7. https://jbes.cbiore.id/index.php/jbes/article/view/19964
  8. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666052025000032
  9. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abae9f
  10. https://netl.doe.gov/sites/default/files/netl-file/production-refuse-derived-fuel-chapter12.pdf
  11. https://www.eib.org/attachments/lucalli/20230376_managing_refuse_derived_and_solid_recovered_fuels_en.pdf
  12. https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/93785.pdf
  13. https://sustain.ubc.ca/sites/default/files/2021-053_Market%20Analysis%20&%20Literature%20Review_Srivastava.pdf
  14. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/13/10342
  15. https://www.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Trends-in-use-of-solid-recovered-fuels-Main-Report-Task36.pdf
  16. https://www.epa.gov/smm/energy-recovery-combustion-municipal-solid-waste-msw
  17. https://www.wiscon-tech.com/refuse-derived-fuel-production/
  18. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA082773.pdf
  19. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0166309787900745
  20. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0957178721001491
  21. https://biomassmagazine.com/articles/a-solid-approach-to-msw-fuel-11824
  22. https://www.wastetodaymagazine.com/article/rew0912-refuse-derived-fuel/
  23. https://www.eia.gov/kids/history-of-energy/timelines/municipal-solid-waste.php
  24. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/22/12718
  25. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8863000/
  26. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844024173677
  27. https://measurlabs.com/blog/solid-recovered-fuel-testing/
  28. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0956053X13002134
  29. https://cembureau.eu/policy-focus/environment/co-processing/
  30. https://gccassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/GCCA_Co-Processing_Policy.pdf
  31. https://www.giz.de/en/downloads/giz-2020_en_guidelines-pre-coprocessing.pdf
  32. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36592557/
  33. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9229322/
  34. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12649-025-03077-7
  35. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/seas/earth/wtert/newwtert/Research/sofos/nawtec/nawtec05/nawtec05-39.pdf
  36. https://eprenewable.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/EPR-Gasification-Technology-White-Paper-05082020.pdf
  37. https://www.host-bioenergy.com/solutions/boiler-plants/rdf-fired-heat-power-plants-chp/
  38. https://www.klingele.com/en/company/locations/weener-power-station
  39. https://loibl-group.com/en/case-studies/conveyor-technology-for-new-refuse-derived-fuel-power-plant-for-sustainable-industrial-wax-production.html
  40. https://www.pelletmillsolution.com/rdf-waste-to-energy-solutions/
  41. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/california-power-generation-and-power-sources/bioenergy/municipal-solid-waste-power
  42. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666188825007270
  43. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666016423001962
  44. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343616438_The_health_impacts_of_Waste-to-Energy_emissions_A_systematic_review_of_the_literature
  45. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9501632/
  46. https://grist.org/accountability/refuse-derived-fuel-plastic-waste-basel-convention/
  47. https://ipen.org/news/plastic-waste-fuels
  48. https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/18/17/4515
  49. https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy97/26036.pdf
  50. https://wtert.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/nawtec05-52.pdf
  51. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666789425000674
  52. https://energyjustice.net/incineration/incineration_vs_landfills.pdf
  53. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10962247.2022.2100843
  54. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0009250999002924
  55. https://www.bioenergy-machine.com/bio-pellet-making/rdf-environmental-safety-energy.html
  56. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11336645/
  57. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X25004908
  58. https://market.us/report/refuse-derived-fuel-market/
  59. https://sustain.ubc.ca/sites/default/files/2021-053_Market%2520Analysis%2520&%2520Literature%2520Review_Srivastava.pdf
  60. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1110016823009456
  61. https://www.aishred.com/release/what-is-the-price-of-rdf-srf.html
  62. https://www.pelletmillsolution.com/rdf-plant-cost-analysis-budget/
  63. https://www.gcmec.com/rdf-production-plant/rdf-production-plant-cost-analysis.html
  64. https://ojs.journalsdg.org/jlss/article/download/3220/1635/13115
  65. https://www.aishred.com/release/how-much-does-a-rdf-plant-cost.html
  66. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2020-006700-ASW_EN.html
  67. https://wteinternational.com/news/cewep-end-of-waste-criteria-must-not-be-applied-to-srf-and-rdf/
  68. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2025-06/fact-sheet_other-solid-waste-incinerators-final-rule_june-2025_1.pdf
  69. https://www.red-on-line.com/blog/federal-u-s-rcra-compliance-waste-management-epa-withdraws-rcra-comparable-fuels-and-gasification-exclusions/
