NOTICE

This manuscript has been authored by employees of the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC (“Alliance”) under 

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 with the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”).

The tables and figures in this report are limited to use in this report only and are not to be further disseminated or 

used without the permission of the sources cited.

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.

Back Cover Photos: (left to right): Photo by Dennis Schroeder, NREL 17613, photo from Iberdrola Renewables, Inc., NREL 16694, Photo by 

Robb Williamson, NREL 10891, Photo by Warren Gretz, NREL 08022, Photo by Judy Powers. 

NREL prints on paper that contains recycled content. 
i

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AD anaerobic digestion

CBA cost-benefit analysis

CHP combined heat and power

cm centimeter

CMHD complex mix and hybrid digester

CO2 carbon dioxide

DINEPA Direction Nationale de l’Eau Potable et de l’Assainissement

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

EA environmental assessment

EDH Electricité d’Haïti

FFD fixed-film digester

FML flexible membrane liner

FY fiscal year

GHG greenhouse gas

GOH Government of Haiti

HDPE high density polyethylene

HFO heavy fuel oil

HMMCL heated and mixed membrane-covered lagoon

HRT hydraulic retention time

IC internal combustion

IDB Inter-American Development Bank

IPP independent power producers

kg kilogram

km kilometer

kV kilovolt

kW kilowatt

kWh kilowatt-hour

LFG landfill gas

LFGTE landfill gas-to-energy

ls lump sum

m meter

m2 square meter

m3 cubic meter

MCL membrane-covered lagoon

MSW municipal solid waste

MW megawatt

MWh megawatt-hour

NGO non-government organization

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory

O&M operation and maintenance

PFD plug-flow digester

PPA power purchase agreement

ppm parts per million

RDF refuse-derived fuel

sec second
ii

SMCRS Service Metropolitain de Collecte des Residus Solides

SOIL Sustainable Organic Integrated Livelihoods

SWANA Solid Waste Association of North America

T&D transmission and distribution

TS total solids

UCD upright cylinder digester

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

UNOPS United Nations Office for Project Services

USAID U.S. Agency for International Development

VOC volatile organic compounds

VS volatile solids

WSA waste sort analysis

WTE waste-to-energy
iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report provides further analysis of the feasibility of a waste-to-energy (WTE) facility 

in the area near Port-au-Prince, Haiti. NREL’s previous analysis and reports identified 

anaerobic digestion (AD) as the optimal WTE technology at the facility. Building on the 

prior analyses, this report evaluates the conceptual financial and technical viability of 

implementing a combined waste management and electrical power production strategy 

by constructing a WTE facility at the existing Trutier waste site north of Port-au-Prince. 

The project team evaluated two electricity-generation options for Trutier: (1) improving 

the site to modern landfill standards with a landfill gas capture system and electricity 

generation from the landfill gas and (2) constructing an AD facility at the Trutier waste 

site with electricity generation from the digester gas. 

The estimated capital cost to construct a landfill gas-to-energy (LFGTE) facility would be 

$46.7 million, and the plant would produce an average of approximately 16,260 

megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity annually over the 20-year planning horizon. 

Estimated annual revenues from electricity sales would be roughly $3.3 million and the 

net annual operating costs (i.e., not including the annualized cost of constructing the 

facility) for an LFGTE facility would be roughly $3.4 million, assuming the electricity is 

sold at 20 cents/kilowatt-hour (kWh), which is at the low end of current electricity prices 

in Haiti. 

The estimated capital cost to construct an AD facility would be $40.5 million (excluding 

improvements to the landfill for materials that are not processed by the AD facility), and 

the plant would produce approximately 38,813 MWh of electricity annually. Estimated 

annual revenues from electricity sales would be roughly $7.8 million, and the net annual 

operating costs for an AD facility would be roughly $8.9 million, assuming the electricity 

is sold at 20 cents/kWh. 

Using a simple financial analysis, an improved landfill equipped with a LFGTE facility is 

the lowest-cost electricity-generation option for the Trutier waste site. If the project is 

developed as a commercial venture (i.e., including capital costs), the LFGTE facility 

would have a net cost of roughly $19.30/tonne, versus $21.10/tonne for an AD facility. If 

capital costs are covered by the donor community, the LFGTE facility would have a net 

operating cost of roughly $0.50/tonne, versus $4.80/tonne for an AD facility.

Using an economic analysis that includes quantifiable environmental costs and benefits, 

an AD facility is the lowest-cost electricity-generation option for the Trutier site, costing 

roughly $22.90/tonne, versus $26.90/tonne for an LFGTE facility. 

There are some significant uncertainties regarding project development, related costs, 

and overall socioeconomic viability. The most notable uncertainty is the financial crisis 

faced by the Haitian government and the associated risk that the government will not be 

able to support and maintain the waste collection infrastructure. Without reliable waste 

collection, any waste treatment and power generation system could be rendered 

useless. 
iv

Other uncertainties stem from the fact that the quantity and composition of waste used 

in this report's analysis are based on estimates of waste quantity and composition 

observed in late 2011. Recent changes to the waste collection efforts have resulted in 

significant, but likely temporary, changes to the quantity of waste collected (as much as 

40% higher). This change reveals the variability of the conditions in Haiti, which 

underscore the level of uncertainty in establishing the appropriate facility size. The 

above energy production and cost estimates are based on a single waste 

characterization study that found the total quantity of waste collected at the Trutier site 

is 238,345 tonnes/year and that AD is likely the preferred technology for a WTE system 

due to the high proportion of moist organics in the waste stream. Additional studies are 

needed to evaluate seasonal variations in the composition and quantity of the waste 

stream, as this could influence the choice of technology and size of the facility.

Other uncertainties include the potential impact of unpredictable catastrophic events 

(earthquakes and hurricanes), unknown site conditions of the Trutier site as they pertain 

to seismic and flooding events, uncertain legal and permitting requirements, final project 

costs (this analysis assumes U.S. mainland costs), the composition of the project 

implementation team, and challenges with securing project financing.

In determining the most appropriate WTE technology and project financing vehicle for 

Trutier, it is important to consider whether the goal is to build a financially self-sustaining

solid waste management system, to focus on WTE energy production, or to provide as 

much aid as possible. The optimal choice of technology is dependent on the objectives 

selected and, in particular, the way in which project costs and benefits are valued.
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Project Background and Prior Studies................................................................... 1

1.1 Disclaimer and Disclosure of Report Uncertainties ............................................ 1

1.2 Technologies for Converting Waste to Energy................................................... 3

1.3 NREL Desktop Study ......................................................................................... 4

1.4 UNOPS Waste Characterization Study .............................................................. 5

1.5 UNOPS Truck Monitoring Study......................................................................... 6

2.0 Waste Generation, Characterization, and Collection............................................. 7

2.1 Haiti's Waste Management Authority ................................................................. 7

2.2 Waste Generation .............................................................................................. 8

2.3 Waste Collection ................................................................................................ 9

2.3.1 Waste Components and Characteristics...................................................... 9

2.4 Valuable Uses for the Waste Stream ............................................................... 11

2.4.1 Recycling ................................................................................................... 11

2.4.2 Green Waste ............................................................................................. 11

2.4.3 Human Waste............................................................................................ 12

2.4.4 Effluent and Digestate ............................................................................... 12

3.0 Trutier Site Details and Characteristics ............................................................... 13

3.1 Initial Site Assessment ..................................................................................... 13

3.2 Maps, Drawings, and Coordinates ................................................................... 14

3.3 Current Trutier Site Operations and Layout...................................................... 15

3.4 Potential Location for Anaerobic Digestion Facility .......................................... 17

4.0 Anaerobic Digestion and Landfill Gas-to-Energy: Technical Details.................... 20

4.1 Anaerobic Digestion ......................................................................................... 20

4.1.1 Summary of Anaerobic Digestion Equipment: Conceptual Design............ 21

4.1.2 Digestion Facilities..................................................................................... 27

4.1.3 Digestate Management.............................................................................. 29

4.1.4 Biogas Management and Power Production.............................................. 30

4.1.5 Mass and Energy Balance/Process Flow Diagram.................................... 30

4.1.6 Anaerobic Digestion Plant Utility Interfacing and Requirements................ 31

4.1.7 Anaerobic Digestion Planning Level Facility Cost Estimates..................... 31

4.2 Modern Sanitary Landfill Alternative................................................................. 36

4.2.1 Modern Landfill Components..................................................................... 37
vi

4.2.2 Liner System.............................................................................................. 37

4.2.3 Leachate Collection and Removal Systems .............................................. 38

4.2.4 Landfill Gas Collection System.................................................................. 38

4.2.5 Preliminary Design of a Modern Landfill and Landfill Gas-to-Energy System 

 .................................................................................................................. 39

4.2.6 Modern Sanitary Landfill Planning-Level Cost Estimates .......................... 40

4.3 Comparison of Systems ................................................................................... 43

5.0 The Power Grid and Potential Interconnects ....................................................... 45

5.1 Overview of the Power Grid in Haiti ................................................................. 45

5.2 The Need for Reliable Electricity ...................................................................... 45

5.3 The Need for Indigenous Power....................................................................... 46

5.4 The Power Grid in the Port-au-Prince Area...................................................... 46

5.5 Potential Interconnection Locations ................................................................. 47

5.6 Plans to Improve the Grid................................................................................. 49

5.6.1 The Electricité d’Haïti Action Plan.............................................................. 49

5.6.2 Grid Projects by International Donors........................................................ 50

5.7 Electricité d’Haïti Revenues, Costs, and Power Purchase Agreements Rates. 50

6.0 Social and Environmental Factors....................................................................... 52

6.1 Basis for Considering Social and Environmental Factors................................. 52

6.2 Qualitative Factors ........................................................................................... 53

6.3 Social and Environmental Cost-Benefit Parameters ........................................ 57

6.3.1 Externalities for Landfills with and without Landfill Gas Collection............. 57

6.3.2 Externality Costs for Trutier Development Scenarios ................................ 57

7.0 Financial and Economic Analysis ........................................................................ 61

7.1 Cost Summary ................................................................................................. 61

7.1.1 Scenario 1: Waste Dump........................................................................... 61

7.1.2 Scenario 2: Modern Landfill with Landfill Gas Capture and Electricity 

Generation.............................................................................................................. 61

7.1.3 Scenario 3: Anaerobic Digestion Facility with Electricity Generation ......... 63

7.2 Financial Analysis ............................................................................................ 66

7.3 Economic Analysis ........................................................................................... 67

7.4 Economic Sensitivities to Variables.................................................................. 68

7.5 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 70

8.0 Project Development Steps ................................................................................. 72
vii

8.1 Site................................................................................................................... 72

8.2 Resource.......................................................................................................... 74

8.3 Off-Take ........................................................................................................... 74

8.4 Permits............................................................................................................. 76

8.5 Technology....................................................................................................... 76

8.6 Team................................................................................................................ 76

8.7 Capital.............................................................................................................. 77

8.8 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 77

9.0 Project Risks ....................................................................................................... 78

9.1 Technology-Related Risks ............................................................................... 78

9.2 Other Potential Failure Mechanisms ................................................................ 79

9.3 Case Study: Project Risks Faced by E-Power ................................................. 79

10.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................... 82

10.1 Summary of Report Findings ........................................................................ 82

10.1.1 Societal Benefits of a Waste-to-Energy Project...................................... 82

10.1.2 Electricity Generation Over Time............................................................ 82

10.1.3 Incorporating Local Conditions into Project Planning ............................. 82

10.1.4 Availability of Suitable Labor .................................................................. 83

10.1.5 Waste Disposal Requirements ............................................................... 83

10.1.6 Timing of Construction ........................................................................... 84

10.2 Conclusions .................................................................................................. 84

10.3 Next Steps .................................................................................................... 84

10.4 Suggestions for Further Study ...................................................................... 85

Glossary ........................................................................................................................ 86

References.................................................................................................................... 87

Appendix A: Anaerobic Digestion Technology Description............................................ 91

Appendix B: UNOPS Waste Sort Study and National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Calculations................................................................................................................. 107

Appendix C: UNOPS Trutier Truck Monitoring Study.................................................. 113

Appendix D: Study on Colocating and Co-Firing Biogas in Diesel Gensets ................ 116
viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Solid waste management sector in Haiti .......................................................... 8

Figure 2. Population growth estimate for Haiti................................................................. 9

Figure 3. Comparison of sites by category .................................................................... 13

Figure 4. Satellite view of Port-Au-Prince, showing location of Trutier .......................... 15

Figure 5. Trutier satellite view #2 (medium zoom)......................................................... 16

Figure 6. Trutier satellite view #3 .................................................................................. 16

Figure 7. ICH Trutier drawing and site layout ................................................................ 17

Figure 8. Trutier west loop and site of former septic disposal site................................. 18

Figure 9. Potential location for and layout of an AD facility at Trutier............................ 19

Figure 10. Anaerobic digestion conceptual process flow diagram................................. 22

Figure 11. Typical MSW manual sorting lines (photo of the Western Placer Waste 

Management Authority’s Materials Recovery Facility in Lincoln, California).................. 26

Figure 12. Typical AD facility (photo of Valorga-Urbaser AD facility in Madrid, Spain).. 28

Figure 13. Cross-section through a modern landfill....................................................... 37

Figure 14. Estimated landfill gas production (first 20 years).......................................... 40

Figure 15. Transmission lines in Port-au-Prince, 2010: 69 kV (red) and 115 kV (blue) 47

Figure 16. Potential interconnects for the Trutier power plant (labeled "A") .................. 48

Figure 17. EDH costs, revenue collected, and deficit (2010)......................................... 50

Figure 18. Graphical comparison of each site ............................................................... 73

Figure 19. EDH costs, revenue collected, and deficit (2010)......................................... 75

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Suitable Waste Categories and Percent Constituency of MSW ........................ 6

Table 2. Organic Materials Summary—Total and Volatile Solids .................................... 7

Table 3. Summary of Constituents of Waste Collected in the Port-au-Prince Area....... 10

Table 4. Total Solids, Moisture Content, and Volatile Solids of the Waste Organic 

Materials........................................................................................................................ 10

Table 5. Sites Included in Initial Evaluation................................................................... 13

Table 6. Opinion of Probable Anaerobic Digestion Capital Construction Cost .............. 32

Table 7. Staffing Requirements Estimate for Anaerobic Digester at Trutier .................. 34

Table 8. Anaerobic Digestion Cost Summary Details.................................................... 36

Table 9. Opinion of Probable Landfill Capital Construction Cost................................... 41
ix

Table 10. Estimate of Landfill System Staffing Requirements....................................... 42

Table 11. Landfill Equipped with LFGTE System Cost Summary Details...................... 43

Table 12. Comparison of Annual Power Generation Rates........................................... 43

Table 13. Comparison of Key Cost Features ................................................................ 44

Table 14. Comparison of System Cost per Tonne ........................................................ 44

Table 15. Economic Valuations of Externalities from Landfills ($/tonne)a...................... 57

Table 16. Derived Externalities Costs for Three Alternative Scenarios at Trutier 

($/tonne)........................................................................................................................ 58

Table 17. Scenario 2 Total Capital Costs ...................................................................... 62

Table 18. Scenario 2 Annual Operating Costs .............................................................. 63

Table 19. Scenario 3 Total Capital Costs ...................................................................... 63

Table 20. Scenario 3 Annual Operating Costs .............................................................. 65

Table 21. Net Annual Costs for Each Scenario ($ millions)........................................... 66

Table 22. Net per Tonne Costs for Each Scenario ($/tonne)......................................... 67

Table 23. Per Tonne Economic Analysis for Each Scenario ($/tonne).......................... 67

Table 24. Economic Sensitivity to Variables of Key Cost Factors ................................ 70

Table A-1. Advantages, Disadvantages, and Applicability of Various AD Approaches in 

Haiti............................................................................................................................. 102

Table A-2. Advantages, Disadvantages, and Applicability of LFGTE in Haiti.............. 105

Table B-1. Sample Data from Waste Characterization Study...................................... 110

Table B-2. Waste Composition—Percent Total Solids ................................................ 111

Table B-3. Waste Composition—Volatile Solids, as Percent of Total Solids ............... 111

Table B-4. Waste Composition—Volatile Solids as Percent of Total........................... 111

Table B-5. Organic Materials Summary—Total and Volatile Solids ............................ 112

Table C-1. Sample Truck Monitoring Log File from Saturday, Dec. 10, 2011 ............. 113

Table C-2. Assumed Densities Used to Convert from Volume to Mass ...................... 114

Table C-3. Truck Monitoring Data Summary ............................................................... 114

Table C-4. Total Quantities of Materials Delivered to the Landfill................................ 115

Table D-1. Technology Summary................................................................................ 117

Table D-2. GTI Technologies—Bifuel Model Series Summary.................................... 119

Table D-3. Bifuel Reference Projects .......................................................................... 119

Table D-4. Summary of Biogas Cleaning Costs for Various Recovery Alternatives .... 121
1 

1.0 Project Background and Prior Studies

In 2010, in close collaboration with the Haitian government agency Direction Nationale 

de l’Eau Potable et de l’Assainissement (DINEPA), the United Nations Environment 

Programme (UNEP) set up and facilitated a biogas working group with the aim of

catalyzing the expansion of anaerobic biodigestion technology (biogas) as part of the 

sanitation solution for Haiti.

One result of this working group is that the United States Agency for International 

Development (USAID), the United States Department of State, and the United States 

Department of Energy (DOE) commissioned DOE's National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory (NREL) to evaluate the feasibility of converting municipal solid waste to 

energy in the Port-au-Prince area.

This project is being performed in coordination with a wind and solar resource study 

also being conducted by NREL. The overall purpose of this work effort is to support 

renewable energy deployment in Haiti to assist with the country's reconstruction efforts 

following the 2010 earthquake that destroyed parts of the country's infrastructure.

This report was preceded by an NREL desktop study in 2010, which recommended 

installation of an anaerobic digestion (AD) system at the Trutier (sometimes spelled 

"Truitier") waste disposal site outside the capital city. The system would produce 

electricity through an internal combustion engine. AD is the recommended technology 

because of the nature of the waste, which is high in both organic and moisture content. 

This report compares AD to a landfill gas-to-energy (LFGTE) system, which would be 

simpler to operate but would not produce as much gas and electricity as an AD system.

That desktop study is one of several studies that serve as reference and foundational 

documents for this report. Other examples include various technical memoranda 

produced by HDR Engineering Inc. (an NREL subcontractor), and waste composition 

and truck monitoring studies performed by UNOPS. Some of these reports are briefly 

described below, and information from them is used throughout the analysis and final 

report. 

1.1 Disclaimer and Disclosure of Report Uncertainties

This report was prepared with the understanding that numerous unknowns would not be 

resolved in this study. The absence of existing accurate data about the nature and 

extent of the waste in the Port-au-Prince area meant the project team had to perform 

independent studies to ascertain waste composition and approximate quantity 

estimates. Uncertainties that could affect the conclusions in this report include, but are 

not limited, to: 

• The quantity of waste. Planning and design efforts in this report relied on 

estimates of waste quantities as observed at the Trutier site in December 2011. 

The various facility sizing estimates are based on a single waste characterization 

study that, when projected over a year, concludes the total quantity of waste 

collected at the Trutier site is 238,345 tonnes/year. A recent but temporary 

increase in waste collection in the Port-au-Prince area resulted in significantly
2

more waste being collected (as much as 40% more) [1]. This change reveals the 

variability of the conditions in Haiti, underscoring the level of uncertainty in 

determining the appropriate project size. 

• The optimal WTE technology. The preferred technology is heavily dependent on 

the caloric value of the waste stream, which was evaluated during a single waste 

composition study conducted in October 2011. The use of thermal technologies, 

such as incineration, is more commonly used for waste-to-energy production in

developed countries worldwide. However, thermal technologies are very 

sensitive to the energy value of the feedstock, which is significantly reduced with 

the presence of high moisture content. The waste characterization study 

indicated the waste delivered to the Trutier site contains a high proportion of 

moist organics, which favors the use of anaerobic digestion as the preferred 

technology for a WTE system. 

• The seasonal variability of the waste. Additional waste characterization studies 

are needed to evaluate seasonal variations in the composition and quantity of the 

waste stream, which could influence both the choice of technology and size of 

the facility.

• The potential impact of unpredictable catastrophic events (earthquakes and 

hurricanes) in the waste collection system and to the site. 

• Unknown site conditions at Trutier as they pertain to subsurface stability for 

seismic events and possible flooding events. 

• Uncertain legal and permitting requirements, which can affect the facility cost and 

development schedule. 

• The cost of both skilled and unskilled labor. Because Haitian costs were 

unavailable, this report uses U.S. mainland costs. While the dramatically lower 

cost of unskilled labor in Haiti is significant and will improve the attractiveness of 

the project, the cost of skilled labor for both the capital cost and ongoing 

operational costs could be significantly higher if the skilled workers needed for 

the project have to be imported or trained, and could have an offsetting effect on 

the project's financial viability. 

• The cost of shipping construction materials to Haiti, including docking fees, 

unloading, and related transportation to the project site has not been addressed 

in this report as those costs could not be determined with certainty. 

• The cost of supporting the ongoing operations over the life of the project, 

including the execution of routine and periodic equipment maintenance, parts 

availability, etc., has not been addressed. 

