A national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Innovation for Our Energy Future 

Case Studies from the Climate 

Technology Partnership: Landfill 

Gas Projects in South Korea and 

Lessons Learned 

C. Larney 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

M. Heil 

U.S. EPA 

G.-A. Ha 

Korea Energy Management Company

Technical Report 

NREL/TP-710-40428 

December 2006 

NREL is operated by Midwest Research Institute ● Battelle Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337 
Case Studies from the Climate 

Technology Partnership: Landfill 

Gas Projects in South Korea and 

Lessons Learned 

C. Larney 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

M. Heil 

U.S. EPA 

G.-A. Ha 

Korea Energy Management Company

Prepared under Task No. WF98.2010 

Technical Report 

NREL/TP-710-40428 

December 2006 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401-3393 

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov 

Operated for the U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

by Midwest Research Institute • Battelle 

Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337
NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any 

warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or 

usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not 

infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by 

trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, 

recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and 

opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States 

government or any agency thereof. 

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy 

and its contractors, in paper, from: 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of Scientific and Technical Information 

P.O. Box 62 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062 

phone: 865.576.8401 

fax: 865.576.5728 

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from: 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Technical Information Service 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

phone: 800.553.6847 

fax: 703.605.6900 

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste
Table of Contents 

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................. v 

Executive Summary................................................................................................................ 1 

1. Climate Technology Partnership Background............................................................... 3 

1.1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 3 

1.2 Role of Technology Cooperation Agreement Pilot Project .................................... 3 

1.3 Strategic Vision of Climate Technology Partnership ............................................. 3 

2. Overview of Landfill Gas Projects .................................................................................. 5 

2.1 Landfill Gas Emissions and Utilization .................................................................. 5 

2.2 Types of Utilization Projects .................................................................................. 5 

2.3 Why pursue LFG projects in South Korea?............................................................ 6 

2.4 Solid Waste Management in South Korea .............................................................. 7 

2.5 Assessment of Methane Capture Capacity ............................................................. 7 

3. Case Studies of LFG Projects in South Korea ............................................................... 8 

3.1 Ulsan ....................................................................................................................... 8 

3.1.1 Site Data...................................................................................................... 8 

3.1.2 Type of Utilization...................................................................................... 8 

3.1.3 LFG Project Construction........................................................................... 9 

3.1.4 Financing Process ..................................................................................... 10 

3.1.5 Performance Review................................................................................. 10 

3.1.6 Collaboration Process ............................................................................... 11 

3.2 Cheong ju.............................................................................................................. 12 

3.2.1 Site Data.................................................................................................... 12 

3.2.2 Feasibility Study ....................................................................................... 13 

3.2.3 LFG Utilization......................................................................................... 14 

3.2.4 Methodology............................................................................................. 14 

3.2.5 Benefits of Cheong ju LFG Utilization Project ........................................ 15 

3.2.6 Barriers...................................................................................................... 16 

 iii
4. Current Status of LFG in Korea ................................................................................... 17

4.1 Number of LFG Projects in Place......................................................................... 17 

4.2 Emissions Reductions........................................................................................... 17 

4.3 Collaboration with EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program and Methane to 

Market Partnership................................................................................................ 18 

5. Lessons Learned.............................................................................................................. 20 

5.1 Key Factors........................................................................................................... 20 

5.2 Best Practices........................................................................................................ 20 

5.3 Common Barriers.................................................................................................. 22 

6. Recommendations........................................................................................................... 24 

6.1 Collaboration......................................................................................................... 24 

6.2 Policy/Regulatory Changes................................................................................... 24 

6.3 Capacity Building ................................................................................................. 24 

6.4 Future Direction.................................................................................................... 25 

6.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 26 

Bibliography .......................................................................................................................... 27 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Chart depicting strategic structure of CTP........................................................... 4 

Figure 2: Graph of yearly projected LFG output for Ulsan Landfill Site ........................... 8 

Figure 3: Pipelines for transporting captured LFG from landfill to adjoining LFG 

treatment facility .................................................................................................. 9 

Figure 4: Photograph of vent at Ulsan Landfill & Cross sectional views of methane 

recovery system design for Ulsan...................................................................... 10 

Figure 6: Map of South Korea displaying location of Seoul and Cheong ju province .... 13 

Figure 7: Location of Cheong ju landfill and lay-out of surrounding area ....................... 15 

Figure 8: Best Practices of Ulsan and Cheong ju LFG projects........................................ 21 

 iv
Acknowledgements 

This paper was produced by the Technology Applications Center, U.S. Department of 

Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in partnership with the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Principal authors were Christina Larney, 

Technology Applications Center, NREL and Dr. Mark Heil, International Capacity Building 

Branch, Climate Change Division, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. EPA. Gyung-Ae Ha, 

Project Coordinator, Center for Climate Change Mitigation Projects, Korea Energy 

Management Company was a contributing author. 

Valuable feedback in the form of discussions and written comments were received 

from Susan Wickwire, Chief, International Capacity Building Branch, Climate Change 

Division, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. EPA and Dave Howard, Senior Project Leader, 

Technology Applications Center, NREL. Both Ms. Ha and Mr. Howard worked closely with 

the management of the Climate Technology Partnership in Korea and were personally 

involved with the Ulsan and Cheong ju landfill gas activities. Additional insight regarding 

methane recovery programs and country specific data was provided by Rachel Goldstein, 

Program Manager, U.S. EPA Landfill Methane Outreach Program, Brian Guzzone, Team 

Leader, U.S. EPA Landfill Methane Outreach Program, and Christa Clapp, Economist, 

Climate Change Division, U.S. EPA. Helpful assistance was also provided by Phil Voss, 

Senior Project Leader, Technology Applications Center, NREL and Dan Bilello, Group 

Manager, Technology Applications Center, NREL. Many thanks to each of these individuals 

for their time and efforts. 

 v
Executive Summary

This paper touches on several aspects of landfill gas (LFG) projects in South Korea. 

Two case studies have been drawn from the Climate Technology Partnership (CTP) to 

provide concrete examples of lessons learned and offer practical guidance for future LFG 

projects both in Korea and around the world. The main objective of the paper is to describe 

the circumstances surrounding the Ulsan and Cheong ju LFG projects and then elaborate on 

the findings. Key factors, best practices, and common barriers are then derived directly from 

these experiences. Future LFG projects or other activities that involve technology transfer, 

greenhouse gas mitigation, and sustainable policy implementation can draw on relevant 

lessons learned in an attempt to maximize benefits and minimize barriers. 

There are many circumstances to be considered during LFG project assessment and 

implementation. These conditions include landfill data (site location, size, etc.), LFG 

assessment methodology used, organizational relationships of parties involved, regulatory 

frameworks, and national relevance. The broad range of aspects to be considered points 

toward a need for collaboration and provides an ideal forum for capacity building. The CTP 

Korea program worked to assist South Korea at two levels - in “project activity” and 

“strategic activity” - in a way that encouraged collaborative partnerships. “Project activity” 

involved technical assistance and trainings that supported the building of relationships and 

‘know how’. ”Strategic activity” focused on outreach and policy frameworks with the goal 

of building awareness and identifying and addressing regulatory barriers to project 

implementation and operation. 

The two CTP Korea LFG case studies reviewed in this paper are Ulsan and Cheong 

ju. Ulsan is a fully successful pilot project under CTP and has been operating for nearly four 

years. The methane gas recovery system at Ulsan is designed to capture the gas from the 

landfill and transport it to local industrial sites where it is burned in boilers without being 

purified. The Ulsan landfill gas facility reduces GHG emissions, offsets natural gas as a fuel 

source, and builds Korea’s capabilities to install similar projects. The Cheong ju project has 

not been realized but the completed feasibility study documents the extensive benefits of 

LFG projects in general and provides a replicable model for LFG project implementation in 

South Korea. In response to the Korean government’s interest in the program, the feasibility 

study also offers an analysis template for the requirements of certified emissions reductions 

(CERs) through the clean development mechanism (CDM). 