  70. https://rdfindustrygroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/RDFIG_Evidence_Paper_Final.pdf
  71. https://afdc.energy.gov/laws/RFS
  72. https://www.epa.sa.gov.au/files/4771351_standard_rdf.pdf
  73. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10291493/
  74. https://baltimorebrew.com/2020/10/11/bresco-incinerator-is-poisoning-families-protesters-outside-youngs-house-say/
  75. https://www.facebook.com/GAIAAsiaPacific/videos/-jakartas-new-rdf-plant-sparks-community-protestsjakarta-is-set-to-open-the-worl/28914518988162501/
  76. https://www.mprnews.org/story/2023/08/15/environmental-activists-rally-against-hennepin-energy-recovery-center-trash-incinerator
  77. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/energy-research/articles/10.3389/fenrg.2018.00142/full
  78. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bengaluru/protests-halt-trucks-but-stockpile-of-deadly-refuse-derived-fuel-poses-huge-threat/articleshow/62360238.cms
  79. https://psmag.com/environment/why-communities-across-america-are-pushing-to-close-waste-incinerators/
  80. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=940091YX.TXT
  81. https://www.wastetodaymagazine.com/article/waste-to-energy-and-conversion-technology-thoughts-on-where-we-are-today/
  82. https://www.no-burn.org/wp-content/uploads/RDF-Final.pdf
  83. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0957582021001233
  84. https://www.bioenergy-machine.com/rdf-pellet-markets/waste-disposal-and-sustainable-energy-analysis.html
  85. https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/52829.pdf
  86. https://wtert.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/NREL-Waste-Not-Want-Not_Analyzing-the-Economic-and-Environmental-Viability-of-Waste-to-Energy-Technology-for-Site-Specific-Optimization-of-Renewable-Energy-Options.pdf
  87. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/seas/earth/wtert/newwtert/Research/sofos/yinon_thesis.pdf
  88. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6994845/
  89. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301479721022180
  90. https://www.factmr.com/report/refuse-derived-fuel-industry-analysis-in-europe
  91. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479725011028
  92. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/b6049f06-c4a8-11ee-95d9-01aa75ed71a1/language-en
  93. https://sbmurban.org/storage/app/media/pdf/sbm_knowledge_center/Guidelines_on_Usage_of_RDF_in_various_industries_GIZ.pdf
  94. https://www.euwid-recycling.com/news/business/rdf-exports-from-england-down-ten-per-cent-in-first-half-of-2025-110825/
  95. https://ecostar.eu.com/the-solid-recovered-fuels-industry-in-europe-challenges-and-limits-ecostar/
  96. https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/solar/an-independent-engineering-evaluation-of-waste-to-energy-technologies/
  97. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=55900
  98. https://kleanindustries.com/insights/market-analysis-reports/12-points-state-of-wte-market/
  99. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=53639
  100. https://www.globalcement.com/news/itemlist/tag/Refuse%2520Derived%2520Fuel
  101. https://www.lek.com/insights/ind/us/ei/alternative-fuels-industrial-use-us-decision-time
  102. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/canada-refuse-derived-fuel-rdf-market-key-drivers-zkvzf/
  103. https://www.factmr.com/report/refuse-derived-fuel-industry-analysis-in-north-america
  104. https://blog.veolianorthamerica.com/rethinking-resources-insights-from-veolia-canada/powering-canadas-circular-economy-the-role-of-waste-based-energy
  105. https://wasterecyclingmag.ca/sustainability-environment/refuse-derived-fuel
  106. https://www.geocycle.com/who-we-are/our-stories/geocycle-lafarge-canada-invests-low-carbon-fuel-facilities
  107. https://www.einpresswire.com/article/777292967/refuse-derived-fuel-rdf-in-north-america-market-projected-to-reach-us-548-61-million-by-2034-at-3-4-cagr
  108. https://unosd.un.org/sites/unosd.un.org/files/day_1_suneel_pandey.pdf
  109. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772427125001135
  110. https://wtt.nl/successful-commissioning-of-jieyang-green-fuel-plant/
  111. https://www.factmr.com/report/refuse-derived-fuel-industry-analysis-in-east-asia
  112. https://www.einpresswire.com/article/790925634/east-asia-refuse-derived-fuel-rdf-market-poised-for-growth-projected-to-reach-us-537-million-by-2034
  113. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666016425000052
  114. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844024114260
  115. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479725011041
  116. https://www.cbnme.com/news/imdaad-sets-up-refuse-derived-fuel-plant-at-its-farz-facility-to-convert-waste-into-fuel/
  117. https://besix-concessions.com/first-refuse-derived-fuel-facility-in-the-u-a-e-to-be-built-in-umm-al-quwain/
  118. https://besix-concessions.com/casestudy/emirates-rdf-llc/
  119. https://enterprise.news/climate/en/news/story/3fc5877a-f0e4-42d4-aa5b-683000dfb047/ksa%25E2%2580%2599s-sirc-launches-mega-waste-to-fuel-project-in-saudi-arabia
  120. https://www.factmr.com/report/refuse-derived-fuel-industry-analysis-in-middle-east-and-africa
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.