• Sales of digestate as an agricultural and forestry amendment is assumed to 

merely offset the cost of trucking and mechanical spreading of the digestate, but 

it is possible the digestate has greater value than this.

• The uncertain cost of disposing of residue, rejects, and the remainder of the 

waste stream that the AD system would not treat, which was assumed in this 

report to be $7/tonne. 

• The composition of the project implementation team. 

• The challenges with securing project financing in a politically and economically 

unstable country. 
3

• The uncertain price of electricity in an eventual power purchase agreement 

(PPA) with the local utility, which will affect project economics. The analysis in 

this report assumes the WTE plant's electricity will be sold at 20 cents/kilowatthour (kWh). The utility is currently paying between 16 cents/kWh and 34 

cents/kWh under existing PPAs. NREL chose an electricity price at the lower end 

of the current PPA range out of concern for the ability of the local utility to 

sustainably afford high payments. If a higher rate could be charged, it would

improve the financial prospects of the facility. 

1.2 Technologies for Converting Waste to Energy

There are several different methods of converting municipal solid waste (MSW) to 

energy. The two primary categories of treatment processes that are employed 

commercially include thermochemical conversion and biochemical conversion. 

Thermochemical conversion is when heat is applied to the waste, either combusting or 

gasifying the waste, converting the carbon in the waste into heat or a carbon-rich gas 

that can be subsequently converted to energy. Thermochemical conversion 

technologies include mass burn (combustion of unsorted waste); refuse-derived fuel 

(RDF), which includes presorting, drying, and densification into a pelletized fuel as a 

coal replacement; gasification; pyrolysis; and plasma gasification. These technologies 

typically require a fairly dry material; as moisture content increases, the available 

energy within the fuel decreases until, at about 65% moisture content,

1 the useful 

energy available within the fuel approaches zero.

Biochemical conversion is when bacteria are allowed to consume the organic materials 

present in the waste under oxygen-deprived conditions, thereby producing gaseous 

emissions consisting primary of methane and carbon dioxide. Biochemical conversion 

technologies include tank-type anaerobic digestion or landfill-type decomposition. The 

primary biochemical conversion method used with MSW in the United States is the 

entombment of waste in a landfill that is equipped with a landfill gas recovery system 

and a LFGTE facility. This involves burying the waste within cells, where it is broken 

down by biological processes over an extended period of time. The decomposition 

process produces landfill gas, which is collected, filtered, dried, and pressurized for use 

in a gas engine or turbine. Although this process is biochemical, it is referred to as 

"decomposition" because of the long duration of the process (typically decades). 

Anaerobic digestion also employs a biochemical process, but the process occurs much 

more quickly, and is performed in enclosed tanks, bunkers, or covered lagoons as 

opposed to a landfill cell. All of the anaerobic digestion systems that use tanks, bunkers, 

or covered lagoons are referred to as biodigesters. Both AD and LFGTE methods are 

examined in more detail throughout this report.

 

1 In this document, moisture contents (MC) are expressed on a wet basis (wb); that is, MC, wb = (weight 

water)/(weight water + weight dry matter). 
4

The primary differences between thermochemical and biochemical conversion are the 

operating temperatures, feedstock, gaseous emissions, and residues, as follows:

• Operating temperature. Thermochemical processes require temperatures 

ranging from 800°C to 1500°C in order to burn or gasify the waste. To maintain a 

healthy bacterial community, biochemical processes operate at “living 

temperatures” ranging from 37°C to 65°C. 

• Feedstock. Thermochemical processes function best using dry, carbon-rich 

feedstock (wood, plastics, paper, etc.). Biochemical processes function best 

using easily digestible feedstock (food, grass, manure, etc.). 

• Gaseous emissions. Thermochemical processes produce either combustion 

gases or synthesis gases, both of which require robust emission control systems. 

Biochemical processes produce biogas consisting of methane (natural gas), 

carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and other trace constituents, necessitating less robust 

emission control. 

• Residues. Thermochemical processes produce ash, slag, char, and other 

products of high temperature/combustion-type processes. Biochemical 

processes produce undigested materials, mostly the fibrous portions that the 

bacteria could not digest, which if free from inert materials (glass, metals, and 

plastics), can be processed further into compost for agricultural purposes. 

1.3 NREL Desktop Study

In November 2010, NREL staff completed a desktop study titled Haiti Waste-to-Energy 

Opportunity Analysis2

 (an internal project report) for DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency & 

Renewable Energy. The study did not include a waste characterization study, instead 

relying on publicly available documents. It analyzed three technologies (combustion, 

gasification, and anaerobic digestion) that could be deployed at various sites around 

Haiti for their potential to meet, or help meet, two objectives:

• The collection and disposal of MSW

• Provision of electricity for the local grid.

The three technologies operate as follows:

• Combustion systems burn the waste in the presence of oxygen to produce heat.

• Gasification systems heat the waste in the presence of a limited quantity of 

oxygen to produce a gas that can be combusted.

• Biodigesters utilize bacteria to break down biologically available waste into 

methane and carbon dioxide gases. This gas mix can then be combusted. 

The desktop study determined the composition and characteristics of the waste 

generated in Haiti in general, and in Port-au-Prince specifically (primarily wet food 

 

2 Prepared under task number IGIN.9F06. 
5

waste), are best suited for conversion to energy through AD, rather than through 

combustion or gasification, due to the high moisture content of those wastes.

The study estimated that the waste stream in Haiti would contain between 65% and 

75% organics, primarily in the form of food waste. Food waste typically does not make 

good fuel or feedstock for combustion or gasification systems, because the waste has 

high moisture content. The food waste would likely need to be dewatered, either 

mechanically or thermally, to make combustion or gasification a viable option. This 

would require a significant amount of energy. Food waste is an ideal energy source for

the biodigestion process; however, because performance is not affected by moisture 

content. Furthermore, the biodigestion process produces digestate, which can be used 

as a fertilizer to increase crop yields.

Based on the composition of the waste produced, as well as the scalability and 

versatility of the systems, the authors of the desktop study selected biodigesters as the 

most viable option for a WTE project in Haiti. They also noted any WTE project would 

need to be coordinated with a robust waste management program, and integrated with 

energy planning and development efforts. The desktop study also concluded, 

“Additionally, biodigesters present a solution to the issue of human waste management, 

which is one of the biggest problems affecting Haiti today.”3

1.4 UNOPS Waste Characterization Study

A waste sort analysis (WSA) was conducted by UNOPS in October 2011 in conjunction 

with NREL and with guidance from an engineering firm, HDR Inc. The goal of the WSA 

was to characterize the wastes generated in Port-au-Prince to evaluate their suitability 

for AD. The AD process is used for converting organic materials to biogas (and 

byproducts); the WSA identified and quantified the composition of organic and inorganic 

matter in waste delivered to the Trutier waste site. 

The WSA was conducted over an 11-day period at various waste collection points. 

Samples were collected from a total of 285 incoming trucks carrying waste from 

different areas of Port-au-Prince. Each sample was weighed and then sorted into 11

categories. Of the 11 defined waste categories, only the ones listed in Table 1 are 

suitable for digestion. They were found by the WSA to constitute the MSW in the mass 

percentages indicated in Table 1. Additional details about the waste composition can be 

found in Section 2.3.1. 

 

3 As mentioned below, sewage treatment plants are being constructed throughout Haiti to deal with 

human waste, so it is not included in this analysis.
6

Table 1. Suitable Waste Categories and Percent Constituency of MSW

Waste Category Percent of 

Total Mass (%)

Food and misc. organics 54.8

Paper 10.6

Textiles 6.5

Wood 1.9

Total organic waste 73.8

The other seven categories (see Table 3) are inorganic and could not be digested for

biogas.

The WSA indicates slightly more than half of the MSW collected in Port-au-Prince is 

food waste (54.8% of total mass). Of the other organic materials, there is some question 

about whether there might be technical challenges with digesting the textiles or wood 

waste in an anaerobic digester.

Additional testing of 10 sorted organic waste samples was performed to estimate the 

samples’ total solids (TS) content (which determines water content) and volatile solids 

(VS) content (expressed as a percentage of TS).

The WSA study report is included in Appendix B. 

1.5 UNOPS Truck Monitoring Study

The waste sort analysis did not include an estimate or measurement of the typical 

quantity of waste received, so a separate truck monitoring study was conducted by 

UNOPS in December 2011. The results of that study are included in Appendix C and 

used throughout this report, along with the WSA data, to determine an appropriate

system size and potential energy production from AD and landfill gas (LFG). 

The truck monitoring study indicates about 4,571 tonnes (metric tons) of waste is 

delivered to Trutier each week, for an average of 653 tonnes per day. There is 

considerable uncertainty about this number, partly due to it being derived from a single 

truck monitoring period of five days, to the waste tonnage being derived from an 

estimate of waste volume per truck (multiplied by an assumed density), and to the 

effects of moisture content on waste density.
7

2.0 Waste Generation, Characterization, and 

Collection

Exact figures for waste generated and collected in Haiti are not available. It has been 

estimated that 0.6 kilograms (kg) to 0.7 kg of waste are generated per capita, per day in 

Port-au-Prince [2]. It has been variously estimated that only 20% [3] or 22% [2] of the 

waste generated in the Port-au-Prince region is collected and delivered to the Trutier

waste disposal site. 

Waste delivered to Trutier was measured by UNOPS over a period of five days in 

December 2011. A report on the truck monitoring study is included in this report as

Appendix C. This study determined, for that specific monitoring period, an average of 

653 tonnes of MSW per day was delivered to Trutier. UNOPS performed a separate 

study during 10 days in October 2011 to determine the composition of the waste. This 

study, included in Appendix B, estimated that roughly 55% of the waste collected was 

"organics" (food waste), 11% paper, 7% textiles and 2% wood (to the nearest 1%). The 

remaining components are not suitable for conversion to biogas in an anaerobic 

digester or in a landfill.

Some of the material was analyzed to determine total solids and volatile solids, as 

shown in Table 2. These measures are important for determining potential biogas 

production and will influence the design of the digester equipment.

Table 2. Organic Materials Summary—Total and Volatile Solids 

Summary Total Solids Volatile Solids (% of TS)

Samples Average Standard 

Deviation Average StandardDeviation

Textiles 53.8 12.9 87.4 7.6

Paper 45.7 9.5 86.0 9.3

Wood 68.8 12.5 88.7 7.1

Organics 18.3 4.5 84.3 5.7

2.1 Haiti's Waste Management Authority

Service Metropolitain de Collecte des Residus Solides (SMCRS) [3] is the stateappointed agency that collects and disposes of solid waste in the greater Port-au-Prince 

area, which includes eight cities and a population of about 2.5 million. SMCRS

reportedly has approximately 1,200 employees and an annual budget of about $2.4 

million.

Since the earthquake, SMCRS has been operating 24 hours per day, servicing eight 

routes every 12 hours. Their current fleet includes 34 45-cubic-meter rear-loading 

compactor trucks and 14 open-bed trucks. They also have 307 4-cubic-meter and 20-
8

cubic-meter dumpsters available that have not yet been deployed for waste collection. 

Their equipment maintenance program is reportedly poor. SMCRS owns and operates a 

waste disposal site about 5 kilometers north of the city. Figure 1 gives an overview of 

the solid waste management sector.

Figure 1. Solid waste management sector in Haiti

2.2 Waste Generation

The Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) published a position paper 

titled Municipal Solid Waste Collection Needs in Port-au-Prince, Haiti in August 2010. 

SWANA reported that 1,400 to 1,600 tonnes per day of solids waste is generated in the 

Port-au-Prince area [3]. 

The NREL desktop study [4] noted that:

"The population in Haiti is expected to grow substantially over the next 40 years. 

The projected compound annual growth rate from 2010 to 2050 is approximately 

0.8%. This growth will increase waste generation rates, sanitation issues, and 

power demands." 

The past population and future growth estimate from the U.S. Census Bureau for Haiti is 

shown in Figure 2. 
9

Figure 2. Population growth estimate for Haiti

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (www.census.gov/population/international/data/idb/region.php) 

2.3 Waste Collection

Only a portion of the waste around Port-au-Prince is currently being collected and 

delivered to Trutier. Some of the remaining waste is being left in the streets, and some 

ends up in canals. The waste in the streets is often burned in open piles. When the 

rains come, some of the waste in the canals washes out to the ocean. The SWANA 

report indicates that “Even if its equipment is fully operational and sufficiently staffed, 

the SMCRS is only able to collect about 20% of the MSW that is generated in Port-auPrince on a daily basis [3].” 

2.3.1 Waste Components and Characteristics 

A categorical summary of the WSA for all waste collected is presented in Table 3. The 

results for each category are expressed as a percent of total waste collected, rounded 

to the nearest 0.1%. Category numbers do not add up to 100% due to rounding.
10

Table 3. Summary of Constituents of Waste Collected in the Port-au-Prince Area

Waste Category Percent of 

Total (%)

Food and misc. organics (organic) 54.8

Paper (organic) 10.6

Textiles (organic) 6.5

Wood (organic) 1.9

Organics Subtotal 73.8

Plastic 13.8

Debris 4.8

Other 3.2

Glass 2.3

Metal 1.4

Electronics 0.4

Hazardous Waste 0.2

Grand Total 100

Table 3 shows that just over half (roughly 55%) of the waste collected is essentially 

food-based organic waste and almost three-quarters of the waste is organic in nature. 

Total waste collected is 653 wet tonnes per day. Total organics collected amount to 

about 482 wet tonnes per day.

Moisture Content 

Testing was conducted to determine the levels of TS and VS for the organic waste sort 

materials; test results are summarized in Table 4, rounded to the nearest 1%. Data 

presented in Table 4 include the averages for 10 analyses that were conducted for each 

waste constituent. The combined organic wastes, based on the WSA analysis, would 

have 27% total solids (i.e., a moisture content of 73%) and a ratio of VS to TS of 85%.

Table 4. Total Solids, Moisture Content, and Volatile Solids of the Waste Organic Materials

Organic Waste Components TS (%) Moisture Content 

(%)

VS (% of TS)

Textiles 54% 46% 87%

Paper 46% 54% 86%

Wood 69% 31% 89%

Food-Based Organics 18% 82% 84%

Total Combined Organics 27% 73% 85%
11

Energy Content 

The energy that can be derived from the organic fraction of the waste depends on the 

conversion system used—either AD or LFGTE. These two systems are detailed in 

Section 4.0, including expected electricity production potential.

2.4 Valuable Uses for the Waste Stream

This section discusses possible uses for the valuable components of the waste 

collected in the Port-au-Prince area. 

2.4.1 Recycling 

Some of the materials collected and delivered to Trutier are suitable for recycling. 

Removing plastics, metals, and glass for recycling provides a higher value for those 

materials and, as they are not suitable for AD or LFG production, removing them from 

the waste stream will not negatively impact energy production. In fact, these materials 

must be removed prior to introduction of waste to an AD system or the system will not

function properly. Removing paper and cardboard would decrease gas production, but 

not significantly.

The NREL desktop study, combined with further investigation, indicates there is no 

formal government recycling program in Haiti, but that there are for-profit businesses 

that recycle, and that most of the materials are collected by individuals and delivered to 

these businesses.

UNEP [6] has determined “there is an existing but weak plastics recycling private sector. 

This should be strengthened on a one-time basis with seed-funding grants allocated on 

a competitive basis and access rights to waste aligned with the planned new 

infrastructure.”

At the Trutier waste site, NREL staff observed large piles of plastic bottles that had been 

separated from the trash for later transport to recyclers. There were also fires observed 

at the site. Evidence indicates that tires and wire cables are often burned to enable 

collection of the metal bands or wire for recycling.

2.4.2 Green Waste

The majority of the energy potential from the solid waste in Haiti in an AD system will be 

from food waste. Some of this food waste might have value as livestock feed.

When NREL staff visited the Trutier site in August 2012, the American contractor 

operating the site, Ceres, informed them that local people bring their livestock (primarily 

goats and pigs) onto the site to eat green waste. NREL confirmed the presence of goats 

at the site but could not determine the portion of waste that might be removed in this 

fashion. This warrants further investigation.
12

2.4.3 Human Waste

In 2010, when the NREL desktop study was published, no wastewater treatment 

facilities existed in Haiti. In Port-au-Prince, sewage was collected by trucks and taken to 

Trutier. The estimated amount of sewage spread on the dump at that time was 91 cubic 

meters (24,000 gallons) per day. There was some consideration to add the sewage 

waste to an anaerobic digester, but in May of 2012 a new wastewater treatment plant 

was opened roughly 8 kilometers (km) north of Trutier. This plant treats 900 cubic 

meters of sewage per day and converts it to clean water [7]. 

The waste is brought to the treatment plant by truck. The sludge produced as a 

byproduct of wastewater treatment will be used for agricultural compost. Additional 

sewage plants are planned for Port-au-Prince and other Haitian cities [8]. 

2.4.4 Effluent and Digestate 

In a typical anaerobic digester, about 30% to 50% of the initial feedstock mass remains 

as a wet slurry called digestate. The digestate will typically be 70% to 90% water with 

the rest as solids. For reduced handling costs, the moisture content is typically reduced, 

either through mechanical filtration (belt filter/filter press) or by drying in evaporation 

ponds. Once the digestate has been dried, its characteristics match that of typical 

compost, with high portion of organic matter. Anaerobic digesters produce digestate 

with very good fertilizing properties due to the high nutrient content available in the 

waste. The level of effort necessary to make the digestate material suitable for the 

compost market depends on the feedstock and the screening processes used prior to 

digestion [4]. 

Large-scale production and distribution of soil amendment could improve farm 

productivity and hence increase food production.

In August 2012, NREL staff observed a pilot project at Trutier that was operated by 

Sustainable Organic Integrated Livelihoods (SOIL), a Haiti-based organization that 

distributes composting toilets and specializes in producing compost from a mix of toilet 

waste, animal waste, and sugarcane bagasse. NREL contacted the director, Sasha 

Kramer, to discuss SOIL’s work in Haiti and potential beneficial uses of the digestate 

and effluent that would be produced by an AD system. Discussions with SOIL are 

ongoing.
13

3.0 Trutier Site Details and Characteristics

This section details the selection of Trutier for the location of a WTE facility and 

provides some details about the site. A potential AD facility layout is also provided.

3.1 Initial Site Assessment 

NREL and HDR Engineering Inc. performed an initial site assessment in September 

2011 in which six potential sites around Port-au-Prince were evaluated as potential 

locations for an AD facility. The sites were compared, and the preferred site was 

identified to be a portion of the Trutier waste disposal site. Table 5 shows the sites 

considered and the final ranking.

Table 5. Sites Included in Initial Evaluation

Site 

Ranking

Site 

Number

Site Name/Location

1 6 Trutier 

2 5 Morne Cabri 

3 1 Rue de Frere, Tabarre 

4 4 Near Morne Cabri 

5 2 Rue Lespinasse, Tabarre 

6 3 Rue Roumain, Tabarre 27 

Figure 3 shows the sites and the categories by which they were rated. 

Figure 3. Comparison of sites by category 

Source: NREL and UNEP 
14

A secondary conclusion of that study is that the Morne Cabri (Site 5, ranked #2) human 

waste treatment site could be considered for a small anaerobic digester plant. This land 

is owned by DINEPA, and a digester could effectively increase the capacity and life of 

the human waste treatment facility.

The Trutier waste site is operated by SMCRS, which is an autonomous entity under the 

Ministry of Public Works. Public Works provides technical advice and guidelines, and 

the Ministry of Interior provides funding for SMCRS.

The waste site formally employs 76 people on their payroll and over 100 informally. It 

operates 24 hours a day. Waste sorting is done by people who have taken up residence 

at Trutier, though they are not employed by SMCRS—they earn their living by 

recovering and reselling materials. The typical process is that trucks dump their loads 

on top of the MSW pile, plastic bags are torn open, and plastic bottles, glass, metals, 

and fabric are separated by hand. All of the recycled materials are sold to local 

merchants, who collate, bail, and ship the materials off the island. Cardboard and paper 

are recycled to some extent, and plastic is burned. Wet organic matter either rots or is 

eaten by the many pigs and goats on site [10]. 

There is currently no fee charged to trucks dumping at the site. In many areas of the 

world, tipping fees are usually charged to trucks unloading at a waste disposal site, and 

these fees are used to offset the cost of operations. Concern exists in Haiti that an 

imposition of tipping fees will increase the amount of illegal dumping and decrease the 

amount of material received at Trutier; currently, all dumping is funded by the 

Government of Haiti (GOH) or donor organizations. Scales are present at the site, but it 

could not be confirmed the scales are working. 

In addition to operating the waste site, SMCRS also operates approximately half of the 

trucks unloading at the facility.

SMCRS has indicated interest in a WTE plant being located at Trutier, and has 

confirmed it is possible for them to own and operate a power generation facility [9]. 

3.2 Maps, Drawings, and Coordinates

Relatively recent (2010) high-resolution maps of Trutier are available from Google 

Earth, as shown in Figure 4 and the following sections. Additional maps are included in 

appropriate sections of this document.
15

Figure 4. Satellite view of Port-Au-Prince, showing location of Trutier

Source: Google Earth

3.3 Current Trutier Site Operations and Layout

Until recently, Trutier operated as a waste dumping site. In 2012, NREL staff noticed 

some areas of the site are being operated as an unlined landfill, with layers of trash 

deposited in mounds and then covered with a layer of crushed rock.