In addition to environmental concerns, the development of LFG projects in South 

Korea is propelled by economic and social drivers. Methane recovery can help Korea meet 

its growing energy needs in a sustainable manner. LFG projects in South Korea have the dual 

effects of both addressing environmental issues and providing a domestic fuel source. This 

additional source of domestic fuel is especially important in Korea where over 98% of the 

country’s energy comes from imported fuels. 

South Korea’s official policy has the overall mission of “institutionally foster(ing) 

efficient energy use”1

 and has been promoting energy efficiency and alternative fuels since 

 

1

 Energy Technology Policy in Korea, p. 2. 

 1
the 1979 Rational Energy Utilization Act. As environmental harms become more apparent 

and climate change begins to take on higher relevance, it is becoming increasingly apparent 

in the energy sector that good business goes hand-in-hand with environmental stewardship. 

LFG projects not only bring economic benefits but also improve environmental and health 

conditions. Through hard work and collaboration viable LFG projects can be created that 

have a substantial net benefit to the environment while meeting or exceeding economic 

feasibility thresholds. 

The lessons learned from Ulsan and Cheong ju have been divided into three 

categories – key factors, best practices and common barriers. Perhaps the single most 

important key factor for both of these projects was the involvement of the Korea Energy 

Management Corporation (KEMCO) as the in-country ‘champion’ of LFG projects. 

KEMCO aggressively pursued awareness campaigns as well as provided several other 

forums for assistance in developing LFG projects. KEMCO’s activities included providing 

basic assessments of potential landfill sites, overseeing and managing the government’s 

revolving fund for financing projects, and coordinating in-country conferences and 

workshops with the goal of training locals and providing a venue for networking both 

nationally and internationally. 

The best practices that came out of the case studies centered on: 

• Capacity building activities for creating the foundation of market 

transformation which includes installing pilot projects, funding feasibility 

studies, and planning conferences and workshops 

• The role of government in developing markets through programs and 

partnerships, scoping activities, innovative financing options, policy formulation 

and regulatory framework revision 

• The formation of strategic partnerships between key players which aids 

capacity building, provides a venue for sharing of expertise, develops networks 

and know how across organizations, and offers additional avenues for financing 

Applications for each of these guidelines can be found in Figure 8, Section 5.2 of this 

paper. 

In conclusion, the paper stresses the need for collaboration in regards to energy issues 

as well as the need for capacity building to enable market transformation. Capacity building 

includes several elements, such as improving coordination between distinct governing 

entities that influence landfill development, augmenting technical know-how of landfill 

feasibility assessment and development, and creating appropriate regulatory and market 

conditions to foster self-sustained growth. Recommendations are suggested in the final 

section of the paper for continued LFG activity. With widespread energy shortages and the 

growing salience of climate change, LFG projects should continue to be pursued 

aggressively. Not only because they mitigate GHG emissions and provide better 

environmental stewardship of landfills, but also due to their viability as business 

opportunities both in developed and developing nations. 

 2
1. Climate Technology Partnership Background 

1.1 Introduction 

To accelerate the implementation of methane recovery technologies in Korea it was 

determined in 2001 by the Korean and U.S. governments that a new program approach was 

needed. This is when the Climate Technology Partnership (CTP) was developed with 

considerable consultation among the U.S. Agency for International Development (U.S. AID), 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), the Department of Energy (DOE), 

and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). CTP is a follow-on from the 

Technology Cooperation Agreement Pilot Project (TCAPP). 

1.2 Role of Technology Cooperation Agreement Pilot Project 

TCAPP started in 1997 with the goal of developing an international process that 

assesses needs and fosters private sector development of climate friendly technologies in 

developing nations. In 1999 Korea joined TCAPP and an assessment of technologies with 

market-based status, applicable developing country-driven strategy, and available resources 

was done. This included a sector based technology needs assessment, identification of 

activities designed to remove barriers, and facilitation of private investment in priority 

technologies with a focus on partnerships between various stakeholders, including the 

international business community. 

1.3 Strategic Vision of Climate Technology Partnership 

To better focus resources under CTP Korea, two of the three priority technologies that 

were identified by TCAPP – energy management and methane recovery – were selected for 

further development. CTP differed from TCAPP in that it had the added feature of strategic 

activity to complement project activity. This bifurcation of tasks between strategic and 

project objectives sought to create a suitable environment for the formation of active new 

markets in energy service companies and landfill gas (LFG) development. In the area of 

landfills, the “strategic objectives” addressed structural conditions in Korea such as 

environmental regulations and landfill management and operations. The “project objectives” 

pursued development of LFG projects in order to demonstrate the capabilities of the CTP 

mechanism by the practical application of LFG technologies. Both sets of objectives are 

complementary. 

Creation of a self-sustaining market – whereby private developers seek opportunities 

to develop landfills, sell landfill gas as fuel, and realize profits – would foster economic 

growth, create energy security benefits, and reduce GHG emissions. This “market 

transformation” approach has been successfully applied in other international environmental 

programs (such as the U.S.-China CFC-Free Super-efficient Refrigerator Project2), and forms 

the core of the CTP Korea project. 

 

2

 For more information, see EPA case study on the U.S.-China CFC-Free Super-efficient Refrigerator Project, 

available online – http://www.usctcgateway.net/casestudies/CasestudiesDetail.cfm?LinkAdvID=64730. 

 3
Strategic Vision of Climate Technology Partnership

strategic 

activity: identify and analyze barriers build strategies to remedy barriers

policy changes to improve 

environment for tech diffusion

market transformation

project activity: identify mkt potential and 

project opportunities project development project implementation

GHG reductions

growth of effective tech 

cooperation programs

CTP

influence international tech transfer process

This figure represents the key features and flow of activities of CTP. It depicts the strategic and project activities, and the 

multiplier effects of market transformation, represented by the double arrows leading to GHG reductions.3

Figure 1: Chart depicting strategic structure of CTP 

The market transformation approach aims to harness the dynamism of the private 

sector to “greatly expand the reach of new technologies so that new projects will continually 

develop and GHG reductions and other related benefits will be realized on a large scale.”4

 

Application of this approach to the Korean Energy Service Company (ESCO) and landfill 

sectors demonstrates its potential, and provides a model that can influence the international 

community’s design of technology cooperation programs. 

 

3

 CTP Strategic Vision outline, (January 2003, unpublished). 

4 http://www.nrel.gov/environment/korea.html 

 4
2. Overview of Landfill Gas Projects 

2.1 Landfill Gas Emissions and Utilization5

The waste sector in South Korea accounted for 37.6% of the countries methane 

emissions in 2001 with 465 thousand tons of CH4 attributed to this sector.6

 Municipal solid 

waste landfills are a large source of these human-related emissions and represent an 

opportunity to capture and use a significant energy resource. Landfill gas is created as solid 

waste decomposes at a landfill. This gas consists of about 50 percent methane (CH4), the 

primary component of natural gas, about 50 percent carbon dioxide (CO2), and a small 

amount of non-methane organic compounds. 

Instead of allowing LFG to escape into the air, it can be captured, converted, and used 

as an energy source. Using LFG helps reduce odors and other hazards associated with LFG 

emissions, and it helps prevent methane from migrating into the atmosphere and contributing 

to local smog and global climate change. Landfill gas is extracted from landfills using a 

series of wells and a blower/flare (or vacuum) system. This system directs the collected gas 

to a central point where it can be processed and treated depending upon the ultimate use for 

the gas. From this point, the gas can be flared or used to generate electricity, replace fossil 

fuels in industrial and manufacturing operations, or be upgraded to pipeline quality gas. 

2.2 Types of Utilization Projects7

There are several ways to effectively utilize landfill gas for energy. The two primary 

applications are electricity generation and direct use. The generation of electricity from LFG 

can be used on-site or sold to the grid. LFG projects can generate electricity through a variety 

of different technologies, including internal combustion engines, turbines, micro turbines, 

Stirling engines (external combustion engine), Organic Rankine Cycle engines, and fuel 

cells. The vast majority of projects use internal combustion (reciprocating) engines or 

turbines, with micro turbine technology being used at smaller landfills and in niche 

applications. Certain technologies such as the Stirling and Organic Rankine Cycle engines 

and fuel cells are still in the development phase. 

Employing LFG directly to offset the use of other fuel sources (natural gas, coal, oil) 

is another means by which current projects make use of captured LFG. This direct use of 

LFG can be in a boiler, dryer, kiln, greenhouse, or other thermal applications. It can also be 

used to evaporate leachate. Innovative direct uses include firing pottery and glass blowing 

kilns; powering and heating greenhouses and ice skating rinks; and heating water for 

aquaculture . Current industries using LFG include auto manufacturing, chemical production, 

food processing, pharmaceutical, cement and brick manufacturing, wastewater treatment, 

 

5

 Section 2.1 contributed by Rachel Goldstein, Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP), U.S. EPA. 

LMOP is described in section 4.3. 

6 Ministry of Environment, Republic of Korea, “Korea’s Efforts to Reduce Climate Change and Methane 

Emissions, presentation at Methane to Markets Conference, (Buenos Aires, Brazil – November 2005). 

Available online – 

http://www.methanetomarkets.org/events/2005/all/docs/presentations/steering/korea.pdf 7

 Section 2.2 contributed by Rachel Goldstein, Landfill Methane Outreach (LMOP), U.S. EPA. 

 5
consumer electronics and products, paper and steel production, and prisons and hospitals, 

among others. 

An additional use of LFG is in cogeneration (also known as combined heat and power 

or CHP) projects that generate both electricity and thermal energy, usually in the form of 

steam or hot water. Several cogeneration projects have been installed at industrial operations, 

using both engines and turbines. The efficiency gains of capturing the thermal energy in 

addition to electricity generation can make these projects very attractive during LFG project 

consideration. 

Production of alternate fuels from LFG is an emerging area. Landfill gas has been 

successfully delivered to the natural gas pipeline system as both a high-Btu and medium-Btu 

fuel. LFG has also been converted to vehicle fuel in the form of compressed natural gas 

(CNG), with a number of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and methanol production projects in 

the planning stages. 

2.3 Why pursue LFG projects in South Korea? 

Korea has a rapidly growing economy and depends extensively on imported fuels that 

account for 98% of its energy use.8 There are few reliable energy sources within Korea. 

Thus, Korea has a compelling need to develop alternate fuel sources to enhance its energy 

security, economy, and environment. Methane recovery is a suitable source of fuel for Korea 

considering its high population density, rapid economic development, and urbanization. 

These factors contribute to large concentrations of refuse as well as steady flows of solid 

wastes into landfill sites which are critical for viable methane recovery projects. 

There is also the concern regarding climate change due to methane’s powerful role as 

a GHG with a global warming potential (GWP) of 23.9 Carbon dioxide’s GWP is 1; there is 

thus a significant net reduction in radiative forcing by capturing methane.10 Over the last two 

centuries, methane concentrations in the atmosphere have more than doubled, largely due to 

human-related activities. Methane now accounts for 16% of global GHG emissions from 

human activities.11 Due to its significant role as an anthropogenic GHG, methane is an 

optimal target for emissions reduction. 

While some LFG projects were already being contemplated and pursued in Korea, 

CTP has catalyzed its further development by listing landfills suitable for development, 

 

8

 Korea Energy Economics Institute. 2004. Energy Info Korea. Seoul. 

9

 Global warming potentials are used to compare the abilities of different GHGs to trap heat in the atmosphere. 

GWPs are based on the radiative efficiency (heat-absorbing ability) of each gas relative to that of carbon 

dioxide, as well as the decay rate of each gas (the amount removed from the atmosphere over a given number of 

years) relative to that of carbon dioxide. GWP provides a construct for converting emissions of various gases 

into a common measure. The generally accepted authority on GWPs is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change. Its Third Assessment Report (2001) estimates the GWP of methane at 23. Source: Energy Information 

Administration, DOE. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gwp.html 

10 Feasibility Study, SCS Engineers, DRAFT – “Feasibility Assessment Report for a Landfill Gas 

Utilization/Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Project at the Megalo Landfill, Cheong ju, South Korea,” (April 2004), 

p 26. 

11 EPA website, http://www.epa.gov/methanetomarkets/.

 6
providing high-quality feasibility studies, helping reduce regulatory barriers, and informing 

Korean and international developers of market opportunities.

2.4 Solid Waste Management in South Korea11

Historically, municipal solid waste generated in South Korea has been disposed of at 

open landfill sites. However, during the past ten years there has been recognition of the 

issues associated with environmental protection and as a result, poorly located and operated 

disposal facilities are being closed and replaced by modern regional disposal facilities. 

Municipal solid waste is increasingly viewed as a potential resource and there is a strong 

trend toward implementation of recycling, composting, and combustion technologies. 

Utilizing landfill gases from expired landfill sites is an emerging business in the solid 

waste treatment market. For example, the city of Seoul installed 100 methane gas extraction 

wells at the former Nanji landfill site. The captured gas from these wells is sent to the Korea 

District Heating Corporation (KDHC). KDHC combusts the gas and distributes the heat 

energy to neighboring facilities and households for heating and cooling. The Seoul World 

Cup Stadium is one of the facilities supplied with heat from the LFG project at Nanji.

2.5 Assessment of Methane Capture Capacity12

One of the most important factors in considering landfill gas projects in South Korea 

is the ability to accurately assess the methane recovery potential for each site. U.S. EPA 

developed an air emissions model for assessing landfills in the U.S. called LandGEM. 

Korean waste composition differs significantly from that in the U.S., so EPA’s Landfill 

Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) adjusted LandGEM to more accurately reflect the 

conditions in Korea. The LandGEM model developed for the Korean landfills was modified 

by comparing Korean with U.S. waste characteristics in terms of organic content, moisture 

content, and degradation rates of different waste components, and adjusting the model to 

account for the effects of these differences on landfill gas generation. 

The model developed for the Cheong ju feasibility study was derived from the U.S. 

EPA LandGEM model using a similar method described in detail in the 1996 IPCC 

Workbook and Reference Manual and the IPCC Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty 

Management in National Greenhouse Inventories document. This model is addressed further 

in Section 3.2.2. At the Ulsan site, measurements of methane and LFG flows from existing 

actively operating gas wells were used to develop estimates of the amount of recoverable 

LFG at the landfill. This required evaluating the volume of refuse contributing LFG to the 

wells in order to develop an estimate of potential LFG recovery from the entire landfill. 

 

11 Section 2.4 contributed by Gyung-Ae Ha, Korea Energy Management Corporation. 

12 Section 2.5 contributed by Brian Guzzone and Rachel Goldstein, Landfill Methane Outreach Program 

(LMOP), EPA. 

 7
3. Case Studies of LFG Projects in South Korea 

3.1 Ulsan 

3.1.1 Site Data 

The Ulsan site is a municipal landfill with a capacity of 4,255,142 m3. The site was 

opened in 1994 and is expected to close in 2014. In 1999 Ulsan had 2,297,000 m3 of wastein-place that was producing approximately 27 m3

 of LFG/minute.13 The City of Ulsan 

decided to move forward with the landfill gas project after a feasibility study had been 

conducted. The construction of the LFG capture and transportation structures was started in 

November 2001, and by August 2002 commercial LFG production had begun. 

The Ulsan feasibility study was completed by using actual measurements - not 

projected solely from a model. The diagram below shows projected methane production per 

year over the lifetime of the project and beyond. It indicates that methane production will be 

at its highest from 1998 to 2018 with a dramatic drop in output closely following the 

expected closure of the landfill in 2014. 

Figure 2: Graph of yearly projected LFG output for Ulsan Landfill Site 

3.1.2 Type of Utilization 

The methane gas recovery system at Ulsan is designed to capture the gas from the 

landfill and transport it to an adjoining chemical factory – Kumho Chemical Ltd. – where it 

is burned in boilers without being purified. Figure 3 (below) shows the pipelines that now 

transport the LFG generated at the landfill to the boilers at Kumho Chemical Ltd. 