The Trutier site covers 250 hectares (approximately 618 acres), of which about 50 

hectares is currently developed [11]. Dumping is divided into areas reserved for MSW, 

medical waste, and rubble. 

Figure 5 and Figure 6 show Google Earth views of the Trutier site. The red “A” label is 

the approximate entrance to the facility. 
16

Figure 5. Trutier satellite view #2 (medium zoom) 

Source: Google Earth

Figure 6. Trutier satellite view #3

Source: Google Earth
17

Figure 7 is from a World-Bank-funded Trutier environmental site assessment, prepared 

by Integrity Disaster Consultants LLC in December 2010. The orange line shows the 

then-current boundary of the MSW pile. This pile has since been consolidated, with 

MSW primarily south of the access roads and building rubble to the north. [12]

Figure 7. ICH Trutier drawing and site layout 

Source: Integrity Disaster Consultants

3.4 Potential Location for Anaerobic Digestion Facility

It is proposed to place the AD system in the western loop, between the northern and 

southern access roads, near SB-16I, as shown in Figure 7. This is also the location of 

the former septic waste disposal, as shown in Figure 8. This has since been closed and 

filled in; testing of the soils in this area is recommended before selecting this as a final 

site location.
18

Figure 8. Trutier west loop and site of former septic disposal site 

Source: Google Earth

Siting of the WTE project at Trutier needs to be further evaluated with input from 

SMCRS and the current operators of Trutier once fundamental issues of feasibility have 

been resolved. In addition, site control options need to be discussed with SMCRS to 

determine the appropriate use model (lease, easement, or other vehicle to officially 

establish legal rights to utilize space at Trutier) if the project is to be owned by a private 

developer.

For purposes of the initial analysis, HDR developed a site layout showing the 

approximate size and shape of an AD system, and overlaid it on an image of the Trutier

site (see Figure 9).
19 

Figure 9. Potential location for and layout of an AD facility at Trutier
20 

4.0 Anaerobic Digestion and Landfill Gas-to-Energy: 

Technical Details

This chapter builds on the prior analyses performed by the project team, following a 

subsequent, more-detailed analysis of the technical and economic feasibility of 

constructing a large-scale AD facility in Haiti.

This chapter also includes consideration of the use of a sanitary landfill equipped with a 

LFG collection system and a LFGTE system as a possible alternative to the 

implementation of the AD facility in Haiti. This alternative is included to reflect the reality 

that the predominant waste management method in the United States is disposal of 

solid waste in sanitary landfills. Also, the extraction of LFG and subsequent conversion 

to electrical energy is a common practice in the United States which, if employed in 

Haiti, would reflect a significant improvement to the current open dump/unlined landfill

waste disposal methods, as well as add a renewable energy source to Haiti’s electric 

grid.

4.1 Anaerobic Digestion

Prior to anaerobic digestion, the waste collected from the region would require 

presorting to remove objectionable materials. The importance of sorting materials is 

higher for anaerobic digestion than other WTE technologies. Therefore, the first step is 

material sorting to remove inorganic materials and recycle those materials with value. 

This step can be automated, to some extent, or can be a manual operation. 

For an application at Trutier, a mostly manual system is recommended and described in 

more detail below. 

Following presorting, the organic materials are placed into a digester, where 

microorganisms break down the material and produce a biogas that is high in methane. 

Other components of the biogas include carbon dioxide and small amounts of other 

materials.

The biogas produced by digestion is captured and can be used to produce energy 

through:

• Steam for electricity production. The biogas can be combusted to provide heat 

for steam to drive a turbine that is coupled to a generator for power production. 

• Gas turbine or internal combustion (IC) engine for electricity production. 

The biogas can be conditioned and serve as fuel for an IC engine or gas turbine, 

linked to an electrical generator for power production.

• Fuel cell for electricity production. The biogas can be conditioned and serve 

as fuel for a fuel cell. This option requires more stringent cleanup of the gas, 

compared to using a gas turbine or IC engine.
21

• Energy storage or off-site electricity production. The biogas can be stored for 

later use or transferred to another location,

4

 such as the nearby E-Power 

generation station.

Similar to syngas produced from gasification, the products of anaerobic digestion are 

captured, and the only resulting emissions come from the eventual combustion of the 

gas.

In addition to the waste composition and collection rate discussed in Section 2.0, the 

following factors and assumptions influenced the design and analysis of the digester 

system: 

• Power is available at or nearby the site for powering facility electrical 

components.

• Natural gas is not available at the site.

• Potable water is not available at the site, but a well can be drilled to provide the 

water necessary for maintenance and facility operation [12]. 

• AD effluent, or digestate, will be dewatered to yield a digestate solid stream and 

a liquid effluent stream (centrate).

• A sanitary sewer is not available at the Trutier site or in its vicinity. Therefore, 

centrate from the AD facility may be land-applied or discharged to an evaporation 

pond near the site.

• Biogas will be burned in IC engines to produce electricity.

• Electricity will be wheeled to the power grid that is near to the site, but may 

require an interconnection extended to the specific location of the powergenerating system at the site.

4.1.1 Summary of Anaerobic Digestion Equipment: Conceptual Design 

For the purposes of sizing equipment, estimating costs, estimating water use and 

digestate production, and other factors, an AD system was designed based on the 

selected site and available waste. This conceptual system is detailed and analyzed in 

the following sections.

Unit Process Description and Sizing 

The AD conceptual facility design includes four major processing areas: materials 

sorting and recovery, digestion, digestate management, and biogas management and 

power production. The size of each processing area is based on the amount and 

composition of MSW available. A process flow diagram depicting these processing 

areas is presented in Figure 10. 

 

4 A concern with piping the gas off-site is that a digestion system typically uses waste heat from electricity 

production to maintain the digester temperature within a fairly narrow range. Shipping the gas off-site 

eliminates that local waste heat production.
22 

Figure 10. Anaerobic digestion conceptual process flow diagram 
23 

Materials Sorting and Recovery Facilities 

The waste streams that are brought to the AD facility need to be preprocessed in order 

to remove inert and undesirable materials and prepare the organic waste to be 

feedstock for the anaerobic reactors. The removal of undesirable materials is 

accomplished at the materials sorting and recovery facility prior to the digestion 

process. The materials sorting and recovery facility process described below is 

envisioned based on the expectation of quantity and types of waste that are received, 

as shown in the recent waste characterization, as well as on the labor resources that 

are assumed to be available in the local area.

Receiving and Surge Area 

The MSW arriving at the AD facility would be directed to the receiving area, where the 

arriving vehicles will have their contents weighed at the entrance scale. A data 

management system will be employed (electronic or manual) to track the arriving 

vehicle information, including the truck’s empty tare weight if applicable, to be 

maintained in the system. After being weighed, the vehicle will be directed to the 

unloading area. The unloading area will be equipped with sufficient room to allow for 

truck maneuvering and backing into the appropriate unloading stalls. The maneuvering 

and backing is assumed to occur outdoors so as to minimize the roof canopy of the 

unloading/surge area. The receiving area will be equipped with eight unloading bays. 

This should accommodate the incoming vehicles, assuming the typical truck can unload 

its contents within 15 minutes, the truck arrivals are averaged over an eight-hour day, 

and the peak arrival rate is two times the average arrival rate. This results in a peak of 

30 vehicles per hour. The additional bays are assumed to be provided in this conceptual 

design so as to avoid requiring collection fleet vehicles to wait to unload. The 

information available shows the peak arrival rate to be about 40 trucks per hour. In 

these cases, some trucks would need to wait in a queuing area until a bay is available 

for unloading. The trucks that do not have an empty tare weight on record will need to 

be re-weighed at the exit scale upon leaving the facility.

After unloading, the waste material will be consolidated in a “surge area.” The surge 

area is where the material is consolidated and then fed into the materials sorting and 

recovery area for the removal of inert and undesirable materials. Occasional 

maintenance, differences between the conveyor process rates and the waste arrival 

rates, and other related issues create the necessity for a surge area. The surge area will 

be sized to accommodate the quantity of an average weekday waste arrival rate of 755 

tonnes per day (assuming wastes are not collected on Sunday) or 653 tons per day if 

collected seven days per week. Waste material received at the facility will be 

consolidated using a front-end loader into a pile approximately two meters (m) deep to 

allow space for the front-end loader to maneuver and circulate around the pile.

The surge area is envisioned as a covered roof canopy without walls. The purpose of 

the canopy is to provide a covering for the waste materials during the rainy season so 

that the arriving waste materials do not become overly saturated before they are 

processed. For planning purposes, the roof canopy is ideally configured without internal 

columns in order to avoid vehicle encounters and to allow the area to be the most useful 

for pile management.
24

The receiving area should be approximately 50 meters wide to allow at least eight

collection vehicles to unload at the same time. The surge area should be approximately 

2,500 square meters (m2) to accommodate the peak arrival of waste and allow for 

maneuvering area around the pile for front-end loaders to manage the pile.

Preparation of Feedstock 

Before digestion of the wastes, the MSW will be processed into a feedstock appropriate 

for the anaerobic digestion process. The first step in this process is to remove inert and 

undesirable materials (metals, plastics, construction debris, etc.) from the waste stream. 

Although removal of inert materials could be performed using either mechanical or 

manual methods or a combination of both, systems that are primarily mechanical are 

assumed to be cost-prohibitive considering the availability of local labor. Consequently, 

this conceptual design relies on manual removal of inert and undesirable materials 

using elevated sorting conveyors combined with the use of screens to remove grit and 

related small-sized materials. The sorting area has been sized to initially include two 

identical materials sorting and recovery conveyor systems, with room for a third system.

For each materials sorting and recovery conveyor system, incoming MSW will be 

dropped into a hopper or an in-floor/in-feed pit equipped with a conveyor. The material 

will be fed to the conveyor belt or pushed into an in-floor conveyor equipped with a selfleveling device, feeding MSW onto the elevated sorting conveyor at a relatively constant 

rate. The conveyor will be equipped so that its speed is adjustable, allowing the depth of 

waste on the conveyor to be controlled and kept to a modest depth and at a modest 

speed, allowing workers to see and extract materials from the conveyor. A speed of 

approximately 0.20 m/second (s) is considered typical.

Each sorting line will have workers stationed on both sides of the conveyor and able to 

reach to the center of the conveyor from each side. The conveyor belt will be 

approximately 1-meter wide. The conveyor is elevated and equipped with platforms on 

both sides of the conveyor where workers will be stationed to extract inert and 

undesirable materials from the waste material on the conveyor. Beneath the elevated 

conveyor and sorting platforms are a set of bunkers equipped with bins. Workers will 

manually extract inert and undesirable materials from the sorting conveyer and place 

the inert and undesirable materials in a chute that directs the contaminant material to 

the bin below. Different workers will extract specific commodities (plastics, glass, etc.) 

so as to consolidate those materials of potential value separate from the remainder of 

the contaminant materials. 

Each materials sorting and recovery system will be equipped with a screening device to 

remove fines, such as grit, dirt, broken glass, ceramics, and other small materials. For 

planning purposes, a trommel screen has been included on each line in the conceptual 

facility configuration. A trommel screen consists of a rotating drum with exterior screens 

that allow smaller items to pass through the screened sections as the device rotates. 

The screen could be configured for various sizes of fine materials, but would typically 

screen out materials less than 3 centimeters (cm). The screen would be located along 

the alignment of the sorting line, typically at the beginning of the line so as to remove 

fines from the feedstock prior to manual sorting. The fines will be inspected and if they 
25

contain a high quantity of undesirable material, the fines will be disposed of as waste. 

However, if the fines contain mostly organic material, they could be added to the 

digesters. 

The materials sorting and recovery systems are not completely efficient in the removal 

of undesirable materials, and therefore, some inert materials will pass through materials 

sorting and recovery and to the AD reactors. Some of the heavier inert material, such as 

grit and dirt, may settle to the bottom of the reactors. Some of the less dense materials 

may float to the top of the reactors. These materials will accumulate over time and 

warrant periodic reactor cleaning. Each reactor may need to be temporarily removed 

from service for cleaning. For planning purposes, it is estimated that cleaning will be 

required approximately once every two to three years.

The materials remaining on the conveyor lines should include organic materials, food 

scraps, paper, woody material, and textile materials. Food waste and related food 

preparation waste materials are the most biodegradable of these materials, while 

textiles, paper, and woody materials are less degradable. Projected biogas production 

rates for the Haiti facility account for the range of biodegradability of the different 

feedstocks.

Following removal of inert and undesirable materials, the remaining material should be 

of appropriate composition for digestion. Prior to digestion, the material will require size 

reduction by grinding. After the materials are discharged from the sorting conveyors, 

front-end loaders or similar equipment will be used to consolidate the material and move 

it to a second surge area and in-floor/in-feed conveyor system, which will feed the 

material into a device where it will be ground and blended with water into a pumpable 

mixture. This grinding step reduces the particle size of the material to enhance its 

digestion and simplifies conveyance of the material.

The entire materials sorting and recovery area will require approximately 5,000 m2 of 

space, which is envisioned to be covered with a roof canopy to provide a sheltered work 

environment for the workers to perform their duties out of the sun and rain. Note the 

area required for these activities is in addition to the 2,500 m2 needed for the surge 

area. A set of two elevated sorting lines, each equipped with an in-feed and incline 

conveyor, trommel screens, magnets, and sorting conveyors, would be constructed. 

Each sorting line would be approximately 50 meters long. The length is required to allow 

enough sorter stations to remove the undesired portion of the waste stream. Room for a 

third elevated sorting conveyor will provide potential for future expansion. The necessity 

of two shifts requires a well-lit working area for the sorters to perform their duties. The 

roof canopy is envisioned to provide support for the lighting system as well as possible 

ventilation systems. The grinder is assumed to be located outside the roof canopy or to 

fit within the 5,000 m2 roof canopy described above.

The project team has been informed there is an ample local labor force in the Trutier

region, which is expected to be sufficient for the life of the project. For planning 

purposes, the presorting conveyors are sized to operate two shifts per day so as to 

minimize the capital investment of the materials sorting and recovery facility. For each 
26

shift, a staff of approximately 51 sorters (separate from equipment operators, 

maintenance, and management) will be needed to extract inert and undesirable 

materials from the waste stream. The number of laborers is based on staffing levels for 

mixed waste manual recovery and could fluctuate depending upon the productivity of 

the workers and the contaminant level in the waste stream. Other staff requirements for 

the AD facility overall are described in more detail in Section 4.2. A typical sorting line is 

presented in Figure 11. 

Figure 11. Typical MSW manual sorting lines (photo of the Western Placer Waste Management 

Authority’s Materials Recovery Facility in Lincoln, California)

Source: Tim Raibley, HDR Engineering Inc.

The operational success of the AD system depends on the thoroughness of the manual 

presort. Items such as rocks, metals, and plastics not removed during presorting will 

accumulate in the AD reactors and require that the AD reactors be removed from 

service for cleaning more often than the standard maintenance schedule. Frequent 

quality checks of the manual sort line are recommended to promote effective removal of 

all inert and undesirable materials prior to AD.
27

To the extent that human fecal matter is also included in the AD feedstock, the 

presorting of MSW would occur prior to the addition of fecal matter, so as to prevent 

human contact with fecal matter. It is assumed the fecal matter would be pumped into a 

receiving tank that would function somewhat like a septic tank. The receiving tank would 

be equipped with two compartments, the first of which would allow settling of solids and 

passage of the liquid into the second compartment of the tank. The liquids in the second 

compartment would be pumped directly into the reactors where they would be blended 

with the organic fraction of the MSW material.

Automated Presorting Option 

The project team also explored the possibility of employing a materials sorting and 

recovery system consisting of primarily mechanical sorting equipment to perform the 

contaminant removal. For the most part, the separation of organics from MSW is an 

emerging technology, particularly when not using source-separated collection systems. 

Where organic materials are collected for processing (e.g., San Francisco, California, 

and Edmonton, Canada), the materials are separated at the source and contain 

relatively small quantities of inert and undesirable material as compared to the 

anticipated material in Haiti. However, for comparative purposes, the project team

contacted representatives of the Dufferin Anaerobic Digestion facility in Edmonton, 

Canada. The Dufferin facility separates inert and undesirable materials from the 

organics in its waste stream using a mechanical system whose main component is a 

hydropulper. Using the Dufferin feedstock quality, moisture content, and throughput 

values as a base and scaling up to the Port-au-Prince waste characteristics, the project 

team prepared an estimate of the number of hydropulpers needed to perform the 

contaminant removal in Haiti. The result is that seven hydropulpers would be required, 

at an approximate cost of $1.5 million each, for a total of $10.5 million. For planning 

purposes, the team concluded the use of hydropulpers as the mechanical system to 

remove inert and undesirable materials would be financially unattractive, and therefore, 

not worthy of further consideration. 

4.1.2 Digestion Facilities

The AD system is sized to process the average daily load expected at the facility. Based 

on the daily average of 653 tonnes and assuming 73.8% organics, the AD reactors are 

expected to process approximately 482 tonnes of organic feedstock per day. 

Calculations in this report assume all of the organic material in the waste stream is 

recovered during sorting and passed to the digestion facility. There is a possibility that 

some of the digestible material may not be recovered from the incoming waste due to 

potential inefficiencies in the presorting system; such inefficiencies should be modeled 

when conducting an investment-grade project feasibility study.

Once organics have passed through the materials sorting and recovery facilities, they 

will be conveyed at a TS concentration of approximately 27% from a feed hopper to a 

dosing tank using an auger. Provisions for adding dilution water to the incoming feed in 

the processing area will be provided to convey the material more easily and allow better 

mixing of the reactor contents. The hydraulic retention time (HRT) in the dosing tank will 

range between approximately two and three days. The dosing tank allows for 
28

acidification of the organics contained in the feedstock to provide more efficient 

digestion. The dosing tank will be operated at a variable level, which provides the ability 

to vary the AD reactor feed rate. The volume of the dosing tank is approximately 2,000 

cubic meters (m3). 

The anaerobic reactors will be bolted steel construction with interior and exterior 

coatings to help protect against corrosion. The tanks will not need to be insulated 

because of the warm ambient temperature of the Haiti climate and the abundant amount 

of excess heat available from the IC engines. Three AD reactors are envisioned to be 

provided, each with a volume of approximately 4,000 m3 and nominal dimensions of 18 

m in diameter and 17 m in height. The HRT in the AD reactors is 18 days.

The AD reactors will be operated in the thermophilic temperature range of 

approximately 50°C to 65°C. The key reason for thermophilic operation is that it will 

allow smaller reactors compared to mesophilic operation. Because there will be ample 

waste heat available from the IC engines, this heat can be used for AD reactor heating 

and no supplemental heat source would be needed to heat the reactors. It is important 

the reactors are operated within the specified range above because bacteria are less 

effective at consuming organics and producing biogas if outside this range. Typically, 

AD reactors are operated at a temperature setpoint, and heating controls are able to 

maintain the reactors within 1°C to 2°C of this temperature.

The reactors will be covered and biogas will be collected and burned in IC engines. The 

cover system will be a fixed-roof constructed of fiberglass designed to withstand local 

environmental conditions including hurricanes. The cover will be fitted with access 

hatches and pressure relief valves. A typical AD facility is shown in Figure 12. 

Figure 12. Typical AD facility (photo of Valorga-Urbaser AD facility in Madrid, Spain) 

Source: Tim Raibley, HDR Engineering Inc.
29

The AD reactor contents will be agitated with propeller-style mixers. The goal is to 

agitate tank contents and not to completely mix reactor contents. Three 10-kilowatt (kW) 

mixers have been included for each reactor.

Equipment associated with the dosing system, transfer pumps, dewatering equipment, 

electrical components, and other facilities will be located in a 540-m2 equipment building 

to protect this equipment from weather.

4.1.3 Digestate Management

The average un-dewatered digestate production from the reactors is 611 m3/day at a 

10% TS concentration. Digestate will be pumped from the AD reactors to two 

centrifuges. It is assumed that dewatering operations will occur eight hours per day, 

seven days per week and that the two centrifuges will operate simultaneously. 

Dewatering would occur eight hours per day during normal, daylight working hours to 

facilitate simpler hauling and disposal operations. If one centrifuge is out of service, the 

dewatering campaign will increase to 16 hours per day. The centrifuges will dewater the 

digestate to approximately 30% solids and allow transport of the digestate off-site. The 

average dewatered digestate generated is 194 wet tonnes/day. 

The dewatered digestate will have organic and nutrient value suitable for blending and 

improving other soils agronomic value. There may be contractors and facilities in the 

Port-au-Prince area who will accept the digestate for use as a soil amendment and for 

erosion control. It is assumed the dewatered digestate will be conveyed from the 

centrifuges to roll-off containers outside the equipment building. The roll-off containers 

of digestate will be hauled by an outside party for off-site use and then returned to the 

AD facility.

Centrate (liquid effluent stream) discharged from the centrifuge will be stored in a 30-m3

(10,000 gallon) tank and then a portion (approximately half) will be pumped back to the 

dosing tank to serve as dilution water for the raw feedstock to the AD reactors. Two 

centrate pumps will be included. The balance of the centrate must be evaporated in an 

on-site pond, or pumped for off-site disposal, such as evaporation or land application. 

Because the centrate will still have approximately 1.2% solids, it would likely clog most 

spray nozzles in irrigation systems and so it is assumed an evaporation pond will be 

used to evaporate the liquid contained in the centrate. 