 

13 Ha, Gyung-Ae, Korea Energy Management Corporation, “Landfill Gas Project in South Korea,” presentation 

at 5th Annual LMOP Conference, (Washington DC – December 2001). 

 8
Figure 3: Pipelines for transporting captured LFG from landfill to adjoining LFG 

treatment facility 

3.1.3 LFG Project Construction 

The construction duration of the Ulsan project was from 2000-2002. The project 

proceeded with relatively few obstacles and has been operating since 2002. The few barriers 

that were encountered were largely due to a lack of experience regarding LFG utilization 

projects. SK Corporation (SK) overcame its inexperience in designing LFG projects by 

attending trainings in Korea sponsored by the U.S. EPA and by visiting the U.S. to tour 

landfill sites with LFG projects in place. 

SK initiated a feasibility study in November 2000. Once the study was completed and 

the City of Ulsan decided to proceed with the project, various Korean companies bid on the 

construction of the methane gas recovery system. SK Corporation was awarded the project in 

September 2001 and construction began in December of the same year. 

 9
U

The above vent can be converted 

into an extraction well and used in 

a methane recovery system similar 

to the one shown on the right. 

L

Figure 4: Photograph of vent at Ulsan Landfill & Cross sectional views of methane 

recovery system design for Ulsan 

3.1.4 Financing Process 

The construction costs of the methane recovery system were funded by SK 

Corporation. SK received funding through a commercial bank loan that was part of a 

revolving fund established by the Korean Energy Management Corporation (KEMCO). 

U.S.$4,000,000 was covered by SK for construction 14SK will pay back the fund for 10 

years from sales of LFG and donate the facility to the city after that 10 years. 

The revolving fund established by KEMCO could be financed through several 

different banks in South Korea. This gives the borrower greater flexibility in choosing an 

institution. Both SK Corporation and the City of Ulsan applied for and received a 

recommendation letter from KEMCO that supported the project. SK and Ulsan each took 

their letters and applied for a loan at the bank of their choice, most likely the institution 

where they conducted business previously. 

3.1.5 Performance Review 

The performance of the plant has met expectations. The market value of the methane 

gas supplied to the boiler over the lifetime of the project was estimated at U.S.$3,400,000 

during the construction phase.15 In 2005, a total of 15,980m3/day of LFG was produced. 

This LFG is being used as a fuel replacement for natural gas. The market value of natural gas 

in Korea is approximately U.S.$.50/m3

 at present. This equates to a weekly value of 

U.S.$55,930 for the 15,980m3

 of LFG delivered each day from Ulsan.16 

 

14 Ulsan LFG 2 page summary, www.pi.energy.gov/pdf/library/EWSL/EWSLkorea.pdf. 15 Ibid. 

16 This figure is arrived at by using a 1:1 correlation between LFG gas and natural gas used. 

 10
The benefit of LFG fuel is increasingly valuable as traditional fuel prices rise. In 

2002, the replacement value of the 43,200m3 of LFG supplied to Ulsan was U.S.$15,900. In 

subsequent years natural gas prices continued to rise by varying amounts which placed the 

replacement value of the 43,200m3

 of LFG supplied by Ulsan at U.S.$17,442 in 2003, 

U.S.$18,414 in 2004, and U.S.$19,177 in 2005. These figures demonstrate the savings a 

facility can experience by using LFG which has a stable cost over the lifetime of the project. 

If this cost were equal to the cost of natural gas in 2002 and remained stable, the facility 

would be saving U.S.$5,783/day in comparison to a facility that was running on natural gas. 

The savings in GHG emissions was estimated to total 101,475 metric tons of CO2

equivalent per year.17 If these reductions were sold as carbon offsets in the world market they 

would be worth U.S.$507,375 each year using the value of $5/metric ton of CO2 equivalent. 

This equates to between U.S.$6,088,500-9,132,750 for the 12 to 18 year life span of the 

project. In combination, the value of the fuel and carbon offsets makes the choice to build 

the facility a sound economic decision. The motivation to build this project becomes even 

stronger when the added benefits of energy security, health standards, and environmental 

stewardship are considered. 

3.1.6 Collaboration Process18

It is important to note that this project was not accomplished by a single entity or 

even a partnership of a few entities. The Ulsan facility was a partnership on varying levels of 

several organizations which included: Ulsan city officials, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Republic of Korea’s Ministry of Environment, SK Corporation, LFG Consult Aps 

of Denmark, United States-Asia Environmental Partnership, U.S. Department of Energy, 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the Korean Ministry of Commerce, Industry, and 

Energy (MOCIE) and the Korea Energy Management Corporation. The willingness of all 

involved to work together and the initiative taken by key groups combined to achieve the 

realization of the Ulsan LFG facility. 

The central player for the Ulsan project was SK Corporation. Once KEMCO 

identified the site and Ulsan city officials expressed an interest in its development, SK 

became the dominant force behind the project. Once involved, SK aggressively pursued the 

project and encouraged Ulsan city officials to do the same. While KEMCO was the 

champion in identifying LFG projects and getting parties interested, SK Corporation took 

over as the champion in the Ulsan project and ensured project implementation and 

completion. 

Another important collaboration that took place during the Ulsan project was that 

between SK and LFG Consults Aps, a Danish consulting company. SK Corporation first met 

a representative of the LFG Consults Aps at a conference regarding landfill management in 

South Korea. The Dutch company gave a presentation at the conference which sparked the 

interest of SK Corporation. SK initiated contact with LFG Consults Aps at the conference 

and the companies began to explore the formation of a partnership. 

 

17 Ulsan LFG 2 page summary, www.pi.energy.gov/pdf/library/EWSL/EWSLkorea.pdf. 18 Large portion Section 3.1.6 was contributed by Gyung-Ae Ha, Korea Energy Management Corporation in 

describing the evolving relationships between SK Corporation and their international partners. 

 11
SK asked LFG Consults Aps to conduct a feasibility study of the LFG project at 

Ulsan. During the same time frame, KEMCO had contacted a U.S. engineering firm about 

taking part in the project. The firm originally expressed interest in November 1999 during a 

program stage of TCAPP in which KEMCO and NREL were looking for companies 

interested in working on LFG projects in Korea. The engineering firm expressed interest in 

market opportunities in Korea during the TCAPP phase, and visited the country in January 

2000, accompanied by a KEMCO representative. 

SK Corporation began communicating with both LFG Consult Aps and the U.S. 

engineering firm about partnering. When SK received the contract for the LFG recovery 

work from Ulsan City, the SK team tentatively decided to go forward with the design of the 

LFG facility and have the U.S. firm provide design review and supervision during 

construction. The U.S. firm and SK failed to arrive at an agreement during the cost 

negotiation process, however. In the end, SK decided to work with LFG Consult Aps 

regarding the implementation of the project. 

A convergence of participants and activities provided a critical mass that enabled the 

project to succeed. The role of each participant in the pursuit and completion of the Ulsan 

project varied greatly in scope but all were significant. 

“Ulsan City officials were open to installing a landfill methane 

project in their city, attended a workshop conducted by the U.S. EPA’s 

Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) in Korea, completed the 

project, and funded the installation. The Republic of Korea’s Ministry of 

Environment implemented standards that changed they way waste is 

disposed of in landfills, resulting in landfills that have the improved 

potential to be developed for methane recovery. SK Corporation 

conducted an independent assessment of the site, installed the project, 

and will use the gas. LFG Consult Aps conducted a feasibility study for 

SK Corporation to determine the capability of the landfill to generate gas 

and helped with project design. The United States-Asia Partnership 

provided initial funding for the U.S. DOE’s National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory and the U.S. EPA to pursue development of a Clean 

Technology Initiative in Korea.”19 

 

3.2 Cheong ju 

3.2.1 Site Data 

Cheong ju is an inland city located 128 kilometers southeast of Seoul. The city 

occupies an area of 153 square kilometers and has a population of approximately 595,000 

people. It is estimated that 700 metric tons of municipal solid waste is currently generated per 

day in Cheong ju. This equates to roughly 250,000 metric tons per year. Of this total, 

50,000 are currently managed by recycling, composting, and incineration. The remaining 

200,000 metric tons per year are disposed at the site. 

 

19 Ulsan LFG 2 page summary, www.pi.energy.gov/pdf/library/EWSL/EWSLkorea.pdf. 

 12
 

Previously, municipal solid waste that was generated in 

Cheong ju was disposed at the Moonam Landfill, which 

served as the main disposal facility for Cheong ju 

province from 1994 to 2000. A new site, the Megalo 

landfill, opened in 2001 and has replaced Moonam as the 

primary disposal facility for Cheong ju province. The 

feasibility study for Cheong ju focuses on the Megalo 

site. 

Figure 6: Map of South Korea displaying location of 

Seoul and Cheong ju province 

3.2.2 Feasibility Study 

The Megalo Landfill site in Cheong ju was chosen to receive funding for a feasibility 

study by KEMCO and U.S. EPA LMOP. The city asked KEMCO to develop the project, 

which is a new model for developing these LFG projects. The study for Cheong ju was 

prepared in August 2002 by SCS Engineers in the United States in cooperation with 

Wetherill Environmental of New Zealand. The purpose of the study was not only to identify 

and evaluate the technical aspects of a landfill gas project at the Megalo site, but also to 

analyze the institutional and economic factors associated with developing a LFG utilization 

and gas mitigation project. 

The study “found site conditions ... to be conducive for development of a commercial 

LFG recovery and utilization project.”20 An analysis of the site found that the current system 

of LFG vents could be modified as vertical extraction wells and additional wells could be 

installed to capture gases from 80% of the landfill area. With a 75% efficiency rating these 

vents would be able to recovery 60% of the generated landfill gas from the site. If desired, 

the vents could be expanded at a later date to cover 100% of the landfill area for a 75% 

capture rate of the available landfill gas. This efficiency rating correlates well with the 60-

85% range established by the U.S. EPA.21 

It was also “recommended that the project development proceed in a phased 

manner.”22 In using a phased approach, LFG capture can be monitored to determine the 

actual rate of landfill gas production. Once this actual rate of landfill gas is verified, the 

project can proceed with confirmed data, which is more reliable than projections or 

estimates. 

 Seoul 

Cheong ju 

province 

20 Feasibility Study, p. 31. 

21 Ibid, p. 12. 

22 Ibid, p. 33. 

 13
3.2.3 LFG Utilization 

The Cheong ju feasibility study was concerned solely with the capture, monitoring, 

and flaring of LFG gas. No economic consideration was made for a proposed 0.5 MW power 

generation facility or other utilization options. From initial projections of LFG generation at 

the site, it is feasible that a facility producing 0.5 MW of electricity could be operational for 

12-15 years at the Megalo landfill.23 The cost effectiveness of this option was not analyzed 

but it is assumed that the equipment could be moved to a different site when methane capture 

rates no longer warranted electricity production at Megalo. 

3.2.4 Methodology 

It is important to note that any feasibility study is only as good as the model and data 

that are used. Most of the data for analysis was supplied to SCS Engineers by the local 

government of Cheong ju with KEMCO as the intermediary. The projected landfill gas 

generation rates are highly dependent on the provided parameters and the responsibility for 

the accuracy of the feasibility study is shared by SCS, KEMCO, and Cheong ju. 

The basic model used in the feasibility study for calculating methane generation 

potential has five parameters which include: 

L0 = methane generation potential (m3/yr) 

R = average annual waste acceptance rate (m3/Mg of refuse) 

k = methane generation rate constant (1/yr) 

c = time since/to landfill closure (yr) 

t = time since landfill opened (yr) 

These 5 parameters are used to calculate: 

Q = methane generated in current year (m3/yr) 

By finding accurate values for the five factors one can discern the amount of methane 

generated in the current year (m3

/yr) with the following equation: 

Q = L0 R (e-kc – e-kt) 

This equation can be modified to take into account variances in the parameters such 

as differences in annual acceptance rates for a landfill. 

The parameters L0, R, k, c, and t will vary for each landfill site. Factors R, c, and t 

will be the easiest to measure. The operators of the site should have the appropriate data to 

provide accurate information on landfill opening and closing dates as well as the average 

annual acceptance rate for the site. Parameter k, methane generation rate constant (1/yr), is a 

bit more complicated, as it takes into account various factors which include moisture content 

 

23 Ibid, p. 18. 

 14
of refuse, availability of nutrients for methanogens, pH, and temperature. Once a LFG 

recovery system is in place, this rate can be monitored to more accurately determine a value 

for k. 

Mihocheon 

Drainage area 

Drainage area 

Swampy Place 

Highway 

Historic Relics 

LANDFILL 

Figure 7: Location of Cheong ju landfill and lay-out of surrounding area 

In considering this methodology for South Korea, the parameter which represents 

methane generation potential, L0, needed to be recalculated. The default value used in the 

U.S. for this datum was not applicable to solid waste in South Korea due to the very different 

compositions of refuse between the two countries. “Therefore a calculation of the value for 

L0 was made based on the composition of the local waste stream using IPCC methodology 

and this estimate was adjusted to allow for the high moisture content of the waste.”24

3.2.5 Benefits of Cheong ju LFG Utilization Project 

The overall benefits of the Megalo LFG utilization and gas mitigation project were 

substantial. They are listed below and often apply to LFG projects in general: 

• Social and environmental benefits to the community from the utilization of 

alternative energy and reduced fossil fuel consumption 

• Use of facility as a tour site to promote awareness and knowledge of 

greenhouse gas mitigation and renewable energy projects 

• Consistent with international, national, and local objectives for sustainable 

development 

 

24 Feasibility Study, p. 11. 

 15
• Improved management of municipal solid waste (reduces pollution & overall 

landfill costs) 

• Reduction of methane emissions 

• Potential of displacing fossil fuel use and improving air quality 

• Domestic source of energy/fuel 

• Develops local capacity for taking on and completing additional LFG projects 

• Can be used to develop ‘turn key’ approach to similar projects 

• Provides good focal point for dissemination of information 

These benefits, combined with the feasibility study’s finding that “the proposed GHG 

mitigation project is considered to be economically feasible ... [with] ... a price of U.S.$4.00 

per metric ton of CO2 equivalent,”25 make a strong case for the Cheong ju government to 

install a LFG recovery and GHG mitigation project at Megalo landfill. 

3.2.6 Barriers 

Despite the various documented benefits and positive findings of the feasibility study, 

an LFG system has not been constructed at the Megalo landfill in Cheong ju. There are a 

number of factors that contribute to the lack of action on this project. Two of the main 

barriers that will need to be overcome in pursuing the project are 1) local officials' lack of 

commitment to the project and 2) difficulty in qualifying for certified emission reductions 

(CERs) under the clean development mechanism (CDM). An important impetus for pursuing 

LFG projects is the interest of the Korean government in gaining CERs under CDM. 

After reviewing the feasibility study, local officials at Cheong ju decided to not 

pursue the project further. The specific reasons for this decision have not been made clear to 

KEMCO or other partners. There seems to have been a shift in commitment by local officials 

which put an end to developing the project further. It also appears that local officials were 

more interested in developing the older landfill site, Moonam, and were not enthusiastic 

about the study’s suggestion to develop the Megalo landfill as the better candidate. 

The shifting commitments of elected officials can create significant limitations on 

finding viable projects for development. Also, there can be considerable delays when 

working with governments due to election cycles and lengthy decision making processes. 

These factors can affect projects in different ways and highlight the difficulties that can be 

encountered when working with government. 

 

25 Ibid, p. 33. 

 16
4. Current Status of LFG in Korea 

4.1 Number of LFG Projects in Place 

There has been a significant increase in the number of LFG projects across Korea. 

Market transformation as a result of CTP is most noticeable in the methane capture area. At 

the time that CTP started [i.e. 2002] in Korea a few landfills were considering the idea of 

LFG projects. Currently there are at least 17 LFG utilization projects either completed or in 

the latter stages of development. Four of these projects have direct use applications and 

fourteen use the captured LFG to produce electricity with a total capacity that will be just 

over 80 MW.26 There is also one landfill, Hyeul-Dong near Chuncheon city, which is 

currently planning to convert 80 trucks to run on CNG produced from captured methane at 

the landfill.27 Not all of these LFG projects can be linked to CTP Korea, but the CTP 

mechanism, by forging productive relationships and providing a positive demonstration 

effect, likely boosted the market and this momentum continues to exert a favorable influence 

for project development. 