Based on available data for climates in the Caribbean similar to Haiti’s, the assumed 

annual net pan evaporation rate for evaporating centrate is 1.6 meters per year. [13]

This pan evaporation rate accounts for both annual precipitation and evaporation, but 

does not account for the effect of elevated dissolved solids that may reduce the net 

evaporation rate by approximately 20% to roughly 1.3 m per year. At this adjusted 

evaporation rate, the area of the evaporation pond is approximately six hectares or 

60,000 m2

. As solids will accumulate in the ponds, provisions will be provided so that 

these solids can be removed from the ponds periodically.
30

4.1.4 Biogas Management and Power Production

Biogas from the AD reactors is envisioned to be scrubbed to remove sulfur to protect 

the IC engines from corrosion. An iron sponge scrubber has been included in the cost 

estimate. Sulfur in the biogas adheres to the iron impregnated media and is retained 

within the scrubber. The media needs periodic regeneration or replacement once the 

available iron within the media is exhausted.

The scrubbed biogas would pass through a refrigerant-based chiller to remove moisture 

prior to feeding it to three IC engines. A total average output of approximately 4.9 

megawatts (MW) is estimated from the IC engines based on the design feedstock rate 

to the AD reactors. Each engine is sized to produce up to 2.5 MW, which allows one 

engine to be out of service for maintenance while still producing the average design 

electricity output or allows all three engines to operate simultaneously in order to 

accommodate peak loadings or future increases in loading.

The electrical output from the engine gensets is anticipated to connect to the local 

electrical grid near the Trutier waste site. The main components for the grid connection 

will likely include the following and will depend on the electrical utility’s grid connection 

requirements:

• Power conditioning equipment

• Safety equipment

• Meters and instrumentation.

These components include switches to disconnect the system from the grid in the event 

of a power surge or power failure, and power conditioning equipment to ensure the 

power exactly matches the voltage and frequency of the electricity flowing through the 

grid. Finally, the amount of power delivered to the grid must be metered.

Approximately 1.8 MW (thermal) of recoverable waste heat is available from each of the 

IC engine’s exhaust gas and high-temperature circuit (equivalent to an average of 3.6 

MW of total waste heat during normal operation). It is estimated that only about 1.7 MW 

of heat will be required to heat the AD reactors, and so sufficient waste heat is available 

for AD reactor heating. Each engine would include a heat recovery module containing 

gas-to-water heat exchangers. A hot water loop would circulate between the module 

and the AD reactors, returning hot water at a nominal temperature of 100°C to piping 

loops within the AD reactors to transfer heat to the AD reactor contents. The quantity of 

water circulated would be controlled based on maintaining the AD reactors at 

approximately 50°C.

The IC engines and associated recovery modules would be located in a dedicated 

building near the AD reactors. The building is sized at 360 m2

. 

4.1.5 Mass and Energy Balance/Process Flow Diagram

A conceptual mass and energy balance for the Haiti AD facility was prepared and was 

presented in conjunction with the process flow diagram in Figure 10, which depicts 

major components of the facility design.
31

The AD facility will consist of the following major areas utilizing existing land at the 

Trutier waste site: 

• Feedstock receiving and materials sorting and recovery

• AD reactors

• AD reactor equipment building (including the dewatering system, an office, lab, 

and control room)

• Biogas cleaning and IC engines (housed in a building). 

The total footprint for these facilities is estimated to be between approximately 3.0 to 3.5 

hectares, not including the estimated 6 hectares for the dewatering ponds. A site layout 

for the facility is provided in Figure 9.

4.1.6 Anaerobic Digestion Plant Utility Interfacing and Requirements

Some of the AD equipment will require electricity to operate. In addition, the enginegenerator will be connected to the grid to be able to provide electricity to the community.

Water will be needed for operation of the AD and for cleaning.

Power

Power at the facility will primarily be used to convey MSW/feedstock and digestate 

material, and to operate AD reactor mixers, transfer pumps, and centrifuges. Based on 

a preliminary motor list, the installed power at the AD facility will be approximately 

500 kW. The projected operating power demand at the facility may be approximately 

225 kW. 

Water 

The facility will recycle centrate for use in diluting the feedstock. A small quantity of 

utility water (which does not necessarily need to be potable) will be required for day-today cleaning and other needs. It is expected that less than 100 m3

/day will be required 

on average. This need could be met by adding a well or a non-potable water supply. 

The supply should have a capacity of approximately 150 liters (L) per minute accessible 

at all times.

4.1.7 Anaerobic Digestion Planning Level Facility Cost Estimates

Capital and operating costs were developed for the AD facility and are summarized in 

the following sections. These cost estimates were prepared using U.S.-based cost 

assumptions. In particular, U.S. labor rates [14] were used for both construction and
32

facility operations. The conversion of these cost estimates into Haiti-based costs5 is 

assumed to be a joint effort in a subsequent version of this report. 

Overview of Anaerobic Digestion Facility Capital Cost Estimate

An order-of-magnitude capital cost estimate (in U.S. dollars) of the AD facility was 

developed (see Section 7.0) and will be refined during the next phase of preliminary 

engineering. Budgetary pricing was obtained from equipment vendors for larger 

equipment, such as the IC engines and sorting conveyor systems. Historical equipment 

pricing from past projects was also used for developing costs. The costs reflect a variety 

of assumptions about the site and its condition. Although truck scales were observed at 

the site, they were not operational. Consequently, new scales are included in the cost 

estimate. Costs are preliminary and may fall within +30% and -15% of the values 

presented in Table 6. It is also worth noting that costs assume construction at a generic 

site in the United States, under average construction conditions. For clarity, costs in the 

right-hand column are shown to the nearest dollar; total project cost at the end of the 

table is shown to the nearest $100,000.

The cost estimate reflects a fully developed facility configured as illustrated in Figure 10. 

The site improvements include an entry truck scale and scale house, receiving 

enclosure, materials sorting and recovery equipment, digestion system, digestate 

management system, and biogas treatment/power generation system.

Table 6. Opinion of Probable Anaerobic Digestion Capital Construction Cost

Item Quant. Unit Unit Price Cost

Earthwork (excavation, backfill, structural fill) 1 lsa $275,000 $275,000

Truck scales 2 ls $70,000 $140,000

Materials sorting and recovery system consisting of two conveyor 

systems (loading conveyors, sorting conveyors and platforms, 

magnets, trommel screens, and one grinder with in-feed conveyor)

1 ls $2,588,000 $2,588,000

Equipment foundations (two conveyor systems, one grinder) 1 ls 150,000 $150,000

Vehicle unloading/circulation, and 1⁄2-loader circulation area 

(paved, uncovered)

485 m2 $86.50 $41,953

Materials sorting and recovery building enclosure, concrete slab 

foundation, overhead lighting

5,000 m2 $700 $3,500,000

Groundwater pumping 1 ls $10,000 $10,000

Receiving pit 1 ls $128,000 $128,000

Dosing feed augers 1 ea $20,000 $20,000

Dose tank (heated and covered) 2,000 m3 $290.50 $581,000

Dose tank mixers 1 ea $40,000 $40,000

 

5 The official Haitian minimum wage is 300 Haitian gourdes (HTG), which is $7.24 (1 U.S. dollar = 

41.4474 HTG using the mid-market rates as of Nov. 21, 2013 19:22 UTC posted on 

www.xe.com/currency/htg-haitian-gourde?r=3). 
33

Item Quant. Unit Unit Price Cost

AD reactor feed pumps 3 ea $9,500 $28,500

AD reactor tanks (heated and covered, includes foundations) 12,200 m3 $237.50 $2,897,500

AD reactor mixing system 1 ls $2,400,000 $2,400,000

AD reactor heating tubes and hot water pumps 1 ls $204,000 $204,000

Digestate pumping 2 ea $14,000 $28,000

Centrifuges 2 ea $440,000 $880,000

Centrifuge hoppers and conveyors 2 ea $23,000 $46,000

Centrate storage tank 38 m3 $317 $12,046

Centrate pumps 2 ea $4,000 $8,000

Yard piping (buried process, water, sewer, drain piping) 1 ls $275,000 $275,000

Miscellaneous metals—stairways and platforms 1 ls $30,000 $30,000

Equipment building 500 m2 $492 $246,000

Biogas scrubber 1 ls $500,000 $500,000

IC engines and heat recovery modules 3 ea $1,700,000 $5,100,000

Engine building 400 m2 $492 $196,800

Biogas emergency flare and safety equipment 1 ls $145,000 $145,000

Electrical interconnection 1 ls $250,000 $250,000

Roadways 1,110 m2 $130 $144,300

Landscaping 1 ls $15,000 $15,000

Water well 1 ls $12,000 $12,000

Centrate evaporation pond earthwork 1 ls $100,000 $100,000

Centrate evaporation pond synthetic liner 60,800 m2 $13.50 $820,800

Fencing and gating 1 ls $25,000 $25,000

Subtotal $21,837,899

Electrical/I&C $2,620,548 

Mechanical $1,965,411 

Subtotal with Subcontractors $26,423,858

Undefined scope/contingency $3,963,579

Contractor administration $792,716

Contractor profit and overhead $3,170,863

Construction Total $34,351,016

Engineering, environmental, administration, permitting, 

construction management

$6,183,183

Project Total $40.5 Million

a ls = lump sum
34

Overview of Operating Costs 

Table 7 presents an overview of the expected labor requirements for the AD system. 

These estimates are preliminary and for planning purposes only. The actual staffing 

requirements may be adjusted after final design and based on the availability of skilled 

labor. Note the plant operates 16 hours a day, but not all workers are required to be at 

the plant the entire time it is operating. Incoming trash collects in a "surge area" during 

the eight hours the plant is closed.

Table 7. Staffing Requirements Estimate for Anaerobic Digester at Trutier 

Operating costs (calculated to the nearest dollar) were projected for the AD facility and 

are presented along with annualized capital costs (calculated to the nearest dollar) and 

cost per tonne (calculated to the nearest 10 cents) in Table 8. 

Table 8 also shows that most of the operating costs are attributed to sorting of incoming 

MSW utilizing Haiti’s local labor force rather than mechanical sorting. Here again, 

United States labor rates were assumed and will need to be adjusted for an installation 

in Haiti. 

Key assumptions affecting the operating cost estimate include the following:

• Effluent from the facility is assumed to be discharged to surface evaporation 

ponds. No operational costs were assumed for this activity. Given the cost impact 

of using evaporation ponds to manage digester effluent, this assumption should 

be confirmed prior to project implementation. 

• Digestate from the facility is assumed to have some beneficial use as an 

agricultural product, but was assumed to have no value in terms of sales or 

disposal costs. Given the uncertainty of the demand for digestate, there should 

be further study of this issue to resolve it prior to project implementation. 

Weekday

Operations 

Weekend

Operations 

Position No. Full-Time Staff No. Full-Time Staff

Plant Manager 2 1 

Scale Master/Bookkeeper 2 1 

Clerk 2 1 

Janitor 2 1 

Foreman/Heavy Equipment Operator 8 4 

Sorters (two shifts of eight hours) 102 46

Forklift/FEL Operators 12 6 

Equipment/Mechanical Maintenance 2 1 

AD Operations (two shifts of eight hours) 20 10

Security 3 3 

Total Staff 155 74
35

• The non-digestible portion of the waste is required to be landfilled using a 

nominal landfill disposal rate of $7/tonne, which reflects a rough estimate of 

current waste disposal costs at Trutier. Given the financial impact of the disposal 

of the non-digestible portion of the waste, there should be further study and 

clarification of the cost of operating the exiting Trutier waste facility for the 

disposal of non-digestible materials be resolved prior to project implementation.

• The cost of labor is based on U. S. labor rates. Adjustments up (for transport, 

mobilization of personnel, etc.) or down (for lower cost of labor in Haiti) are 

required to determine the in-country cost. Given the uncertainty and potentially 

significant influence of the cost of labor in Haiti, there should be further study to 

evaluate and apply Haitian labor rates for locally supplied labor in addition to the 

cost of imported labor for those labor-related expenses that must be provided 

from out-of-the country labor.

In addition to operating costs, Table 8 includes a summary of the total system costs 

including amortized capital costs, annual revenues and related overall system costs. 

The resulting overall system cost is presented on a per tonne basis to illustrate the 

approximate cost of the AD system. Revenues from the sale of electricity were 

calculated at $0.20 per kilowatt-hour. 
36

Table 8. Anaerobic Digestion Cost Summary Details

Parameters

Total Waste (tonnes/yr) 238,345

Contamination Level (%) 27%

Organic Waste (tonnes/yr) 173,992

Tonnes Contamination for Disposal (tonnes/yr) 64,353

Tonnes Digestate for Reuse as Soil Amendment (tonnes/yr) 70,638

Capital Cost

Total Project Capital Cost to the Nearest Dollar, as Calculated in Table 6 $40,534,199

Revenues and Avoided Cost

Unit 

cost Units Quantity Cost

Sale of Digestate $0 tonnes 70,638 $0

Electrical Sales Income (net—accounts for parasitic load) $0.20 kWh 38,812,657 $7,762,531

Total Revenues and Avoided Cost $7,762,531

Annual O&M Costs

Unit 

cost Units Quantity Cost

Labor $8,108,173

Equipment Maintenance (including an allowance for 

digester cleaning every three years) $354,279

Landfill Disposal of Non-Organics $7 64,353 $450,471 

Disposal of Digestate $0 70,638 $0

Total O&M Cost $8,912,923 

Total Costs

Total O&M Cost $8,912,923 

Total Revenues and Avoided Cost -$7,762,531

Annualized Capital Cost (6.0%, 20 yrs) $3,887,352

Total Annual Cost $5,037,744 

Total Cost per Tonne ($/tonne) $21.10 

4.2 Modern Sanitary Landfill Alternative

For the most part, conversion of municipal solid WTE in the United States is 

accomplished using either thermal conversion, typically referred to as “mass burn,” or 

by the collection and use of landfill gas through LFGTE systems. The use of landfill gas 

as a fuel source for electricity generation is very similar to the use of AD reactor biogas 

for electricity production. Specifically, the collection of landfill gas, which typically 

contains approximately half methane, is conditioned and burned as a low-grade fuel in 

an IC engine, which in turn powers an electrical generator. Consequently, another 

option to produce energy from MSW at Trutier is to develop a modernized landfill that 
37

includes a system to collect landfill gas, which could be used in a similar manner as 

described for the biogas from the AD facility. 

4.2.1 Modern Landfill Components

Modern landfill designs have several aspects that serve to protect the environment from 

inert and undesirable materials disposed of in the landfill and to collect and use landfill 

gas for energy production. These include liner systems, operational protocols, liquids 

management systems, gas collection systems, and a variety of related controls 

described below. A diagram depicting the components of a modern landfill is presented

in Figure 13. 

Figure 13. Cross-section through a modern landfill

Source: Waste Management Inc.

4.2.2 Liner System

Most modern landfills have composite liner systems. In the United States, all new 

landfills and all lateral expansions to existing landfills that receive MSW are required to 

have composite liners installed prior to the placement of waste. U. S.-federal regulations 

require these liners be composed of a flexible membrane liner (minimum 30 millimeters 

(mm), or minimum 60 mm if high density polyethylene [HDPE] liner) over at least two 

feet (0.6 meters) of compacted soil that has a hydraulic conductivity of no more than 

1x10-7 cm/sec. Individual state regulations may add additional requirements for landfills 

under their jurisdiction.
38

4.2.3 Leachate Collection and Removal Systems

Modern landfills that are equipped with liners generally have a system to collect 

leachate and remove it from the landfill so that it does not pose a danger of leaking into 

the environment. In the United States, federal regulations require new landfills and 

lateral expansions for all landfills to include a leachate collection system that prevents 

leachate from accumulating on the liner to a depth of more than 30 cm. Variances can 

be secured whereby liquids, including leachate, can be reinserted into the landfill. The 

benefits of liquids recirculation include elevated productivity of landfill gas rates.

4.2.4 Landfill Gas Collection System

Landfill gas is generated as the organic material in the landfill decomposes. The amount 

and composition of the landfill gas produced varies greatly according to the 

characteristics of the waste placed in the landfill and the climate at the landfill location. 

Factors that have the greatest impact on the landfill gas produced include waste 

composition (e.g., organic content, age), oxygen levels, and moisture content and 

temperature, which can be influenced by climate. Landfill gas is typically 50% methane 

and 50% carbon dioxide and water vapor, by volume. Trace amounts of nitrogen, 

oxygen, hydrogen, non-methane organic compounds, and inorganic compounds are 

also present. Some of these compounds are the source of strong odors, and exposure 

to some of these compounds can cause adverse health effects. Emissions can be 

reduced through the installation of an efficient landfill gas collection system, and then 

flaring the landfill gas or combusting it in an engine, turbine, boiler, or similar device.

In general, landfill gas is collected from a landfill using a series of wells that are 

connected to a pipe network equipped with a blower device that produces a vacuum. 

The vacuum allows gases to be drawn from the landfill into the wells, through the 

collection manifold and into a gas pretreatment system that conditions the gas to 

remove impurities and prepares the gas to meet the IC engine requirements.

A landfill gas collection system can be developed using a variety of wells to extract the 

gas. The wells can be installed as the waste is placed in the landfill by installing 

horizontal collection wells. A horizontal collection well consists of rock- or gravel-filled 

trenches equipped with a perforated collection pipe that protrudes from the side of the 

landfill. A vertical collection system is typically installed after the waste has been placed 

and consists of a drilled hole that is backfilled with the same gravel/perforated pipe 

system. The vertical wells typically protrude from the top surface of the landfill. In both 

cases, the well field is connected to a gas collection manifold system that draws gas 

from the landfill into the LFGTE/pretreatment system.

Unlike the AD system, which captures virtually all of the methane produced, the 

collection efficiency of a modern landfill gas system can vary according to a variety of 

factors. Some of the more critical factors include the timing of collection, field 

installation, depth of waste, and timing of final capping system on the top of the waste. 

The requirements for collection system performance varies, but in general, landfill gas 

collection systems in modern landfills are in the range of 60% to 85% efficient, 

averaging about 75% efficiency. Restated, a modern landfill gas collection system can 
39

reasonably be assumed to collect 75% of the gas generated by the waste. Landfill gas 

that is not captured by the collection system is generally thought to pass through the 

cap where microbial activity consumes some portion of the gas and the remainder 

escapes into the atmosphere as surface (fugitive) emissions. 

4.2.5 Preliminary Design of a Modern Landfill and Landfill Gas-to-Energy System 

The project team developed conceptual estimates of the area and features necessary to 

provide a modern landfill in the Port-au-Prince Haiti area. The landfill would be 

designated for the disposal of the MSW stream only. Capturing the MSW portion of the 

waste stream will provide the greatest environmental protection and best landfill gas 

production, for a much lower cost than if the landfill also included the debris waste 

stream, which is assumed to be mostly inert. For simplicity, the design and cost 

estimate are based on the following assumption:

• Average MSW disposal rate to remain at approximately 653 tonnes per day

• Life of the landfill will be 20 years (same as AD system estimate)

• In-place density of MSW in the landfill will be approximately 0.71 tonnes per 

cubic meter (1,200 pounds per cubic yard). 

Landfill Metrics

For planning purposes, it is assumed there are no constraints on the size or shape of 

the landfill. The landfill should have 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) side slopes. As an 

example of potential volume, it is assumed the landfill will begin placing waste at 

approximately 5 m below grade and will be filled to approximately 18 m above grade. 

These assumptions, such as the depth of excavation, are intended to reflect the 

appropriate soil quantities needed to operate a sanitary landfill. The existing conditions, 

such as the depth of groundwater, are not known at this time and could affect the depth 

of excavation and other related assumptions. It is assumed that approximately one 

quarter of the airspace will be filled with cover soil, which is used to cover lifts of waste 

placed at the end of an operating day. Based on these assumptions, it is estimated that 

the landfill will be approximately 40 hectares and be filled over the course of 

approximately 20 years. 

Landfill Gas Collection and Landfill Gas-to-Energy Systems

Figure 14 shows the amount of landfill gas estimated to be produced by the landfill and 

collected during the first 20 years of operation. Landfill gas production starts out low, but 

increases as more waste is placed in the landfill and the collection system is expanded. 

The project team estimated the capital cost investment needed for the installation of a 

landfill gas collection system and a LFGTE system using IC engines. Based on the 

amount of landfill gas expected to be produced, the LFGTE system could use up to five

IC engines during its years of peak production, which are expected to begin at year 13 

of the landfill life.

The net electrical output with all five engines producing power is estimated to be 

approximately 24,000 megawatt-hours (MWh) per year with a 3-MW system at its peak

and an average of approximately 16,000 MWh per year over the 20-year period used for 
40

modeling purposes. The reader may notice that smaller IC engines are assumed in this 

calculation. The use of smaller, containerized IC engines is common in the LFGTE

industry and allows simple and relatively fast installation/removal as compared to larger 

IC engines. This practice allows the landfill operator to increase or decrease the powergenerating capacity to more closely match the landfill gas generation rate, which

increases slowly over time and then diminishes near the end of the landfill’s life. In 

comparison, gas production from an AD facility is consistent over the life of its operation 

(assuming the feed rate is consistent) and so larger IC engines may be used.

Figure 14. Estimated landfill gas production (first 20 years) 

4.2.6 Modern Sanitary Landfill Planning-Level Cost Estimates

Capital and operating costs were developed for the modern landfill equipped with a 

LFGTE system and are summarized in the following sections. These cost estimates 

were prepared using U.S.-based cost assumptions. Similar to the AD cost estimate 

above, U.S. labor rates were used for both construction and facility operations. The 

conversion of these cost estimates into Haiti-based costs is assumed to be a joint effort 

in a subsequent version of this report. 

Capital Cost Estimate for a Modern Landfill Equipped with a Landfill Gas-to-Energy 

Facility

An order-of-magnitude capital cost estimate (in U.S. dollars) of the modern sanitary 

landfill with a LFGTE facility was developed and will be refined during the next phase of 

preliminary engineering. Costs are preliminary and may fall within +30% and -15% of 

the values presented in Table 9. For clarity, costs in the right-hand column are shown to 

the nearest dollar; total project cost at the end of the table is shown to the nearest 

$100,000. Although shown as a capital cost, the landfill gas collection and power 
41

production system is typically constructed over time as an operational cost. However, 

for comparative purposes, it has been illustrated in the capital cost estimate as an 

attempt to correlate with the AD capital cost above. In reality, the landfill gas collection 

field would be constructed in a series of phases over the 20-year operation of the landfill 

as the waste is filled in modules. Similarly, the addition of IC engines would typically be 

added to the system as the landfill gas generation rate increased over time. The IC 

engines would typically be modular, shipped in pre-manufactured containers to the site 

and connected to the landfill gas collection manifold at the LFGTE power plant site. It is 

also worth noting that costs assume construction in the United States under average 

construction conditions.

Table 9. Opinion of Probable Landfill Capital Construction Cost

Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost

Initial earthwork (excavation for initial 

module) 92,500 m3 $2.65 $245,125 

Truck scale 2 lsa $70,000 $140,000 

Landfill liner, cushion, etc. 343,000 m2 $53.80 $18,453,400 

LCRS 343,000 m2 $21.50 $7,374,500 

LFG collection system 34.35 hectare $86,500 $2,971,275 

LFG flare, blower 1 ls $250,000 $250,000 

LFGTE system (over 20-year period) 1 ls $9,670,000 $9,670,000 

Electrical interconnection 1 ls $250,000 $250,000 

Roadways 1,110 m2 $130 $144,300 

Water well 1 ls $12,000 $12,000 

Fencing and gating 2,344 m $19.70 $46,177

Subtotal $39,556,777 

Engineering, environmental, 

administration, permitting, construction 

management

$7,120,220 

Project Total $46.7 Million 

a ls = lump sum

Overview of Landfill Operating Costs

Table 10 presents an overview of the expected labor requirements for the landfill 

system. These estimates are preliminary and for planning purposes only. The actual 

staffing requirements may be adjusted after final design and based on the availability of 

skilled labor.
42

Table 10. Estimate of Landfill System Staffing Requirements

Weekday 

Operations 

Weekend 

Operations 

Position No. Full-Time Staff No. Full-Time Staff

Heavy Equipment Operator 5 4 

Scale Master/Bookkeeper 2 1 

Spotter/Load Checker 3 2 

Laborer 4 3 

Security 3 3 

Supervisor 1 1 

Manager 1 0 

Site Engineera 0.5 0 

Clerk 2 1 

Mechanicb 0 0 

Total 21.5 15

a Site Engineer does not require a full-time position. b Mechanic not listed as separate line item. Operation costs account for labor for repairs.

Operating costs (to the nearest dollar) were projected for the modern sanitary landfill 

facility and are presented along with annualized capital costs (to the nearest dollar) and 

cost per tonne (to the nearest 10 cents) in Table 11. Key assumptions affecting the 

operations cost estimate include the following:

• The cost of labor is based on U.S. labor rates.

• Adjustments up (for transport, mobilization, etc.) or down (for low cost of labor in 

Haiti) are required to determine the in-country cost.

In addition to operating costs, the following table includes a summary of the total system 

costs, including amortized capital costs, annual revenues and related overall system 

costs. The resulting overall system costs are presented on a per tonne basis to illustrate 

the approximate cost of the landfill system. Revenues from the sale of electricity were 

calculated at $0.20 per kilowatt-hour. A later refinement of the cost estimate may 

include consideration of escalation of both the costs and revenues. 
43

Table 11. Landfill Equipped with LFGTE System Cost Summary Details

Parameters

Total Waste (t/yr) 238,345

Total Waste over Life of Landfill (tonnes) 4,766,900

Life of Landfill (years) 20

Capital Cost

Total Project Capital Cost to the Nearest Dollar, as Calculated in Table 9 $46,676,997

Revenues and Avoided Cost

Unit cost Units Quantity Cost

Electrical Sales Income (net—accounts for parasitic 

load; yearly average, year 1 through year 20) $0.20 kWh 16,260,380 $3,252,076 

Total Revenues and Avoided Cost $3,252,076 

Annual O&M Costs

Unit cost Units Quantity Cost

Landfill Operations $2,543,861 lsa 1 $2,543,861

Environmental Control Systems Operations $163,000 ls 1 $163,000

Post Closure Funding $96,000 ls 1 $96,000

LFGTE Operations (yearly average, year 1 through 

year 20) $578,337 ls 1 $578,337

Total O&M Cost $3,381,198

Total Costs

Total O&M Cost $3,381,198

Total Revenues and Avoided Cost -$3,252,076

Annualized Capital Cost (6.0%, 20 yrs) $4,476,465

Total Annual Cost $4,605,587

Total Cost per Tonne ($/t) $19.30 

a ls = lump sum

4.3 Comparison of Systems

It is anticipated the AD system will produce more power than the modern sanitary 

landfill equipped with a LFGTE system. Table 12 illustrates the expected power 

production from the two systems.

Table 12. Comparison of Annual Power Generation Rates

Waste Management System

Average Power Production Rate per 

Year over 20-Year Operating Period 

(MWh/year) 

Anaerobic Digestion System 38,813

Landfill Equipped with LFGTE System 16,260
44

The landfill option includes disposal of all MSW, but the AD system does not. To fairly 

compare the AD system to the modern sanitary landfill, the project team considered the 

cost of disposing of the residuals of the AD system. For accounting purposes, the AD 

system cost estimate includes a landfill disposal fee of $7/tonne for approximately 

64,000 tonnes of non-digestible materials per year, based on the assumption that the 

MSW residuals would be relatively benign. As a consequence, the landfill accepting the 

AD residuals would not be modernized to include protective liners and caps and would 

not be equipped with a LFGTE system. Instead of providing a detailed tipping fee cost 

estimate of the MRF residues from the AD system, the cost estimate uses a tipping fee 

commensurate with a relatively low-tech landfill, assuming minimal environmental 

controls, operations, etc. Further, the AD system estimate is based on the assumption

the digestate produced by the digestion system will have adequate nutrient and physical 

properties to be used as an agricultural product. The value of the digestate is assumed 

to be zero, so no revenues are included in the economic analysis. Similarly, the cost of 

the digestate is assumed to be zero based on the assumption the agricultural value is 

such that the recipient will be willing to pay for transportation and applying it as a 

fertilizer and soil amendment. 

Table 13 provides a comparison of the amortized capital cost, annual revenue, and 

operations costs. The total annual cost reflected in Table 13 represents an amortized 

capital cost, annual revenue, and annual operating cost to summarize the costs of the 

facility over a 20-year period. Numbers are rounded to the nearest $100,000.

Table 13. Comparison of Key Cost Features

Cost Element Anaerobic Reactor 

($ millions) 

Landfill Equipped 

with LFGTE System

($ millions) 

Amortized Capital Cost $3.9 $4.5

Operations Cost $8.9 $3.4

Annual Revenue $7.8 $3.3

Total Annual Cost $5.0 $4.6

Another useful comparison is the overall system cost per tonne of MSW, which is shown 

in Table 14 (rounded to the nearest 10 cents). 

Table 14. Comparison of System Cost per Tonne 

Waste Management System

Overall System Cost in Terms 

of Total Cost/Total Tonnes 

Received ($/t) 

Anaerobic reactor $21.10

Modern sanitary landfill equipped with LFGTE 

system $19.30
45

5.0 The Power Grid and Potential Interconnects

5.1 Overview of the Power Grid in Haiti

Haiti does not have a national power grid. Instead, there are ten isolated regional grids, 

with power outside of the capital city of Port-au-Prince mostly supplied by diesel 

generating units [15]. 

Haiti’s electricity transmission and distribution (T&D) system was damaged by the 

severe earthquake that struck the country in January 2010, and is in dire need of repair 

[15]. Even prior to the earthquake, the power sector in Haiti was, according to the U.S. 

Dept. of State, among the most problematic in the Western world [16]. Today, only an 

estimated 25% of the population of 10 million people has access to grid electricity at all, 

with most customers receiving only intermittent and unreliable service. In Port-auPrince, for example, electricity is available for an average of only 10 hours per day [15]. 

The electric utility, Electricité d’Haïti (EDH), is an autonomous, government-owned, 

vertically integrated enterprise [38] that faces considerable technical, managerial, and 

financial challenges. It has a monopoly over the transmission and distribution of 

electricity in Haiti, but purchases more than 80% of the energy it distributes from 

independent power producers (IPPs). Technical and commercial losses amount to more 

than 50% of the power produced, and EDH receives payment for only about 30% of the 

electricity it produces or purchases [17]. Half of those Haitians who do have access to 

electricity are connected to the grid illegally [39]. As a result, EDH is unable to cover the 

cost of basic maintenance services, fuel, and payments due for generation under PPAs 

signed with IPPs [17]. 

To maintain its commercial operations, EDH requires an annual subsidy from the 

Government of Haiti of more than $120 million, which represents approximately 12% of 

the national budget [16]. Since 2011, EDH's operations have been managed by Tetra 

Tech Inc., an "operations improvement contractor" recruited by the Government of Haiti 

and financed by USAID [17]. 

In August 2012, the Haitian electricity grid was declared to be in a state of emergency 

[22], a move that should set the stage for significant improvements to the grid, such as 

those outlined in Section 5.6. 

5.2 The Need for Reliable Electricity

Haiti is one of the poorest countries in the world. According to the World Bank, more 

than half of the population lives in absolute poverty (earning less than $1 per day) and 

78% earn less than $2 per day. Roughly 4.5 million Haitians are considered to be 

destitute [17]. 

Providing reliable access to electricity and other energy services is essential to 

achieving an economic recovery in Haiti and improving the quality of life of the 

populace. Industrial and commercial activities are the main drivers of job creation, and 

these activities cannot develop in a sustainable manner without affordable, reliable 
46

electricity. Electricity is also necessary for the delivery of basic services, such as 

healthcare, education, and security. In addition, until alternatives exist, Haitians will 

continue to rely on other energy sources, such as wood and charcoal, for cooking and 

heat, an unsustainable practice that is contributing to health problems and is causing 

continuing environmental damage [17]. 

5.3 The Need for Indigenous Power

Government expenditures on PPAs and imported fuel amounted to $180 million in fiscal 

year 2011. These expenditures are increasing, partly due to an expansion in generating 

capacity, and partly due to increasing oil prices. This expense is unsustainable and 

diverts government funds away from services that it could otherwise be providing for its 

citizens. Haiti is heavily dependent on imported petroleum for power generation, with 

85% of its electricity produced by oil-based generating units, making both the power 

sector and the national budget more vulnerable to external price shocks [15]. 

Some of the oil-based generators in Haiti run on diesel fuel, and others use heavy fuel 

oil (HFO), which could potentially contribute to health problems for Haitians. According 

to E-Power, which operates a 30-MW HFO plant in Port-au-Prince, "heavy fuel oil is a 

viscous residual fuel oil that contains relatively high amounts of pollutants ... however, 

its undesirable properties make it very cheap [18].” 

5.4 The Power Grid in the Port-au-Prince Area

Until the 2010 earthquake, very little was known about the characteristics of the power 

grid in Port-au-Prince. The transmission system was mapped for the first time 

immediately following the earthquake and, as of late 2011, EDH still did not have the 

distribution system mapped [19]. 

As more information about the T&D system has been gathered, the picture is clearer 

today, but there are some discrepancies in the information provided by different credible 

sources. The information presented in this section is the best available as of April 2013.

In 2012, installed generating capacity in the Port-au-Prince metropolitan area was 

roughly 226 MW, of which only 157 MW was actually available to generate electricity, 

with the remainder down due to mechanical or electrical issues. More than half of the 

installed capacity was provided by just four IPPs operating thermal power plants: PBM 

(34-MW HFO), Sogener (36-MW diesel), Haytian Tractor (21-MW diesel), and E-Power 

(30-MW HFO) [15]. 

But the electricity grid is not capable of handling all of the available generation. EDH's 

transmission capacity in the metropolitan area varies between 105 MW and 120 MW, 

depending on the current state of the system. Real-world demand varies from a low of 

75 MW during the night to a high of 120 MW during the day. However, this does not 

take into consideration the suppressed demand from potential customers, such as the 

brewery and the U.S. Embassy, that are not connected to the grid because of reliability 

concerns [9]. 
47

Total potential demand, including suppressed demand, is estimated at somewhere 

between 160 MW peak [9] and 220 MW peak [21], and EDH estimates there are 50,000 

diesel gensets in Port-au-Prince for independent power generation due to reliability 

issues. Annual growth in demand for electricity is expected to be somewhere between 

3% and 5% [9]. 

Figure 15. Transmission lines in Port-au-Prince, 2010: 

69 kV (red) and 115 kV (blue)

Source: Google Earth, edited by Myk Manon

The power grid in the Port-au-Prince area comprises a 56-km transmission line (115 

kilovolt [kV]) connecting the capital to the Péligre hydropower plant, a dispatch center 

operated manually and interconnecting three power plants by a 69-kV transmission line 

of 53 km, nine substations (identified by the yellow arrows on the map above) 

transforming 69 kV in distribution voltage, and 32 distribution circuits totaling 1,029 km 

and transforming 12.5-7.3 kV in 120 V and 240 V [15]. There is a tenth substation 

located at the new E-Power power plant, not shown on the map above, that is 

connected to the grid by a 72.5-kV transmission line [22]. 

The repair and upgrade of five of the substations in Port-au-Prince were identified as 

critical priorities, as the underperformance of these substations was drastically reducing 

the system’s capacity for transmission and distribution of electrical power [16]. 

5.5 Potential Interconnection Locations

As there is currently no map of the distribution system in the metropolitan area (see 

Section 5.4), it is impossible to determine where the proposed anaerobic digestion plant 

at Trutier could connect to the grid. There may be several options, as EDH has 

confirmed that a generating plant at the scale planned for Trutier could tie into 12-kV 
48

lines instead of requiring a connection to the more constrained 69-kV lines [9]. But 

according to the former EDH consultant who created the transmission map shown in 

Figure 15, "The status of the distribution system is in such disarray that any information 

useful for an intertie would be meaningless [19].” 

With only information on the transmission grid available as of April 2013, the nearest 

potential grid intertie for the Trutier plant is the substation at the 30-MW E-Power heavy 

fuel oil plant (labeled with a green "1" in Figure 16), which is served by a 72.5-kV 

transmission line [21], and is located roughly 4.7 km from Trutier. The next-closest 

potential interconnect is at the southeast Varreux substation (labeled with a green "2" in 

Figure 16), which is served by a 69-kV transmission line [19], and is located roughly 6.1 

km away. The distances stated here assume new power lines will follow existing roads 

and not cut through areas occupied by residential and commercial buildings. However, it 

is currently uncertain whether these substations have the capacity to support additional 

generation. 

Figure 16. Potential interconnects for the Trutier power plant (labeled "A") 

Source: Google Earth
49

Planned improvements to the grid and substations in the Port-au-Prince area, to be 

completed in 2013, are expected to clarify options for interconnection. Until these 

upgrades are finished, there is not enough information to make any definitive 

statements about how to connect the proposed AD plant at Trutier to the grid or the 

potential costs of that interconnection.

5.6 Plans to Improve the Grid

The current state of the grid in Haiti in general, and Port-au-Prince in particular, makes 

the addition of significant amounts of new power generation a daunting task. However, 

the local utility and international donor agencies have recognized the importance of a 

reliable electricity grid as a backbone of future economic development and selfsufficiency for Haiti, and several capital improvement projects are already under way or 

planned for the near term. These initiatives should make it easier to add power to the 

grid through projects, such as the proposed Trutier WTE plant.

5.6.1 The Electricité d’Haïti Action Plan

Approved by the EDH Board of Directors in September 2012, the "EDH Action Plan 

2012-2013" outlines the near-term steps EDH will take to reach its ultimate goal of 

providing reliable electricity to its customers. By the end of 2013, EDH will also develop 

a strategic plan for additional improvements over the 2013-2016 time period [22]. 

In the coming year, EDH aims to increase its stated nationwide electricity availability 

from 14 to 18 hours a day. This involves improvements to the T&D grid aimed at 

reducing technical system losses from 16% to 13%, to be accomplished by modernizing 

nine circuits and five substations in the Port-au-Prince area, upgrading the transmission 

line connecting the Péligre hydropower plant to the capital, and adding 126 km of power 

lines in provincial towns.

EDH anticipates these improvements to the T&D system will allow it to concurrently 

increase power production by 24%. It expects to add 35 MW of generating capacity over 

the next three years by overhauling existing thermal and hydroelectric power plants in 

Port-au-Prince and elsewhere.

In order to move toward solvency and ultimately give it the ability to cover the cost of 

ongoing grid maintenance and improvements, the EDH action plan includes measures 

to more than double its income stream over the coming year by installing 110,000 radiofrequency meters for residential customers, 450 m for commercial customers, and in an 

effort to reduce expenditures on power purchase contracts, it will also be metering the 

output of 16 electricity suppliers. It also plans to recover bad debts from more than 

43,000 customers.

This concerted effort by EDH to overhaul its generation and distribution system and 

billing practices bodes well for other power-generation projects, particularly in the Portau-Prince area, which is receiving most of the attention.
50

5.6.2 Grid Projects by International Donors

Many of the improvements EDH cites in its action plan are being carried out by 

international donor agencies, such as USAID, the Inter-American Development Bank 

(IDB), and the World Bank. These three agencies are investing $400 million in the 

rehabilitation and expansion of the generation, transmission, and distribution 

infrastructure throughout Haiti over the next five years, and are supporting EDH in its 

efforts to improve its commercial and financial performance [17]. 

The World Bank is investing $40 million in improving the T&D network in the Port-auPrince area alone, IDB is spending $28 million [17], and USAID is spending $12.7 

million [24] on the rehabilitation of the five substations in Port-au-Prince noted in the 

EDH action plan: Canape Vert, Carrefour Feuille, Toussaint Brave, Croix-des-Bouquets, 

and Nouveau Delmas [40]. Many smaller donors are also supporting improvements to 

the power infrastructure, such as the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, which 

donated $350,000 to EDH to support priority reconstruction projects [24].

5.7 Electricité d’Haïti Revenues, Costs, and Power Purchase 

Agreements Rates

Tetra Tech conducted a commercial analysis of EDH in August 2010 [26], revealing the 

extent of the utility's severe financial imbalance between revenues and costs. The 

operating costs of EDH at that time were about $13.8 million per month, with revenues 

collected far below costs. The revenues recovered before the earthquake, immediately 

after, and in the spring of 2010 are shown in Figure 17. 

Figure 17. EDH costs, revenue collected, and deficit (2010)
51

The budget deficit shows the difference between costs and revenue for the utility, 

yielding a cost recovery rate of approximately 22%. According to an August 2012 report 

by the World Bank, EDH's cost recovery had not improved in the intervening two years 

[15]. This budget gap has traditionally been filled with transfers from the treasury of the 

Government of Haiti.

As of 2012, the residential electricity rate was $0.30/kWh. Commercial and industrial 

rates vary, but can be as high as $0.35/kWh depending on consumption [15].

Tetra Tech's 2010 analysis revealed EDH was paying between $0.16 /kWh and 

$0.30/kWh under existing PPAs. These are the base PPA rates; in some cases, added 

fuel surcharges drive the de facto electricity price as high as $0.34/kWh.6 It is expected 

the Trutier WTE project could operate under a PPA contract with the utility in a similar 

price range.

 

6 Ascertained during an NREL site visit in 2011.
52

6.0 Social and Environmental Factors

The potential social and environmental impacts of a project—such as the health effects 

of air pollutants, contribution to global warming from greenhouse gases, and land-use 

impacts—are not captured or addressed in a simple financial analysis, which is focused 

on direct project cash flows and risk analysis. However, such "externalities" represent 

very real costs and benefits to society, and including them in an economic analysis 

provides a more complete picture of the advantages and disadvantages of each 

proposed project. 

This chapter discusses qualitative social and environmental factors that should be 

considered when developing a WTE project in Haiti. It then derives quantitative 

measures of the costs and benefits associated with those factors for inclusion in a 

holistic economic analysis in Chapter 7.0. 

6.1 Basis for Considering Social and Environmental Factors

Key drivers for consideration of social and environmental factors in development of a 

WTE project lie in three essentially stakeholder-specific categories:

• Legal requirements imposed by the country in which the project is being 

developed

• Principles of project financial risk management

• Social responsibilities involving the local, regional, and global environments [26]. 