4.2 Emissions Reductions 

The two LFG projects that were reviewed in this paper had an estimated reduction of 

1,165,786 metric tons of CO2 equivalent – a reduction of 925,740 metric tons of CO2 for 

Ulsan and a reduction of 240,046 metric tons of CO2 for Cheong ju according to U.S. EPA 

figures.28 There have also been several other LFG projects in Korea – Busan, Daegoo, 

Daejeon, Gwangju, Wonju, Goonsan, Pohang, Sung-am, Masan, Jeju, Yeo-su, and Sooncheon. The total emissions reductions for these projects are approximately 900,000 metric 

tons of CO2 and CH4. 

Currently, about 7 LFG projects including Sudokwon landfill, Daegu landfill and 

Yosu landfill are in the pipeline of CDM project. The Korean government hopes these 

projects will create important documentation of the empirical results of GHG emission 

reductions from LFG activity in Korea, as well as help it gain familiarity with the program. 

Additionally, the government is optimistic that these projects may provide the necessary 

groundwork toward improving the economic feasibility of smaller GHG mitigation projects. 

Due to extensive transaction costs that were incurred for CDM projects initially, only large 

GHG mitigation projects found participation economically viable. An alternative under 

consideration by Korean developers is to bundle several smaller projects in an attempt to 

reach economic feasibility, but this too has limitations and requires extended planning and 

cooperation. 

 

26 Total is 18 because one site generates electricity and supplies gas for direct use. 27 Chan-su, Kang, “Garbage power gains fans as oil price soars,” JoongAng Daily, (November 26, 2005). 

Available online – 

http://joongangdaily.joins.com/200511/25/200511252204486009900090609062.html 28 U.S. EPA, “CTP Total Emissions Reductions,” (2004, unpublished). (excel spreadsheet w/ landfill & ESCO 

estimated reductions) 

 17
4.3 Collaboration with EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program and Methane to 

Market Partnership 

U.S. EPA's Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) is a voluntary assistance 

program that helps to reduce methane emissions from landfills by encouraging the recovery 

and use of landfill gas as an energy resource. LMOP forms partnerships with communities, 

landfill owners, utilities, power marketers, states, project developers, tribes, and non-profit 

organizations to overcome barriers to project development by helping them assess project 

feasibility, find financing, and market the benefits of project development to the community. 

U.S. EPA launched LMOP to encourage productive use of this resource as part of the United 

States' commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the United Nations 

Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).29 

One of South Korea’s first interactions with LMOP was in 2002 during the Cheong ju 

feasibility study. Consultations between the LMOP and South Korea have continued 

throughout CTP. In December of 2004 South Korea discussed joining the Methane to 

Markets (M2M) Partnership with U.S. EPA at the Tenth Conference of Parties to UNFCCC. 

By becoming a member of the M2M Partnership South Korea made a strong 

commitment to continuing the work of CTP Korea LFG projects. Partners take on an 

extensive list of tasks when they join that seek to: 

• Identify and promote areas of bilateral, multilateral, and private sector 

collaboration on methane recovery and use initially in the areas of coal mining, 

oil and natural gas systems, and landfills, and subsequently in other areas as 

agreed to by the Partners. 

• Develop improved emissions estimates and identify the largest relevant 

emission sources to facilitate project development. 

• Identify cost-effective opportunities to recover methane emissions for energy 

production and potential financing mechanisms to encourage investment. 

• Identify and address barriers to project development and improve the legal, 

regulatory, financial, institutional, technological and other conditions necessary 

to attract investment in methane recovery and utilization projects. 

• Identify and implement collaborative projects aimed at addressing specific 

challenges to methane recovery, such as raising awareness in key industries, 

removing barriers to project development and implementation, identifying 

project opportunities, and demonstrating and deploying technologies. Partners 

will also work together to share lessons learned from these cooperative activities. 

• Foster cooperation with the private sector, research organizations, development 

banks, and other relevant governmental and non-governmental organizations. 

• Integrate and coordinate Partnership activities with related activities and 

initiatives. 

• Support the identification and deployment of best management practices in the 

recovery and use of methane. 

 

29 This paragraph contributed by Rachel Goldstein, LMOP. 

 18
• Work to improve scientific understanding and certainty in relation to the 

recovery and use of methane. 

• Develop collaborative action plans that outline a series of concrete activities and 

actions that directly support the core goals and functions of the Partnership. 

• Develop and implement a process for evaluating progress and reporting results.

These guidelines are taken from the Methane to Markets Partnership website.30

The goals of the partnership blend well with the initial objectives of CTP Korea and 

will help foster market transformation and in-country knowledge necessary for South Korea 

to continue to make progress in methane recovery activities. 

 

30 http://www.methanetomarkets.org/about/terms.htm. 

 19
5. Lessons Learned 

5.1 Key Factors 

A key factor in the success of LFG projects in Korea, and at Ulsan in particular, was 

the ability to attract and retain local Korean government officials’ interest and commitment 

to methane recovery. Much of this responsibility fell on KEMCO and was facilitated by CTP 

Korea through holding in-country workshops and providing access to relevant information 

and technical expertise. SK Corporation was able to benefit greatly form CTP Korea 

activities. It had no prior experience in LFG projects but through KEMCO and some training 

provided by U.S. partners it was able to embrace the project and propel it to completion. For 

SK to be able to advance the project, however, Ulsan city officials needed to have an interest. 

KEMCO was responsible for initiating this interest in developing a LFG facility, as it would 

have been nearly impossible to conduct a project study, and carry the project through to 

completion without this initial awareness and interest. 

Building awareness and interest were main factors of CTP Korea. KEMCO was the 

in-country ‘champion’ of LFG activity for South Korea and aggressively pursued awareness 

campaigns, provided basic assessments of potential landfill sites, oversaw the revolving fund 

for financing projects and held in-country conferences and workshops for training locals and 

networking internationally. KEMCO not only identified potential landfill sites, they looked 

over landfill data provided by the Ministry of Environment (MOE), created a list of the 15 

sites that seemed to be the best candidates for LFG projects, contacted each site individually 

and followed-up with site visits and informational meetings to educate landfill operators and 

owners about LFG development. 

KEMCO is funded by the Ministry of Commerce, Industry, and Energy (MOCIE). 

The South Korean government assigned responsibility for LFG awareness activities to both 

MOCIE and MOE. These two ministries, along with the local governments, are the main 

participants in LFG project work in South Korea. Each of their roles is significantly different, 

however, with MOCIE’s work in the landfill [being] concentrated on the utilization of LFG 

while MOE’s work is more related to the management of landfill sites. Local governments, 

on the other hand, own and operate the landfills and are the main audience for building 

awareness. 

5.2 Best Practices 

Several best practices can be derived from the Ulsan and Cheong ju case studies. 

These practices entail capacity building activities for creating the foundation of market 

transformation, the role of government in developing markets, the formation of strategic 

partnerships, and finding viable financing mechanisms. The following chart summarizes 

these ‘best practices’ and how each project approached the process. 

 20
Best Practices CTP Korea 

involvement specific 

to LFG projects 

Ulsan Cheong ju 

Government assistance 

in publicizing potential 

projects 

MOCIE designated 

KEMCO as the country 

‘champion’ of LFG 

projects 

KEMCO approached 

Ulsan City officials 

regarding LFG projects 

– these interactions 

created the foundation 

for pursuing the project 

KEMCO approached the 

City of Cheong ju about 

doing a landfill gas 

project after identifying 

the city’s landfills as 

prime candidates for 

LFG recovery 

Government assistance 

with new developers and 

providing forum for 

trainings and building 

awareness 

LFG workshops held in 

South Korea and 

funding for technical 

assistance provided 

SK Corp formed a 

relationship with 

consultant in Denmark 

after attending a 

conference in Korea in 

which both companies 

participated 

KEMCO and EPA 

LMOP funded 

feasibility study 

Revision of regulatory 

framework/requirements 

Overhaul of solid waste 

disposal and landfill 

management practices 

Awareness increasing 

among landfill operators 

of environmental harms 

due to increased 

regulation 

Vents for LFG already 

in place (due to 

regulatory concerns) that 

could be converted to 

capture gas for LFG 

recovery system 

Capacity building Pilot projects and 

feasibility studies 

Ulsan facility 

completed, successful 

pilot project 

Feasibility study 

completed; no project 

development 

Financing Mechanisms KEMCO revolving fund 

ERCs through the CDM 

Ulsan construction 

financed through 

revolving fund provided 

by KEMCO 

ERCs at 

U.S.$4.00/ metric ton of 

CO2 equivalent 

projected to make LFG 

recovery economical 

Presence of in-country 

agency focused on 

implementation of 

program/project 

KEMCO – 

LFG ‘Champion’ 

(MOCIE representative) 

Environmental 

Management Corp. 

(EMC) (MOE 

representative) 

KEMCO served as 

strong in-country partner

KEMCO approached 

local government 

officials directly and 

able to reach out to 

strategic partners 

Figure 8: Best Practices of Ulsan and Cheong ju LFG projects 

 21
KEMCO was designated by MOCIE as the lead in developing the needs assessment 

and technology teams for CTP Korea. KEMCO’s overall objective is reducing barriers to 

energy efficiency through various methods including a dedicated fund that provides lowinterest loans.31 KEMCO was named as the central point of contact for coordinating CTP 

Korea activities and their strong commitment as an ‘in-country’ partner with NREL and the 

EPA on the Ulsan landfill development was a key component in the smoothness of the 

project’s workings. 

The phased approach that was suggested in the Cheong ju feasibility study can be 

taken away as a best practice for all LFG projects. This approach enables project managers to 

act on incoming data flows which provides a distinct advantage. By using the phased 

approach managers are able to make better decisions about the technical aspects of the 

project as well as being able to adjust more aptly to changing regulatory frameworks and 

other processes. In this way, projected landfill gas generation for various factors including 

baseline estimates, landfill gas recovery potential, and net annual methane emissions 

provided by feasibility studies act as stepping stones to build on and can be verified before 

greater capital costs are incurred. It is common practice in the U.S. to verify gas generation 

before proceeding any further on LFG projects and in this way “commercial utilization 

[occurs only after] the quantity and quality of LFG [is] verified.”32

5.3 Common Barriers 

It is important to note that even when barriers are well documented and there are 

viable solutions available to overcome them – some projects will not prevail. Two identified 

barriers for LFG projects include shortages of qualified engineers in the methane recovery 

field and regulatory barriers to project implementation. The first barrier can be mitigated by 

finding qualified international partners as well as training in-country individuals, while 

addressing regulatory barriers often requires coordination between various government 

agencies. 

Taking a closer look at the shortage of qualified engineers and the partnerships 

needed to address this barrier provides a revealing picture of the strategic partnership 

process. It is, of course, much easier to say a partnership needs to be formed than it is to 

actually create that partnership. This partnership can be further complicated by the nature of 

the relationship. 

Initially when strategic partnerships were being discussed in regards to CTP Korea’s 

program on energy service companies (ESCOs) the parties involved thought it would be best 

for ESCOs in Korea to partner with ESCOs in other countries to allow Korean companies to 

draw expertise and access to financing from the relationship. Through experience however, 

they found that this partnership may sometimes involve competing interests and that it is 

often best for Korean companies to form strategic partnerships with consulting firms that 

have similar qualities of expertise and access to financing as the ESCOs but no inadvertent 

 

31 Ulsan LFG 2 page summary, www.pi.energy.gov/pdf/library/EWSL/EWSLkorea.pdf. 32 Feasibility Study, p. 16. 

 22
conflict of interest. Even when this type of strategic partnership is formed, other 

considerations are imperative. These include ensuring that the philosophies of participant 

companies and their goals for the relationship be complementary and that the project is large 

enough to benefit the partners involved, but not so difficult as to overly stress a developing 

relationship.33 

These complex issues of strategic partnerships cannot be overstated, as all parties 

involved need to be committed to the project and willing to work through difficulties and 

differences to make sound decisions and needed compromises for the best possible result. For 

this to occur there must be a large amount of trust among partners as well as significant 

dedication to the project and overall mission. Developing a project from an idea to viable, 

working facility is a multi-stage process. With many agencies involved it only takes one 

party ‘dropping the ball’ at a certain stage to inhibit the completion of the project. Whether 

this is done inadvertently or intentionally, the result is the same. 

A key consideration with landfill development in Korea is the overlapping yet 

separate authority between MOE, MOCIE, and local officials. This overlap can create an 

interdependency that requires coordination and consistent commitment to development by 

each institution. The traditional divisions between government agencies can create a barrier 

for some LFG projects. This is especially true in LFG development which has strong 

economic and environmental implications. The defined roles of MOCIE and MOE in regard 

to LFG projects illustrate this division. Each of the ministries approached the potential 

projects according to their own separate objectives, so there was no joint effort which may 

have strengthened arguments and incentives to get LFG development off the ground more 

quickly. 

 

33 Howard, D.L., “Republic of Korea Reduction of Financing Barriers for Energy Saving Performance 

Contracts.” NREL Technical Report NREL/TP-710-38630. November 2005. 

 23
6. Recommendations 

6.1 Collaboration 

The Ulsan project is an example of the success of the CTP Korea LFG projects. The 

completion of the project and its subsequent success in operation fulfills the project activity 

objective of CTP. The strategic activity objective was also realized in the regulatory reforms 

and the effectiveness of KEMCO in identifying potential landfill sites and initiating 

development through collaboration and thoughtful review that will be an enabling factor for 

additional LFG projects to be completed. 

The importance of collaboration cannot be overstated. There are many benefits to the 

collaborative process. As additional participants become involved, more support can be 

established, more expertise can be tapped, and stronger relationships are formed. There can 

also be negative side effects such as difficulty in aligning overall objectives, inability to 

reach a consensus and longer time frames required for deliberation and decision-making. 

Looking to the future, it is important to capitalize on the positive aspects of 

collaboration while trying to minimize the negative issues. In creating programs to address 

complex energy issues careful collaboration will be needed due to the various groups 

involved. These groups all have diverse interests ranging from business and economic 

interests to health issues and environmental concerns. Each of these interests has legitimacy 

and needs to be addressed. 

6.2 Policy/Regulatory Changes 

The South Korean government has significantly changed the process by which solid 

waste is disposed. This is only an initial step in creating the environment and market for LFG 

utilization, but it is a very important one. Typical solid waste treatment methods in South 

Korea have included landfill dumping, sea dumping, incineration, and recycling. With the 

greater awareness of pollution hazards surrounding landfill dumping, some recent sites have 

been developed to operate using technologies to reduce the environmental pollution caused 

by landfill gas and leachate. Reclamation work has also been done on some expired landfill 

sites to minimize the effects of the pollution and prevent contamination of nearby 

environments. Most recently, on January 1, 2005, a law went into effect that prohibits the 

land filling of food waste. This is a major shift in solid waste management for Korea and 

shows a willingness to make needed changes to improve landfill management. 

6.3 Capacity Building 

Using LFG for energy is a win/win opportunity. Landfill gas utilization projects 

involve citizens, non-profit organizations, local governments, and industry in sustainable 

community planning and create partnerships. These projects go hand-in-hand with 

community and corporate commitments to cleaner air, renewable energy, economic 

development, improved public welfare and safety, and reductions in greenhouse gases. These 

objectives align well with those of CTP Korea which was designed to implement a few initial 

projects through local and international partnerships, which could then be used as examples 

 24
to encourage and enable additional activity. Capacity building is also invaluable in the 

foundation of awareness and education that it provides which is necessary for market 

creation and penetration. 