Considerations in these categories fall under the rubric of sustainable development, a 

philosophical framework that encourages a holistic approach to project design. This 

approach considers environmental and social aspects not as add-ons, but as primary 

components of project design along with economic considerations. These three 

components, then, are defined to have broad objectives as follows:

• Economic evaluation - maximization of welfare

• Sociological evaluation - social coherence

• Ecological evaluation - preservation of the integrity of ecosystems [26]. 

The World Bank has issued a set of guidelines to be used when preparing an 

environmental assessment (EA) that is accepted by most other financiers. [27, 41]. 

Those guidelines state that potential adverse environmental and social consequences 

should be identified, minimized, and mitigated [26]. Consideration of social and

environmental responsibilities involving local, regional, and global environments is 

required by some government agencies, bilateral and multilateral development 

agencies, various environmental groups, and neighboring communities that may be 

affected [27]. All financiers and some state legal regimes require EAs for energy 

projects [27]. The World Bank’s guidelines are supplemented with notes in an 

environmental assessment sourcebook available on the World Bank website [28]. 
53

6.1.1 Financiers’ Requirements for Sustainable Development

Direct project stakeholders, such as the developer, owner/operator, and financiers, will 

consider social and environmental aspects of development and operation because 

project returns and investments can be ruined by non-adherence to environmental 

standards. Furthermore, changes in environmental requirements imposed upon a 

project over its lifetime pose financial risks to a project [27]. 

6.1.2 Country-Specific Legal Requirements 

Many developing countries have legal requirements regarding the social and 

environmental consequences of development [26]. Though a focused consideration of 

Haitian legal requirements is beyond the scope of this report, the passage in Haiti in 

2002 of “Law on the Investment Code” (modifying the 1989 “Decree on the Investment 

Code”) is noteworthy in that it carves out for “[e]xemptions from duty and from taxes as 

well as other special benefits” and “certain kinds of investments [and investors, both 

national and foreign] likely to increase competitiveness in sectors, which are considered 

priorities or strategically important and because of their respective contributions to 

added value, to the creation of sustainable employment, to the renewal of national 

production equipment; to economic growth; to the reduction of balance of payments 

deficit and to the creation of a national labor force.” The law applies to “enterprises 

working toward improving the environment” and allows the Ministry of the Environment 

to recommend annulment of benefits to those whose processes generate negative 

externalities exceeding generally accepted levels.” 

In other words, Haitian law requires that both internal and external costs and benefits of 

projects are addressed.

The law is also noteworthy in its provision to “any enterprise wishing to establish itself in 

a location where the infrastructures are insufficient or inexistent” authority to “build them 

and to exploit them...” [29]. The law appears to be generally supportive of sustainable 

development investments in Haiti and would likely support the development of the WTE 

projects explored in this report.

6.2 Qualitative Factors

Externalities can be defined as the costs and benefits that arise when the social or 

economic activities of one group of people have an impact on another, and when the 

first group fails to fully account for their impact [30]. The EA takes account of project 

externalities by predicting alternative future states of resources and environment that 

will result from various development paths. It does this by base-lining environmental 

quality parameters, identifying significant impacts the project would have on the 

environment, and then quantifying the environmental impacts and analyzing qualitatively 

those that are less quantifiable [27]. 

A number of studies have discussed the externalities associated with various MSW 

management approaches. This chapter compiles external costs categories from the 

studies reviewed by the NREL team.
54

The practice of landfilling (and dumping) results in numerous environmental impacts 

that can be broadly categorized into two groups:

• Emissions to air, water, and soil

• Impacts in terms of disamenity (visual intrusion, noise, odor, vermin, and litter)

[31]. 

The potential exposure pathways for human health come through:

• Landfill gases

• Airborne dust

• Leachate contamination

• Direct contact (by employees and the public entering contaminated sites).

These externality costs are broader than the disamenity costs enumerated in this 

section and also cover:

• Greenhouse gases (GHGs) causing climate change

• Conventional air pollutants and airborne toxic substances causing health effects

• Leachate to soil and water

• Risks of accidents and potential exposure at closed sites [32]. 

6.2.1 Emissions from Dumps and Landfills 

AEA Technology (1998) calculates that in a landfill containing 1 million tonnes of mixed 

waste, 7 m3 of landfill gas with a methane content of 50% can be produced every year 

by every tonne of waste. Methane is a more potent GHG than carbon dioxide (CO2), 

albeit with a shorter atmospheric life. Landfill gas, mostly methane and CO2 created by 

the decomposition of wastes in a landfill, can continue to be emitted for 25 to 30 years 

after closure of a landfill site. Furthermore, volatile organic compounds (such as 

benzene and vinyl chloride) that are toxic or carcinogenic may cause health effects.

As for adverse health effects of living in proximity to landfill sites, the SAHSU (2001 and 

2001b) study in the UK examined birth weights and cancers for residents living closer 

than 2 km to landfill sites. The study concluded there are small but significant excess 

health risks associated with living close to landfill sites [31]. Adverse health effects from 

modern landfills in the United Kingdom might be expected to have less severe health 

impacts than an open dump, such as Trutier, near the urban center Port-au-Prince.

Exposure to air and water pollution from some old-style landfills has been linked to 

developmental abnormalities, low birth weights, and cancer. A 1995 Canadian study 

showed high rates of stomach and cervical cancer among women living near a landfill 

and higher than normal incidence of stomach, liver, and prostate cancer in men. 

Concentrations of up to 25 parts per million of methane and known carcinogens 

benzene and vinyl chloride were recorded on streets near the landfill [33]. 

Dumps and landfills without liners can leach chemicals from discarded items, such as 

batteries, paints, and cleaners, directly into underground aquifers used for drinking 
55

water. Water samples taken downslope of a municipal landfill that closed in 1985 in 

Norman, Oklahoma, revealed significant levels of benzene, toluene, and vinyl chloride. 

A study published in the March 1998 issue of Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety

recorded levels of these chemicals sufficient to cause abnormalities and death in 

amphibian embryos, though whether the toxicants posed a danger to humans in the 

area could not be confirmed. Unregulated landfills or dumps compound concerns about 

leachate because of the difficulty of knowing what they contain, making it difficult to 

know what types of toxicants to test for and what types of interactions may occur 

between different materials [32] 

Uncovered landfills can also be a major source of biological contaminants, such as 

Clostridium botulinum (the bacterium that causes botulism), which can be carried by 

seagulls and other scavengers who feed at landfills [33]. 

6.2.2 Disamenity Costs of Dumps and Landfills 

Disamenity costs can be thought of as those local nuisance costs, such as odor, dust, 

noise, vermin, and visual intrusion, experienced by households living close to a landfill 

that are associated with it [31]. 

Although these findings are not necessarily directly translatable to Haiti, it is interesting 

to note that a number of U.S. property price studies have found a significant effect on 

house prices associated with the existence of nearby landfill sites:

• In general, no price effects for houses farther than four miles (6.4 km) away from 

a site.

• As a rule of thumb, house prices increase by 5%-8% per mile (per 1.6 km) 

distance from a landfill site within a four-mile (6.4-km) radius.

• Studies focusing on shorter distances have found very large declines in prices of 

houses of close proximity to landfills (21%-30% within 0.25-0.5 mile, or 0.40-0.80 

km) [31]. 

6.2.3 Benefits of Biodigester Waste-to-Energy 

Energy empowerment is directly linked to poverty reduction, and quality of life has been 

said to be proportionally related to per capita energy use of a nation. Furthermore, in 

countries with electricity infrastructure that adequately serve only a fraction of the 

population, there is an opportunity to build a grid infrastructure that will accommodate a 

diversity of generation the future of renewable energy supply may require [33]. 

The potential labor intensity of biogas energy production and other activities in waste 

management presents opportunities for employment and broader income distribution. 

The economy can also be expected to benefit from the energy produced by WTE as a 

substitution for imported fossil fuels, potentially improving balance of payments and 

reducing exposure to risks of external price and currency fluctuations affecting prices of 

imported fossil fuels [33]. 
56

Biogas treatment of organic wastes (and other integrated waste management 

measures) can reduce expenditures on health care through significant improvements in 

sanitary and health conditions in the community served. This can manifest as a 

reduction in impact of intestinal diseases, which occurred in rural China with a reduction 

of schistosomiasis by 99%, as well as a reduction in tapeworm infections to 13% of prebiogas levels with the introduction of biogas technology [33]. 

As biogas facilities produce rich organic waste, fertilizers, as a byproduct, can be used 

to replace commercial fertilizers. Inorganic fertilizers are often provided by means of 

subsidies, representing an opportunity for economic savings or repurposing of subsidies 

to support renewable energy and soil replacement work [33] in Haiti, which faces a 

challenging food security problem because the poor quality of its soils permits very little 

farming activity [34]. 

6.2.4 Baseline: Trutier Waste Facility 

There are a number of possible alternatives to the WTE project under consideration. 

The business-as-usual case, in which Trutier is left as a trash dump with some areas 

operated as an unlined landfill, is the baseline. There are a number of challenges and 

uncertainties associated with a cost-benefit analysis using the Trutier dump scenario as 

a baseline, however. First, the current costs of operating the dump are not known and 

should be accounted for. Second, there are a number of uncertainties in valuing the 

externalities associated with an open dump such as Trutier. Such valuations tend to be 

highly location-specific, and externalities valuation studies such as those that have been 

done in the first world have not similarly been carried out in developing countries. With 

these caveats in mind, however, this study will present unqualified ranges of valuations 

from these studies somewhat as scoring mechanisms to indicate relative levels of 

impact of various externalities.

Another approach to assigning a cost to a given externality, however, is calculation of 

the cost of elimination or mitigation of that externality. In the case of an open, unlined 

dump, for example, the negative value of the leachate externality might be calculated as 

the monetized sum of the negative external environmental including health effects. 

Another approach might be to calculate the cost of installing a liner and leachate 

collection or collection and recirculation system to mitigate or eliminate those negative 

externalities, and use the cost of mitigation as a stand-in for the cost of the externality 

(an arguably much more difficult and uncertain quantity to calculate).

Another perspective that would appear to agree with this approach is the assessment 

that the Trutier dump in its current state is not a legitimate baseline by virtue of the 

standards the United Nations, the World Bank, and other development agencies and 

financiers apply to development projects. Arguably, certain costs should be incorporated 

into the baseline analysis of any situation below environmental standards of the 

prospective project participants.
57

6.3 Social and Environmental Cost-Benefit Parameters

Full-cost (or true-cost) accounting, cost-benefit analysis (CBA), and the life cycle 

assessment are methods for ascertaining holistic views of the impacts of alternative

scenarios for the Trutier waste site. A CBA is a systematic process for calculating and 

comparing benefits and costs of a project, decision, or government policy [35]. The 

analysis accounts for the consequences of a project or policy, which may include not 

only those for the immediate project participants and users, but also those for nonusers 

or nonparticipants, externality effects, and other social benefits. 

6.3.1 Externalities for Landfills with and without Landfill Gas Collection 

Table 15 summarizes the economic valuations of externalities from landfills collected 

from various studies. The values are given in 2012 dollars per tonne of waste disposed 

of at a landfill, and are presented as the best estimate, the low values, and the high 

values from the studies. Most of the global warming costs valuation is due to methane. 

Pollution displacement (at the modern containment landfill) assumes a LFGTE system 

producing electricity and heat displaces electricity from an oil-fired power plant and heat 

by an oil-fired district heating system. 

Table 15. Economic Valuations of Externalities from Landfills ($/tonne)a

Best 

Estimate Low High

Unmodernized landfill with no liner and no LFG collection

 Contribution to global warming 9.860 2.465 28.349

 Damage from air emissions 0.000 0.000 0.000

 Damage from leachate 1.849 1.233 2.465

 Disamenity 12.326 7.395 23.418

 Pollution displacement (LFGTE vs. oil-fired generation) 0.000 0.000 0.000

Modern containment landfill with LFG electricity generation

 Contribution to global warming 6.163 1.233 17.256

 Damage from air emissions 0.123 0.025 0.247

 Damage from leachate 0.000 0.000 1.233

 Disamenity 12.326 7.395 23.418

 Pollution displacement (LFGTE vs. oil-fired generation) -3.698 -11.093 0.000

Source: European Commission, 2000. 

a Source figures were in year 2000 euros. They were converted to 2012 U.S. dollars using the following data: the 

average bid/ask midpoint exchange rate for 2000 was 0.924645 EUR/USD (www.ONADA.com), and the cumulative 

USD inflation rate from 2000 to 2012 was 33%. This gives a conversion factor for EUR (2000) to USD (2012) of 

1.23255.

6.3.2 Externality Costs for Trutier Development Scenarios

A baseline and two development scenarios were envisioned for CBA of alternatives at 

the Trutier site. The baseline is an open dump with no leachate containment. One 

scenario is a modern landfill with LFG electricity generation. The other scenario is a 

modern anaerobic digestion facility with presorting and recycling, electricity generation 
58

from the gas product of the digestion, provision of the digestate to stakeholders who 

would haul the digestate away to be spread as a soil amendment, and the nondigestible portion of the waste continuing to be placed in the existing Trutier waste 

disposal site. 

Because externality costs were not available for the exact scenarios contemplated as 

alternatives for analysis at Trutier, NREL utilized the externalities costs found in the 

literature and derived from them externalities costs that should be reasonable 

approximations of externalities costs for the alternatives contemplated for Trutier. Table

16 lists the externalities costs derived for the three alternatives. The derivations and 

rationale are described in the following paragraphs.

Table 16. Derived Externalities Costs for Three Alternative Scenarios at Trutier ($/tonne) 

Unmodernized 

Landfill 

Modern Landfill with 

LFG Generation

Anaerobic 

Digestion

Global Warming 15.000 6.163 2.582

Air Emissions 0.000 0.025 0.025

Leachate 1.849 0.000 0.000

Disamenity 3.000 3.000 3.000

Pollution Displacement (LFGTE vs. oil) 0.000 -1.627 -3.883

Total Net Cost (Externalities Only) 19.849 7.560 1.723

A number of influences were considered qualitatively and the factors adjusted 

accordingly in an effort to translate them from metrics for developed countries with 

much more land area to a third-world small island nation. The literature notes the 

different ways in which the factors were derived—some were derived via a “cost of 

mitigation” approach, while others were derived with a “cost of impact” approach.

Global Warming Components 

Given the comparatively high percentage of organic solids in the Port-au-Prince waste 

stream, methane emissions will likewise be higher as the waste degrades in an open 

dump. Estimates of external costs due to global warming from old landfills ranged from 

$2 to $23 per tonne with the best estimate at $10 per tonne. A conservative estimate of 

the impact of the much higher organic solids content in the waste stream and 

correspondingly higher expected methane emissions, which are said to make up much 

more of the global warming impact from the waste than the CO2 emissions, justifies a 

number closer to the upper estimate. Fifteen dollars per tonne is still closer to the best 

estimate than to the upper end, but may help account for the expected higher methane 

emissions from an open dump with waste with high organic solids content. The best 

value given in the literature for a modern landfill with LFG generation is $6.163 per 

tonne. 

Anaerobic digestion will have a much diminished global warming impact because it is 

“digesting” the organics much more thoroughly than the LFG case, as may be 
59

evidenced by the additional energy production of the AD facility. Probably a more 

efficient collection and capture of the combustible gases as well as GHGs. Utilizing the 

energy production comparison factor as a scaling factor for difference in GHG 

production and capture between the AD scenario and the LFG generation scenario.

Air Emissions

The externality effects of waste disposal systems are highly dependent on the 

circumstances surrounding the specific site for disposal and the contents of the waste 

streams. Also, some categories of externalities are very local in their effects (proximate 

to the disposal site or the relatively local collection and transportation routes to the site), 

whereas others, such as global warming, affect the global commons and have 

geographically broader effects. In the case of harmful emissions to the atmosphere 

other than greenhouse gases, the harmful effects of air emissions may be considered to 

be relatively more local than global. The harmful effects of air emissions depend to 

some extent on the degree of dilution and dispersion of the emission flume as it is 

carried away from the site. Because Haiti is on an island and some air emissions will be 

dispersed over the ocean, NREL chose to use the low estimate for the external costs of 

air emissions. However, it should be noted that if the costs were based on the cost of 

mitigation, the value would be higher as a result of the emissions controls that would 

have to be added to the WTE project.

It may be that AD offers advantages in terms of the relative impact of air emissions over 

modern landfill flaring of gases and landfill with flaring and LFG electric power 

generation because of the waste sorting that precedes AD in the waste stream process, 

which might be expected to reduce the relative levels of volatile organic compounds in 

the gases that are combusted, leading to a cleaner-burning fuel in the AD case.

However, as this difference is uncertain, NREL chose to use the same emissions 

externality cost for LFGTE and AD scenarios.

Leachate 

For the old landfill, NREL used the best value estimate. This may be an underestimate 

of potential impacts of leachate and/or runoff cost as it does not take into consideration 

the costs associated with potential leachate penetration into the aquifer that is located 

under Trutier. For the modern landfill with LFG generation and AD cases, leachate 

management systems in the case of the former, and the waste sorting, processing, and 

then digestate handling systems in the latter, are thought to bring this cost to zero.

Disamenity

Disamenity costs are almost completely focused on effects on property values, and the 

studies that produced these figures were all done in developed countries where 

residents have more choice about where they live and land valuations are substantially 

higher than in Haiti. For this reason, NREL chose to use conservative estimates of the 

disamenity effects of proximity to waste disposal sites, using values below the lowest 

estimate in the first-world studies ($7-$23, with a best estimate of $12/tonne [did not

change for type of facility]) and $3/tonne for all other scenarios. 
60

Pollution Displacement (Landfill Gas-to-Energy vs. Oil) 

The pollution displacement figure used for the LFGTE scenario is based on the best 

value number for displacing oil-fired power generation but is reduced to 46% of its 

original value because the best value estimate given in the source study is based on 

combined heat and power (CHP) generation from LFG with the heat utilized in a district 

heating application. In a modern, efficient CHP engine that includes all the cost-effective 

heat recovery equipment and 95% mechanical to electrical energy conversion, 46% of 

the useable output is electrical energy and 54% is useable heat. This study thus used a 

cost that was 46% of the number in the original study.
61

7.0 Financial and Economic Analysis

This section considers the costs of various options for the Trutier waste site. Due to the 

many uncertainties regarding material, equipment, and labor costs in Haiti, U.S. 

mainland costs are provided. 

First, the planning-level facility cost estimates for three scenarios are reviewed: 

1. Leaving Trutier as a waste dump/unlined landfill—this is the baseline or 

business-as-usual scenario

2. Improving the Trutier waste site to modern landfill standards with a landfill gas 

capture system and electricity generation from the landfill gas

3. Constructing an AD facility at the Trutier waste site with electricity generation 

from the digester gas. 

This section then presents financial analyses of each scenario first with capital costs 

undertaken by the project itself, then with capital costs covered by contributors. Finally, 

the economic (cost-benefit) analysis of each scenario, incorporating the quantified 

estimates of externalities that were derived in Section 0, is presented. 

7.1 Cost Summary

7.1.1 Scenario 1: Waste Dump

It is assumed there is no capital cost in the baseline scenario of the existing Trutier

waste facility. The baseline operating cost per tonne of waste disposal at the Trutier 

waste facility was estimated to be $7/tonne.

7.1.2 Scenario 2: Modern Landfill with Landfill Gas Capture and Electricity Generation

This scenario considers the financial consequences of improving the Trutier waste site 

to modern landfill standards with a landfill gas capture system and electricity generation 

from the landfill gas.

Table 17 shows the estimated capital costs for constructing an LFGTE facility would be 

$46.7 million. Note that costs in the right-hand column are shown to the nearest dollar; 

total cost at the end of the table is shown to the nearest $100,000.
62

Table 17. Scenario 2 Total Capital Costs

Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost

Initial earthwork (excavation for initial 

module) 92,500 m3 $2.65 $245,125

Truck scale 2 lsa $70,000 $140,000 

Landfill liner, cushion, etc. 343,000 m2 $53.80 $18,453,400 

LCRS 343,000 m2 $21.50 $7,374,500 

LFG collection system 34.35 hectare $86,500 $2,971,275 

LFG flare, blower 1 ls $250,000 $250,000 

LFG collection and LFGTE system (over 

20-year period) 1 ls $9,670,000 $9,670,000 

Electrical interconnection 1 ls $250,000 $250,000 

Roadways 1,110 m2 $130 $144,300 

Water well 1 ls $12,000 $12,000 

Fencing and gating 2,344 m $19.70 $46,177 

Subtotal $39,556,777 

Engineering, environmental, 

administration, permitting, construction 

management $7,120,220 

Project Total $46.7 Million 

a ls = lump sum

Table 18 shows estimated annual revenues from electricity sales would be roughly $3.3 

million, and the annual operating costs for an LFGTE facility would be roughly $3.4 

million. Costs in the right-hand column are shown to the nearest dollar.
63

Table 18. Scenario 2 Annual Operating Costs

Parameters

Total waste (t/yr) 238,345

Total waste over life of landfill (tonnes) 4,766,900

Life of landfill (years) 20

Capital Cost

Project total $46,676,997 

Revenues and Avoided Cost

 Unit cost Units Quantity 

Annual 

Income

Electrical sales income (net—accounts for 

parasitic load; yearly average, year 1 through 

year 20) $0.20 kWh 16,260,380 $3,252,076 

Total revenues and avoided cost $3,252,076 

Annual O&M Costs

 Unit cost Units Quantity Cost

Landfill operations $2,543,861 lsa 1 $2,543,861 

Environmental control systems operations $163,000 ls 1 $163,000 

Post closure funding $96,000 ls 1 $96,000 

LFGTE operations (yearly average, year 1 

through year 20) $578,337 ls 1 $578,337 

Total O&M Cost $3,381,198 

a ls = lump sum

7.1.3 Scenario 3: Anaerobic Digestion Facility with Electricity Generation

This scenario considers the financial consequences of constructing an AD facility at the 

Trutier waste site with electricity generation from the digester gas.