The 2005 conclusion of the CTP Korea project has left an opening that is being filled 

to some extent through U.S. EPA’s LMOP and the M2M Partnership. Both of these programs 

have begun to play a larger role in LFG projects across South Korea. By linking communities 

with innovative ways to deal with landfill gas, LMOP contributes to the creation of livable 

communities that enjoy increased environmental protection, better waste management, and 

responsible community planning.34 The successful partnership involving the U.S. EPA 

LMOP program and KEMCO in providing the Cheong ju feasibility study is a good example 

of capacity building and illustrates LMOP’s involvement with LFG projects in Korea. 

Workshops and conferences were important aspects of capacity building facilitated by 

CTP Korea. South Korea has continued to participate in conferences regarding LFG which 

validates the value they have found in these activities. Providing a venue for the 

dissemination of knowledge and the formation of networks is a critical aspect in overcoming 

barriers and enabling the environment for market transformation. These workshops allowed 

the business community in South Korea to become familiar with their industry peers both 

nationally and internationally and also provided a forum for them to learn about various 

approaches to design, finance, and project planning. 

6.4 Future Direction 

To spur further development in LFG projects in South Korea an important factor will 

be finding ways to create economic feasibility for smaller landfill sites. 30-40% of landfills 

in Korea have a capacity of 500,000 – 1,000,000 million tons and have not been seriously 

considered for development because of their size. “EMC is researching technologies to make 

harnessing the LFG from these sites more cost effective.”35 If these sites can provide even a 

small portion of Korea’s energy needs domestically they would be benefiting the country due 

to Korea’s extensive reliance on imported fuels. Capturing the methane from these sites is an 

added benefit for its GHG mitigation factor which is likely to increase substantially as a 

motivator in years to come. 

In 2004 during LFG outreach project meetings in Korea there was some discussion 

between KEMCO and EMC about joint work to further promote LFG projects in Korea. This 

type of collaboration could be promising in LFG outreach in order to maximize the efficacy 

of the overall mission. The collaboration needs to be carefully planned however, or the 

reverse effect will happen in which less is accomplished with more. One promising 

development is the formation of a LMOP-style program at EMC or KEMCO. The program 

does not directly involve MOCIE, but the two ministries have discussed coordination of 

activities involving landfills. 

 

34 www.epa.gov/lmop, Landfill Methane Outreach Program website. 35 Chiu, Kong, Trip notes 2004. 

 25
Perhaps steps can be taken to better align MOCIE’s and MOE’s efforts in promoting 

and supporting LFG projects in Korea. This partnering would be a promising endeavor which 

would strengthen each ministry’s effectiveness by combining their resources in fulfilling 

South Korea’s overall mission of “institutionally foster(ing) efficient energy use.”36 It is 

becoming increasingly apparent in the energy sector that good business goes hand-in-hand 

with environmental stewardship. Combining MOCIE’s strong industry connections and 

business background with MOE’s strong environmental programs and regulatory function 

could create a framework in which the interest of both can be better served. This partnership 

at the ministry level would be beneficial in that it would apply a whole systems approach and 

therefore achieve a greater alignment of interests which would accelerate LFG utilization and 

GHG mitigation projects in South Korea. 

6.5 Conclusion 

As we look to tackle the tough questions of energy supply and climate change in the 

future there is much to learn from the past. The case studies of Ulsan and Cheong ju provide 

valuable information and insight in regards to landfill gas projects. Even though each new 

landfill gas project will have unique characteristics, the documentation of previous 

experience can serve as a guide that provides direction, tools, and inspiration to spur further 

development and encourage innovation. 

LFG projects can provide energy while at the same time mitigating GHG emissions. 

This is an ideal solution in which more energy can be harnessed while less harm is done to 

the environment. The fact that LFG projects are also viable economically provides a strong 

foundation for these ventures. The challenge is in building effective networks of knowledge 

and relationships to complete projects successfully despite the various barriers that are often 

present. 

 

36 Energy Technology Policy in Korea, p. 2. 

 26
Bibliography 

Chan-su, Kang, “Garbage power gains fans as oil price soars,” JoongAng Daily, 

(November 26, 2005). Available online – 

http://joongangdaily.joins.com/200511/25/200511252204486009900090609062.html

Chiu, Kong, “Trip Report,” (June 2004, unpublished). 

“CTP Program in Korea: Lessons Learned,” (2001?, unpublished). 

“CTP Strategic Vision Outline,” (January 2003, unpublished). 

Energy Information Administration, “Comparison of Global Warming Potentials from the 

Second and Third Assessment Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” 

Available online – http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gwp.html 

Ha, Gyung-Ae, Korea Energy Management Corporation, “Landfill Gas Project in South 

Korea,” presentation at 5th Annual LMOP Conference, (Washington DC – December 2001). 

Ha, Gyung-Ae, Korea Energy Management Corporation, “Role of ESCOs in reducing GHG 

emission in Korea,” workshop on Climate Change Issues, (Milan, Italy – December 2003). 

Heil, Mark, “CTP Korea Landfill Gas Lessons Learned Paper - Draft Outline,” 

(April 2005, unpublished). 

Howard, Dave, “Foreign Travel Trip Report to Korea,” (August 2003, unpublished). 

Howard, Dave, “Foreign Travel Trip Report to Korea,” (June 2004, unpublished). 

Howard, D.L., “Republic of Korea Reduction of Financing Barriers for Energy Saving 

Performance Contracts.” NREL Technical Report NREL/TP-710-38630. November 2005. 

Korea Energy Economics Institute, Energy Information Korea. (Seoul 2004). 

Ministry of Commerce, Industry, and Energy and R&D Management Center for Energy 

Resources, “Energy Technology Policy in Korea,” (1998). 

Ministry of Environment, Republic of Korea, “Korea’s Efforts to Reduce Climate Change 

and Methane Emissions,” presentation at Methane to Markets Conference, (Buenos Aires, 

Brazil – November 2005). Available online – 

http://www.methanetomarkets.org/events/2005/all/docs/presentations/steering/korea.pdf

NREL Korea projects, http://www.nrel.gov/environment/korea.html. 

Schwengels, Paul, “U.S.-China CFC-Free Super-efficient Refrigerator Project,” (October 

2002). Available online – 

http://www.usctcgateway.net/casestudies/CasestudiesDetail.cfm?LinkAdvID=64730

 27
SCS Engineers, DRAFT – “Feasibility Assessment Report for a Landfill Gas 

Utilization/Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Project at the Megalo Landfill, Cheong ju, South 

Korea,” (April 2004). 

TCAPP-Korea/WG2 (methane recovery from wastes and its utilization), “Concept paper on 

methane recovery from wastes for international cooperation,” (April 2006?, unpublished). 

 

“Three year plan for CTP Korea Activities,” (2002, unpublished). 

Ulsan LFG 2 page summary, www.pi.energy.gov/pdf/library/EWSL/EWSLkorea.pdf. 

U.S. EPA, “CTP Total Emissions Reductions,” (2004?, unpublished). 

(excel spreadsheet w/ landfill & ESCO estimated reductions) 

 28
F1147-E(12/2004) 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Executive Services and Communications Directorate (0704-0188). Respondents 

should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

December 2006 

2. REPORT TYPE

Technical Report 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

DE-AC36-99-GO10337 

5b. GRANT NUMBER

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Case Studies from the Climate Technology Partnership: Landfill Gas 

Projects in South Korea and Lessons Learned 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

NREL/TP-710-40428 

5e. TASK NUMBER

WF98.2010 

6. AUTHOR(S)

Christina Larney; Mark Heil; Gyung-Ae Ha 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

1617 Cole Blvd. 

Golden, CO 80401-3393 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBER

NREL/TP-710-40428 

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

NREL 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING 

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

12. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

National Technical Information Service 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words)

This paper examines landfill gas projects in South Korea. Two case studies provide concrete examples of lessons 

learned and offer practical guidance for future projects. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Landfill gas; LFG; Korea; Ulsan; Cheong ju 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON 

a. REPORT 

Unclassified 

b. ABSTRACT 

Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE 

Unclassified

17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT

UL 

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18