Table 19 shows the estimated capital costs for constructing an AD facility would be 

$40.5 million. Costs in the right-hand column are shown to the nearest dollar; the total 

cost at the end of the table is shown to the nearest $100,000.

Table 19. Scenario 3 Total Capital Costs

Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost

Earthwork (excavation, backfill, structural fill) 1 ls $275,000 $275,000

Truck scale 2 ls $70,000 $140,000 

Preprocessing system consisting of two 

presorting conveyors (loading conveyors, sorting 

conveyors and platforms, magnets, trommel 

screens, and one grinder with in-feed conveyor

1 ls $2,588,000 $2,588,000

Equipment foundations (two conveyor systems, 

one grinder) 1 ls $150,000 $150,000 

Vehicle unloading/circulation, and 1/2 loader 

circulation area (paved, uncovered) 485 m2 $86.50 $41,953
64

Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost

Preprocessing building enclosure, concrete slab 

foundation, overhead lighting 5,000 m2 $700 $3,500,000 

Groundwater pumping 1 ls $10,000 $10,000 

Receiving pit 1 ls $128,000 $128,000 

Dosing feed augers 1 ea $20,000 $20,000 

Dose tank (heated and covered) 2,000 m3 $290.50 $581,000 

Dose tank mixers 1 ea $40,000 $40,000 

AD reactor feed pumps 3 ea $9,500 $28,500 

AD reactor tanks (heated and covered, includes 

foundations) 12,200 m3 $237.50 $2,897,500

AD reactor mixing system 1 ls $2,400,000 $2,400,000 

AD reactor heating tubes and hot water pumps 1 ls $204,000 $204,000 

Digestate pumping 2 ea $14,000 $28,000 

Centrifuges 2 ea $440,000 $880,000 

Centrifuge hoppers and conveyors 2 ea $23,000 $46,000 

Centrate storage tank 38 m3 $317 $12,046

Centrate pumps 2 ea $4,000 $8,000 

Yard piping (buried process, water, sewer, drain 

piping) 1 ls $275,000 $275,000 

Miscellaneous metals—stairways and platforms 1 ls $30,000 $30,000 

Equipment building 500 m2 $492 $246,000 

Biogas scrubber 1 ls $500,000 $500,000 

IC engines and heat recovery modules 3 ea $1,700,000 $5,100,000 

Engine building 400 m2 $492 $196,800 

Biogas emergency flare and safety equipment 1 ls $145,000 $145,000 

Electrical interconnection 1 ls $250,000 $250,000 

Roadways 1,110 m2 $130 $144,300 

Landscaping 1 ls $15,000 $15,000 

Water well 1 ls $12,000 $12,000 

Centrate evaporation pond earthwork 1 ls $100,000 $100,000 

Centrate evaporation pond synthetic liner 60,800 m2 $13.50 $820,800 

Fencing and gating 1 ls $25,000 $25,000 

Subtotal $21,837,899

Electrical/I&C $2,620,548

Mechanical $1,965,411

Subtotal with subcontractors $26,423,858

Undefined scope/contingency $3,963,579

Contractor administration $792,716

Contractor profit and overhead $3,170,863
65

Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost

Construction Total $34,351,016 

Engineering, environmental, administration, permitting, 

construction management $6,183,183 

Project Total $40.5 Million a ls = lump sum

Table 20 shows estimated annual revenues from electricity sales for an AD facility 

would be roughly $7.8 million, and the annual operating costs would be roughly $8.9 

million. The cost of digestate disposal is assumed to be zero, as there are economically 

productive applications for this digestate (see Section 7.3). However, NREL was not 

able to determine the financial value of potential digestate sales, so income from 

digestate sales is also assumed to be zero. Note that costs in the right-hand column are 

shown to the nearest dollar.

Table 20. Scenario 3 Annual Operating Costs

Parameters

Total waste (tonnes/yr) 238,345

Contamination level (%) 27%

Organic waste (tonnes/yr) 173,992

Tonnes contamination for disposal (tonnes/yr) 64,353

Tonnes digestate for reuse as soil amendment (tonnes/yr) 70,638

Capital Cost

Project capital cost total from Table 19 $40,534,199

Revenues and Avoided Cost

Unit cost Units Quantity Annual Income

Sale of digestate $0 t/yr 70,638 $0 

Electrical sales income (net—

accounts for parasitic load) $0.20 kWh 38,812,657 $7,762,531 

Total revenues and avoided cost $7,762,531

Annual O&M Costs

Unit cost Units Quantity Cost

Labor $8,108,173

Equipment maintenance (including

digester cleaning every three 

years) 

$354,279

Landfill disposal of non-organics $7 t/yr 64,353 $450,471 

Disposal of digestate $0 t/yr 70,638 $0

Total O&M Cost $8,912,923 
66

7.2 Financial Analysis 

This section presents comparative financial analyses of each scenario with capital costs 

undertaken by the project itself and with capital costs covered by contributors. Annual 

and per-tonne costs are provided. Capital costs include the cost of raising capital and 

the cost of borrowing (at 6% per year).

Table 21 shows the net annual costs of the business-as-usual scenario (keeping Trutier 

as a waste dump/unlined landfill) are roughly $1.7 million. 

Assuming an energy-generation facility is developed as a commercial venture (capital 

costs included in calculations), the LFG facility would have a net cost of roughly $4.6 

million per year, and the AD facility would have a net cost of roughly $5.0 million.

Assuming capital costs are covered by the donor community, the LFG facility would 

have a net cost of roughly $0.1 million per year, and the AD facility would have a net 

cost of roughly $1.2 million. Note this is not an apples-to-apples comparison, as the total 

capital cost of the LFG facility is $6.2 million higher than the cost of the AD facility.

Table 21. Net Annual Costs for Each Scenario ($ millions)

Scenario 1: 

Waste Dump

Scenario 2: 

LFG Electricity 

Generation

Scenario 3: AD 

Electricity 

Generation

Annual amortized capital cost 0 4.476 3.887 

Annual O&M cost 1.668 3.381 8.913 

Annual revenues and avoided costs 0 -3.252 -7.763 

Net annual cost (capital costs included) 1.668 4.606 5.038 

Net annual cost (capital costs covered by donors) 1.668 0.129 1.152

Table 22 shows the net cost of the business-as-usual scenario is $7.00/tonne. Note that 

all of the figures in the table are rounded to the nearest ten cents.

Assuming an energy-generation facility is developed as a commercial venture (capital 

costs included in calculations), the LFG facility would have a net cost of roughly 

$19.30/tonne, and the AD facility would have a net cost of roughly $21.10/tonne.

Assuming capital costs are covered by the donor community, the LFG facility would 

have a net cost of roughly $0.50/tonne, and the AD facility would have a net cost of 

roughly $4.80/tonne. 
67

Table 22. Net per Tonne Costs for Each Scenario ($/tonne) 

Scenario 1: 

Waste Dump

Scenario 2: 

LFG Electricity 

Generation

Scenario 3: AD 

Electricity 

Generation

Per tonne capital cost 0 18.80 16.30 

Per tonne O&M cost 7.00 14.20 37.40 

Per tonne revenues and avoided costs 0 -13.60 -32.60 

Net per tonne cost (capital costs included) 7.00 19.30 21.10 

Net per tonne cost (capital costs covered by donors) 7.00 0.50 4.80 

7.3 Economic Analysis

This section presents a per-tonne economic analysis of the three scenarios, including 

capital costs in the calculations and incorporating the quantified estimates of 

externalities costs that were derived in Section 0. As described in Section 0, financial 

analysis is focused on direct project cash flow and does not take into consideration the 

potential environmental costs and benefits of projects, such as emissions of air 

pollutants and GHG or land-use impacts. Such externalities represent very real costs 

and benefits to society, and including them in an economic analysis provides a more 

complete picture of the advantages and disadvantages of each scenario. 

Table 23 shows that, when quantifiable project externalities are included, the cost of 

continuing to operate the Trutier waste site as a dump/unlined landfill grows to 

$26.80/tonne, upgrading the site to a lined landfill with LFG electricity generation would 

cost $26.90/tonne, and upgrading the site to an AD plant with electricity generation 

would cost $22.90/tonne. All of the figures in the table are rounded to the nearest ten 

cents. Negative costs are benefits. 

Table 23. Per Tonne Economic Analysis for Each Scenario ($/tonne) 

Scenario 1: 

Waste Dump

Scenario 2:

LFG Electricity 

Generation

Scenario 3:

AD Electricity

Generation

Net project-direct cost—financial analysis (Table 22) 7.00 19.30 21.10 

Net project externalities (Table 16) 19.80 7.60 1.70 

Total net cost—economic analysis 26.80 26.90 22.90 

These net economic cost figures include the externalities noted in Section 0. Many 

external costs and benefits are difficult to capture, and there are other externalities that 

NREL was not able to quantify, such as the value to the local economy the jobs that 

could be created at the facility adds, the greater economic security provided by the 

additional electricity generation, and the additional food security and employment in 

farming and forestry industries that could result from the application of a nutrient-rich 

fertilizer/soil-amendment byproduct (the AD digestate) to agricultural land and 
68

deforested hillsides. Inclusion of a broader range of externalities would likely improve 

the economics of both the LFG and AD scenarios, particularly the AD scenario. 

7.4 Economic Sensitivities to Variables

To explore the economic effect of key assumptions noted above on the economic pro 

forma, a sensitivity analysis of the impact of these variables was prepared. The key 

variables explored include the effect of:

• Haitian labor rates 

• The spreading of digestate for the AD option 

• Trutier waste facility operations for the placement of residuals for the AD facility 

option. 

This analysis was prepared as follows:

The effect of using Haitian labor rates as opposed to U.S. labor rates7 was explored by 

applying a ratio of the Haitian labor rate8 of $0.90 per hour compared to $8.00 per hour 

for minimum wage labor in California, United States, which was the source of the 

reference facilities developed for this report (California's minimum wage is higher than 

the U.S. federal minimum wage of $7.25). This ratio of labor rates was applied to all 

operational labor rates developed in the prior analysis. The result is a significant 

reduction in operations costs from $8.9 million to $1.7 million for the AD option as 

illustrated in column AD 1 of Table 24. Similarly, the lower labor rates were applied to 

the landfill option. The reduced operations costs are less significant due to the lesser 

reliance on labor and higher reliance on heavy operating equipment. The reduced 

Haitian labor rates are shown in column LF 1. 

While this reduction in cost is attractive to the project pro forma, it does not necessarily 

convey an accurate economic projection of the facility cost. Instead, there are likely to 

be labor-related costs that are both higher and lower than the U.S. labor cost included in 

the original pro forma. For example, it is unlikely that low-cost Haitian labor can be used 

to operate and maintain the equipment to the satisfaction of the manufacturer’s 

warranty. Also, it may be appropriate to include elevated cost of construction labor to 

mobilize and construct either of the facilities. At this point, the higher cost for importing 

skilled labor to construct, operate, and maintain the system is not known and has not 

been included in this sensitivity analysis. The important point to consider is the possible 

variability in the project pro forma due to this single issue of the cost of labor. 

 

7 U.S. federal minimum wage is $7.25 for an eight-hour day (www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/america.htm), although 19 

states have minimum wages higher than this.

8 Daily minimum wage: 300 Haitian gourdes (HTG) = $7.24. One U.S. dollar = 41.4474 HTG using mid-market rates 

as of 19:22 UTC Nov. 21, 2013 (www.xe.com/currency/htg-haitian-gourde?r=3). The Haitian standard work week is 

eight hours per day and 48 hours per week (which means a six-day work week), according to Article 96 of the Haitian 

Labor Code as reported in Haiti Libre on Sept. 14, 2012 (www.haitilibre.com/en/news-6645-haiti-economy-minimumwage-300-gourdes-on-1-october-2012.html). 
69

The effect of paying for the spreading of digestate to reflect a similar approach to the 

use of wastewater treatment biosolids as land application was explored. Although the 

digestate material may have agricultural properties, the agricultural community may not 

be capable or interested in acquiring and using the material. To maintain a functioning 

facility, the digestate will need to be removed from the site regardless of the agricultural 

community’s appetite. So, similar to a wastewater treatment plant with excess biosolids 

in the U.S., the cost of applying the material may need to be incorporated into the cost 

of the facility. The increased cost associated with spreading digestate as opposed to the 

currently modeled assumption of the digestate being free at the facility but necessitating 

those interested in paying for hauling and spreading of the digestate was explored. The 

estimated cost of $100/wet tonne was used to reflect the approximate cost for hauling (a 

distance of no more than 20 km) and spreading the digestate similar to that of land 

application of biosolids. This increase in costs is reflected by an increase in the 

operations cost of approximately $2.12 million per year. Assuming the reduced Haitian 

labor rates in column AD 1 of Table 24, the resulting operations cost of $3.84 million in 

column AD 2 illustrates these costs with the increased digestate spreading cost.

The effect of increased Trutier waste facility operations cost was also explored. The 

increased cost of waste receipt and placement was increased from the prior $7/tonne to

$20/tonne. The $20/tonne figure is intended to reflect the cost of a landfill equipped with 

a liner and modern sanitary waste placement protocols, but not necessarily a landfill gas 

collection system or related improvements. This change of waste disposal costs would 

increase the operations cost by approximately $1.35 million per year. Building on the 

prior analysis and using the lower Haitian labor with the increased digestate spreading 

cost, the resulting operations cost is $5.19 million, as shown in column AD 3 of Table 

24. 
70

Table 24. Economic Sensitivity to Variables of Key Cost Factors

AD 1 AD 2 AD 3 LF 1

Cost 

Element

Anaerobic 

Reactor 

(as 

presented 

in Table 

13)

Anaerobic 

Reactor 

Using 

Haitian 

Operations 

Labor 

Rates

Anaerobic 

Reactor 

Using 

Haitian 

Operations 

Labor 

Rates, 

Including 

Digestate 

Spreading 

Cost

Anaerobic 

Reactor 

Using 

Haitian 

Operations 

Labor Rates, 

Including 

Digestate 

Spreading 

and 

Improved 

Trutier LF 

Cost

Landfill 

Equipped 

with LFGTE 

System (as 

presented in 

Table 13)

Landfill 

Equipped 

with LFGTE 

System 

Using 

Haitian 

Operations 

Labor Rates

($ 

millions) ($ millions) ($ millions) ($ millions) ($ millions) ($ millions)

Amortized 

Capital Cost $3.90 $3.90 $3.90 $3.90 $4.50 $4.50 

Operations 

Cost $8.90 $1.72 $3.84 $5.19 $3.40 $1.95 

Annual 

Revenue $7.80 $7.80 $7.80 $7.80 $3.30 $3.30 

Total Annual 

Cost $5.00 -$2.18 -$0.06 $1.29 $4.60 $3.15 

Tip Fee $/T 

(not $ M): $20.98 -$9.16 -$0.27 $5.40 $19.30 $13.21 

These ranges of operating costs affect the total overall system cost and corresponding 

Tip Fee estimate as illustrated in Table 24. As a sensitivity analysis, these three key 

assumptions have the capability to cause significant changes in the economic pro forma 

of the project. They do not necessarily illustrate the full range in cost of the facility. 

Rather, these changes in the economic pro forma demonstrate the level uncertainty in 

the economic performance of the facility. 

7.5 Conclusion

Using a simple financial analysis, an LFGTE facility would be the lowest-cost electricitygeneration option for the Trutier waste site. If the project is developed as a commercial 

venture (i.e., including capital costs), the LFGTE facility would have a net cost of 
71

roughly $19.30/tonne, versus $21.10/tonne for an AD facility. If capital costs are 

covered by the donor community, the LFGTE facility would have a net operating cost of 

roughly $0.50/tonne, versus $4.80/tonne for an AD facility.

Using an economic analysis that includes quantifiable environmental costs and benefits, 

an AD facility would be the lowest-cost electricity-generation option for the Trutier site, 

costing roughly $22.90/tonne, versus $26.90/tonne for an LFGTE facility. 
72

8.0 Project Development Steps

This section outlines the project development considerations for an AD WTE project at 

the Trutier waste site in Haiti. It uses NREL’s SROPTTCTM project development 

framework to examine the key issues and identifies the next steps needed to move the 

project forward. NREL utilizes a standardized, proven project development framework 

when analyzing and supporting projects. This framework highlights the key steps in 

project-level development. These steps and the current information for each step are 

described below. 

In the second phase of the project, a waste sort was performed by UNOPS, and it 

appears the waste stream going to the landfill is larger than previously estimated. The 

waste sort also confirmed that AD is likely the preferred technology for a WTE system 

due to the high proportion of moist organics in the waste stream. With these findings, 

the project team evaluated project-level considerations and identified steps to reduce

any uncertainties associated with the project. 

8.1 Site

The choice of site for a WTE project is paramount to project success. A site with 

desirable characteristics, such as easy access, proximity to existing waste streams, 

available water, access to electric transmission, and off-take potential is needed. NREL 

identified several sites and ranked them for desirability [36]. Based on the sites visited 

and discussions with UNOPS and SMCRS, the preferred location for a WTE plant is the 

Trutier waste site. There is available land, and waste would not have to be diverted from 

current transport routes. Land would need to be acquired (leased or purchased) at each 

of the other potential locations. The rankings and NREL's discussions with project 

stakeholders show a clear preference for Trutier as the WTE project site. A summary of 

the rankings is shown in Figure 18. 
73

Figure 18. Graphical comparison of each site

The Trutier landfill has 250 hectares of land, which is divided into areas that hold MSW, 

human waste, medical waste, rubble, and canal waste. It is operated by SMCRS, which 

is an autonomous entity under the Ministry of Public Works. Public Works provides 

technical advice and guidelines, and the Ministry of Interior provides funding for 

SMCRS. About 25% of the land available at the waste site is currently in use. People 

living at the landfill currently sort some of the waste—after the trucks dump the waste, 

plastic bags are torn open, and plastic bottles are separated by hand. Plastic bottles are 

sold to a local company that bails them and ships them to China. Scales are already 

present at the site and ready to be installed for monitoring truck deliveries. SMCRS is 

considering tipping fees, but has not settled on a price; currently, all dumping is funded 

by GOH or donor organizations. The landfill is currently employing 76 people and 

operates 24 hours a day.

During meetings with NREL staff, SMCRS indicated interest in a WTE plant being 

located at Trutier. Also, SMCRS confirmed it is possible for them to own and operate a 

power generation facility.

The next steps include: 

The project team needs to discuss siting of the WTE project at Trutier with SMCRS. 

SMCRS needs to identify available pieces of property for the project within the landfill 

boundary. Options for allowing a lease, easement, or other mechanism to officially 

establish the legal right to utilize space at Trutier should be explored with SMCRS (this 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Rue de Frère, Tabarre

Rue Lespinasse, Tabarre

Rue Roumain, Tabarre 27

Morne CabriMorne Cabri

Trutier

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6

Geographic Available Space

Geographic Near Collection

Geographic Accessable

Geographic Topography

Geographic Roads

Electrical Interconnection Voltage

Electrical Access

Water Drainage

Water Water Available
74

is not needed if SMCRS owned the project). The project team needs to determine the 

approximate footprint required for the project, given the new waste sort information from 

UNOPS, and provide this for discussions with SMCRS. 

8.2 Resource

The feedstock for a WTE project needs to be controlled and maintained to ensure a 

sufficient amount of waste is available in order to produce the required power output. 

When developing a WTE project, the project implementation team should attempt to 

secure control of the waste stream in question for this project to reduce the risk that it 

may not be available. This is typically done through a contractual arrangement. 

Currently, there is no coordination between SMCRS and private waste collection 

companies. Private waste collection companies operate under contracts with the 

Ministry of Finance and private non-government organizations. Once their money runs 

out, they quit collecting waste. The contracts are not based on performance, it appears, 

and there are multiple disparate collection companies making coordinating contracts 

difficult. The simplest path forward appears to be to secure the rights to the organic 

waste that enters Trutier regardless of who brings it in. This would be most easily 

accomplished through SMCRS.

The next steps include: 

Discuss the ability for flow control of waste with SMCRS. Determine if there is a 

contractual mechanism that could guarantee the WTE project will have rights or control 

over the organic waste brought to Trutier. Address the social implications of having the 

organic waste go to the digester system prior to the residents of Trutier being allowed to 

sort through it. Perhaps this potential conflict can be mitigated by hiring the residents as 

waste sorters. 

8.3 Off-Take

The financial viability of the proposed Trutier WTE project hinges on the ability to sign 

an agreement to sell electricity, biogas, or compost at sufficient quantities and prices to 

recoup costs. 

An electrical off-take agreement in the form of a PPA is the most likely scenario. EDH 

only enters into PPAs through a transparent public request for proposal process that 

includes open bids. For PPAs, the Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Public Works, and 

EDH need to be included in planning and will have signature authority.

A technical study for interconnection performed by EDH would also be required, as EDH 

transmission capacity is limited (see Section 5.0). During discussions with NREL, EDH 

said the grid would have difficulty accepting more than 5 MW to 10 MW of additional 

generation at the present time. This size range would be easier because it could tie into 

12-kV lines, and larger plant sizes would need to tie into the more constrained 69-kV 

lines. 
75

An analysis of the status of EDH by Tetra Tech revealed the prices of several PPAs 

undertaken by the utility [25]. The prices for these agreements ranged between 

$0.16/kWh to $0.34/kWh when fuel surcharges were taken into consideration. It is 

expected a biodigester project that produces electrical energy could be performed under 

a PPA contract with the utility in a similar price range. The EDH status update also 

revealed the utility does make enough revenue to pay its current PPAs; however, the 

utility would likely not be considered a credit-worthy power purchaser by potential 

project financiers. Thus, the project investor is taking a risk in assuming that EDH will 

make PPA payments for power produced by a WTE system. This risk could be 

mitigated through the sale of gas and soil amendment. 

Tetra Tech conducted a commercial analysis of EDH in August 2010 [26]. The main 

conclusion of their analysis was that EDH has a severe financial imbalance between 

revenues and costs. The operating costs of EDH are about $13.8 million per month with

revenues collected far below costs. The revenues recovered before the earthquake,

immediately after, and in the spring of 2010 are shown in Figure 19. 

Figure 19. EDH costs, revenue collected, and deficit (2010)

The budget deficit shows the difference between costs and revenue for the utility. This 

budget gap has been traditionally filled with transfers from the treasury of the 

Government of Haiti. This analysis shows the utility company is not currently financially 

solvent, which presents risks for project development.

The biodigester would produce a soil amendment similar to compost. The market for 

this product has not been fully investigated. However, there is the possibility of selling

this product for farming and reforestation applications. The non-government 

organization Double Harvest sells bags of compost in the Port-au-Prince area for $10 

per 100-pound bag. The compost could also be provided at no charge to local farmers 
76

or organizations to improve soil conditions or used as landfill coverage as the waste is 

currently covered each night.

If an electrical off-take agreement could not be signed, it would be possible to sell the 

gas produced by the digester for cooking, heating, or other industrial applications. This 

would require additional equipment to capture and transport the gas to a customer and 

a different contract. The potential market for this has not been investigated but appears 

limited based on current knowledge. 

The next steps include: 

Hold discussions with EDH to determine if they are intending to have an open 

competition for additional power in the near future, to explore grid interconnection 

options near Trutier, and to ascertain the potential for a PPA agreement with a GOH 

entity. 

8.4 Permits

The construction and operation of a WTE project will require permits from the 

Government of Haiti. Water, air, and other environmental permits require coordination 

with DINEPA. All government-backed loans and incentives require coordination with the 

Department of Finance. It is unclear what construction and building permits, if any, are 

required. 

The next steps include: 

Once the final site has been identified, investigate the permitting process further. 

8.5 Technology

The recent waste sort appears to have confirmed the selection of a biodigester as the 

most appropriate technology for a WTE project in Haiti. 

Biodigesters are relatively common, and the technology is well understood. However, 

there is a risk the technology will not perform as designed. The opportunity for co-firing 

with diesel or HFO should also be examined if the need for power is greater than the 

output of the WTE plant or if conventional power plants are also needed in the area. 

Operating parameters and maintenance requirements of the WTE plant will need to be 

understood.

The next steps include: 

Confirm technology selection and project size. 

8.6 Team

The team of participants to develop, design, and build a WTE project in Haiti has yet to 

be identified. In order for this feasibility study to be developed into a project, multiple 

team members are needed. Key roles on the team include project developers, project 
77

managers, construction teams, Haitian government organizations, and project 

financiers. 

The next steps include: 

Determine who the likely members of a project development team would be. Initiate 

discussions between those members as to the commitments and resources they could 

provide to successfully develop, build, and operate a WTE project, and to ascertain their 

perceived risks. 

8.7 Capital

The capital markets in Haiti are limited. The capacity for both the government and the 

private sector to borrow money is subject to challenges and high interest rates. Many 

government enterprises in Haiti appear to be largely insolvent and are consequently not

credit-worthy organizations. Private-sector borrowing appears to be limited and subject 

to annual interest rates as high as 30%. The reduced ability for both the private sector 

and the government to borrow capital at reasonable interest rates limits the financial 

viability of new electricity generation facilities. This also emphasizes the need for foreign 

government or development bank financing. 

In determining the most appropriate WTE project financing vehicle, it is important to 

consider whether the goal is to build a financially self-sustaining project or to provide as 

much aid as possible. The previous waste collection programs undertaken in Haiti 

provided great benefits and aid in the cleanup of Port-au-Prince, but were not financially

self-sustaining because they did not produce a positive financial return. The optimal 

system of biodigesters depends on economic and aid goals, and these goals will need 

to be determined for inclusion in further analysis. 

The next steps include: 

Determine possible financing options with the stakeholder group. Evaluate the potential 

for each option and its positive and negative aspects. Continue to refine and update 

estimates of project capital costs and economic value. 

8.8 Conclusion

There are many steps and aspects to consider in order to develop, design, construct, 

and operate a WTE system in Haiti. The UNOPS waste sort has helped clarify project 

size and technology; however, much more work is need regarding project siting, 

resource control, off-take agreements, project team, and project capital. Discussions 

with stakeholders to determine common goals, gather additional information, and inform 

the feasibility analysis of WTE options will be held in the near term and as needed 

through completion of the feasibility analysis.
78

9.0 Project Risks 

There are a wide variety of potential challenges associated with developing a WTE 

project in Haiti. This section summarizes some key risks faced by the proposed AD 

plant at Trutier, all of which have been described in preceding sections. 

9.1 Technology-Related Risks

There are several technology-related uncertainties associated with the project. 

• Properties of the waste stream. Waste characterization studies provide an 

indication of the materials collected and their properties at the time of collection, 

but one can only estimate the actual quantities and characteristics of the waste 

generated over time. This analysis assumes roughly 74% organics, 27% total 

solids, 85% volatile solids, 58% of the gas volume as methane, and 653 wet 

tonnes of waste being delivered per day. However, if the quantity of waste 

collected increases, the properties of the waste stream could be different than 

indicated by collection studies, which could affect technology performance. In 

addition, only a single waste characterization was performed. It would be 

preferable to perform three or four studies at different times of the year to 

determine how the quantity, components, and properties of the waste collected 

vary by season.

• Waste flow control. The feedstock for the AD project needs to be controlled and 

maintained to ensure a sufficient quantity of waste and the right sort of waste is 

available to produce the plant's target power output. The project investor should 

attempt to secure control of the waste stream in question for this project to 

reduce the risk it is not available. This is typically done through a contractual 

process [9, 10]. 

• Technology performance. Biodigesters are relatively common, and the 

technology is well understood. However, there is a risk the technology will not 

perform as designed, especially in light of uncertainties about the properties of 

the waste stream.

• Project sizing. The most appropriate WTE project size (in terms of tonnes per 

day processed or electricity generated) has been determined based on the waste 

currently being delivered to Trutier. However, there is a risk the project chosen 

will be over- or undersized if the waste generation or waste collection rate 

changes significantly.

• Regulations and permitting. The Environmental Ministry is responsible for the 

requirements and regulations for waste disposal in Haiti. Currently, the waste 

disposal system is not functioning properly, and it is unclear how it will evolve in 

the future. NREL was unable to find information about regulations pertaining to 

WTE projects in Haiti and further research is needed in this area to determine 

factors, such as legal status and permitting requirements. As an “unknown,” this 

variable presents a risk for future project development.
79

9.2 Other Potential Failure Mechanisms

Other uncertainties surrounding the AD project include the following: 

• Project costs and revenues. Sources of uncertainty within the analysis include 

capital costs, which are estimated to be between -15% to +30% of the values 

quoted. To this a contingency is added, which is an attempt to account for 

uncertainty in cost estimates and scheduling, and in effect, offsetting risk. 

Further, these costs are quoted as if it were a U.S. installation; capital and 

operating costs for an installation in Haiti cannot be accurately ascertained 

without conducting an investment-grade project development feasibility study. 

The revenues from power sales do not pay for the cost of the infrastructure and 

operations of either proposed system, despite the relatively high value of 

electricity ($0.20 per kilowatt-hour). Facility tip fees are needed in each of the two 

system scenarios for the facility to be self-funded, and it is uncertain if such fees 

could be implemented.

• Uncertain events. Examples include the risk of earthquakes and hurricanes 

impacting the facility. Some of these could be modeled with historical statistics. 

For example, the likelihood of a category 1 hurricane striking can be derived from 

historical records. Other events that could impact the financial prospects of a 

WTE project are more uncertain and unpredictable.

• Grid interconnection. There are uncertainties regarding the ability of the WTE 

facility to connect to the grid given the various challenges with the grid in the 

Port-au-Prince area.

• Project development team. The team that will develop, design, and build a 

WTE facility in Haiti has yet to be identified. The composition of this team is 

critical to project success.

• Project financing. According to the desktop study that NREL conducted in 2010, 

"Haiti presents a challenging environment for doing business and project 

development. Currently the local utility EDH does not appear to be fiscally 

solvent or a credit-worthy off-taker for the power generated from a biodigester 

project, although it does appear that current PPA providers are being paid by 

EDH. Due to limited capital markets and the financial condition of the utility, 

financing for electricity generation projects will likely be needed from foreign 

governments or development banks [4].” Note the 6% financing rate used in this 

report assumes that financing will be secured in a developed country, not Haiti. 

There is the possibility that a lender might require a higher financing rate due to 

risks associated with working in Haiti, including the prospect of the utility 

defaulting on the PPA payments. 

9.3 Case Study: Project Risks Faced by E-Power

E-Power is a 32-MW gross, 30-MW net, HFO/diesel power plant located within a few 

kilometers of the Trutier dump. The cost of the facility was $50 million to $59 million 

(various costs are cited on their website).

The following timeline, from E-Power’s website [37], provides a case study of some of 

the difficulties an electricity-generation project can encounter, including, in this case, the 
80

financial collapse of 2008, the earthquake of January 2010, the cholera outbreak in 

2010, and the demonstrations following presidential elections, also in 2010. It also 

demonstrates the value of persistence. The text has been copied directly from the site, 

without edits or modifications.

June 2004: Daniel Gérard Rouzier launches the project idea.

March 2005: 56 Haitian and Haitian American Professionals create E-Power S.A. 

and make commitment to invest $56 million in the production of electricity. 

Citibank and Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) immediately show 

interest in the project.

October-December 2006: E-power participates and wins an international request 

for proposal (quotation) (international bidding) launched by EDH to build a 30-

Megawatt-electric plant in Cite Soleil.

March 26, 2007: E-Power is declared winner of the international bidding for the 

construction of an electric plant in Cite Soleil. 

January 17, 2008: E-Power, the Public Works Ministry and the Ministry of finance 

sign a 30 Megawatt, 15-year, power purchase agreement that will save nearly 

$24 million to the National Treasure.

March 14, 2008: La Convention d'Etablissement est signée.

May 28, 2008: The Haitian Government grants a Contract with Sovereign 

Guarantee to the project.

July 2008: The Financial Crisis causes the Citibank and OPIC to rethink their 

involvement. On July 16th, E-Power turns to the World Bank for financial support 

and contacts three local banks on July 29th: Sogebank, BNC and Capital Bank.

August 14, 2008: On August 14th, OPIC withdraw.

August 15, 2008: The negotiations with IFC-World Bank Group, the 

Entrepreneurial Development Bank of the Netherlands (FMO), PROPARCO, 

CIFI, Sogebank, BNC et Capital Bank begin.

August 22, 2008: E-Power signs a US $ 4 million contract with Hyundai Heavy 

Industries for the plants erection.

August-November 2008: PROPARCO and CIFI withdraw on August 30th and 

November 15th. 

April 1, 2009: Basic Energy, our technical partner is rethinking our business 

association. On April 10th, E-Power contacts Korea East-West Power Company 

(EWP).
81

April 15- May 15, 2009: Capital Bank withdraw on April 15 and Basic Energy, a 

month later.

June 25, 2009: E-Power signs a contract with EWP who acquires 30% of EPower S.A on June 30th.

July 1, 2009: E-Power signs loans agreements with --- and ----- with DECCO Ltd.

October 1, 2009: DECCO begins the construction of the plant in Cité Soleil.

January 2010: After the devastating earthquake of January 12, the ship carrying 

the plant refuses to land in Port-au-Prince and our 16.000 tons of supplies are 

landed in Rio Haina, Dominican Republic (about 230 km from Port-au-Prince).

February 25, 2010: After days of negotiations with the US Navy, insurance 

companies and the plant are finally unloaded in Port-au-Prince and the 

construction is resumed in March.

October 2010: An outbreak of cholera is confirmed in Haiti on October 21. 

Hyundai Heavy Industries are threatening to delay the opening of the plant 

scheduled for January 2011. The company rapidly takes actions to keep the 

epidemic from entering the construction site and succeeds in convincing the 

foreign technicians to stay to finish the construction in time. The wrong turn taken 

by the presidential elections of December 2010 results in several days of street 

unrest and postpones once more the construction of the power plant.

January 13, 2011: Finally, on January 13, 2010, E-power opens the Michel Arthur 

Volel electrical plant built to respect the US Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(USEPA) standards.
82

10.0Conclusions and Recommendations

10.1Summary of Report Findings

This report provides further analysis of the feasibility of a WTE facility near Port-auPrince, Haiti. NREL’s previous analysis and reports identified AD as the optimal WTE 

technology. Building on the prior analyses, this report evaluates the conceptual financial 

and technical viability of implementing a combined waste management and electrical 

power production strategy by constructing a WTE facility—either an AD system or a 

modern sanitary landfill equipped with a LFGTE facility. Some key observations noted in 

earlier chapters of this report are summarized below.

10.1.1 Societal Benefits of a Waste-to-Energy Project 

The implementation of either an AD or LFGTE system would provide significant 

improvement to the waste management system and power supply system of the Portau-Prince region. The need for proper sanitary management of wastes is a crucial

component of a community's health and welfare. The current waste management 

system, consisting of an unlined landfill and waste dump operating with minimal 

sanitation protocol, poses certain risks to the surrounding community in terms of 

detrimental effects on groundwater, surface water, air quality, and vector transmitted 

pathogen-related health issues. Developing countries, including Haiti, lack financial, 

regulatory, and institutional strength, which typically allows solid waste management to 

lag behind other pressing societal needs, such as water supply, power distribution, 

transportation, and other infrastructure development. However, by simultaneously 

addressing both power supply and waste management, this project provides the 

potential of improving both systems. 

10.1.2 Electricity Generation Over Time

The amount of energy produced varies according to the technology employed. The AD 

system produces more than twice as much electricity as the LFGTE system. This 

difference is due to a variety of issues, including the difference in collection efficiency of 

the two systems, but is also due to the slower microbial activity typical of landfills. Over 

time, the generation rate of a landfill can be expected to increase as more waste is 

placed in the landfill and additional gas collection wells are installed. However, when 

averaged over the 20-year planning horizon employed in this report, the LFGTE system

produces less gas and consequently less power than the AD system. 

10.1.3 Incorporating Local Conditions into Project Planning

Construction and operation of an LFGTE or AD facility in Haiti presents additional 

challenges compared to other more developed parts of the world. 

Developed nations practice routine collection and management of MSW, which means

that an AD facility can expect reliable collection and delivery of a consistent feedstock. 

Haiti has limited collection of MSW, and an AD facility there could expect more variation 

in the feedstock provided.
83

The financial and economic analysis in this report is based on U.S. labor rates. 

However, typical labor rates in the United States are approximately ten times greater 

than Haitian labor rates. Clarification of Haitian labor costs for energy-project 

construction and operation is needed. Using Haitian rates for both skilled and unskilled 

labor will significantly impact the financial evaluation of the two systems considered. 

In addition to local labor rates, a conversion factor is needed to equate the U.S.-based 

capital construction costs illustrated in this report to costs of constructing a facility in 

Haiti. The conversion factor should take into account key issues, such as shipping, 

receiving, taxes, inspections, transportation of materials from the port to the site, the 

availability of a variety of skilled construction labor workers, fuel, electricity, and any 

other local issue that is likely to affect the project cost. 

In addition to these logistical cost considerations, other local and political issues should 

be evaluated for their potential impact. For example, the need to relocate residents, 

improve roads, bring power to the site during construction, or any other number of 

issues could affect the financial viability of the project. 

10.1.4 Availability of Suitable Labor 

The labor pool is largely unskilled in Haiti, and the operation of both AD and LFGTE 

systems requires skilled labor. Further analysis of the availability of various skilled 

laborers in both construction and operations is needed. The potential need to train the 

local labor force or import skilled labor for construction and perhaps for plant operations

should also be considered. 

An AD system would require a higher number of unskilled laborers to perform the 

manual materials-sorting function in the preprocessing phase of the system. Ultimately, 

efficient operation and maintenance of the AD system relies heavily on the ability to 

manually separate organics from the MSW feedstock. 

The need for skilled labor would also be greater for the AD facility because it contains 

much more mechanical equipment, requiring more unique and developed skills, than an 

LFGTE facility. An AD system requires highly skilled labor to perform the ongoing 

mechanical maintenance and biological management of the AD digestion system. In 

contrast, operation of the LFGTE system would require moderately skilled equipment 

operators and mechanics to maintain the heavy landfill equipment. Both systems 

require skilled labor for the conversion of biogas or landfill gas into energy using the IC 

engines. 

10.1.5 Waste Disposal Requirements 

Another technical difference between the two systems is the need for waste disposal of 

residues. An AD system requires a landfill for the disposal of unacceptable materials, 

residues, and wastes during equipment outages or maintenance. An LFGTE system is 

the ultimate disposal alternative and does not require an additional disposal element. 
84

10.1.6 Timing of Construction

Although the initial construction of both systems is envisioned to occur on relatively 

similar schedules, an AD system requires a one-time construction period at the 

beginning of the project, whereas an LFGTE system requires ongoing construction of 

the liner system, landfill gas collection field, and the addition of IC engines over time. 

This need for ongoing construction of new landfill cells, and subsequent expansion of 

the landfill gas collection system with appropriately timed installation of new IC engines, 

is common in the LFGTE operations industry. However, the one-time construction of the 

AD system is notably simpler in terms of financing and managing capital improvements. 

10.2Conclusions

In conclusion, both AD and LFGTE systems are viable with the following key 

considerations: 

• The current US-based financial model for the AD system depends heavily on the 

relatively low-cost labor that performs the necessary function of preparing the 

feedstock. The AD system also requires the availability of a few highly skilled 

technicians to operate the digestion and power production portions of the AD 

facility. The availability and cost of both low-skilled manual sorters and highly 

skilled digester and power plant operators should be confirmed.

• The LFGTE system depends on relatively expensive equipment with moderately 

skilled equipment operators to perform the landfill operation functions and the 

ongoing construction of landfill liner, gas collection system, and IC engine 

installations, using relatively few laborers as compared to the AD system. The 

ability to fund ongoing landfill construction should be confirmed. Similar to a 

portion of the AD system, the LFGTE system requires the availability of highly 

skilled labor to operate and maintain the power production portion of the system. 

Also, to a lesser degree, moderately skilled labor to operate and maintain the 

heavy landfill equipment will be needed. The availability and cost of both 

moderately skilled equipment operators/mechanics and highly skilled power plant 

operators should be confirmed. 

• The AD system produces approximately twice as much energy as the landfill 

system over the 20-year project lifetime evaluated. As currently projected using 

$0.20 per kilowatt-hour as the estimated income from electricity sales, the higher 

production of the AD system benefits from this relatively high sales value. The 

likely future value of electricity in Haiti should be evaluated, and the current value 

of power sales should be confirmed to be assured of this revenue. 

• Both systems require significant long-term funding. The key revenues to support 

these systems consist of power off-take purchases and waste management tip 

fees. The ability of Haiti to support operating costs over the lifetime of the facility 

should be evaluated and confirmed. 

10.3Next Steps

This section lists some of the next steps for further project work and development. 
85

• Performing one or more additional waste characterizations, including determining 

quantities and composition of waste. This should be done at different times of the 

year to determine seasonal variation in composition and amount of waste 

generated. There should also be some attempt to classify and quantify the waste 

generated but not collected.

• Conducting small-scale biodigester demonstration projects with partners.

• Exploring ways to increase the waste collection rate. UNEP [6] has proposed 

installing 20+ supervised community collection centers and three to five larger 

sorting and transfer stations, with dedicated and supervised organic waste 

collection units at all markets.

• Analyzing legal and permitting requirements.

• Evaluating different ownership and operation strategies.

• Refining the financial scenarios, including:

o Converting the U.S.-based based project capital and operating costs to 

representative costs for building and operating the AD facility in Haiti.

o Confirming the value of electricity sales of $0.20 per kilowatt-hour. 

o Ascertaining whether there are any port fees and receiving or related taxes 

for the importation of equipment and materials.

o Confirming there is either a market for the dewatered digestate for use as a 

soil amendment or there is likely no additional system cost for the subsequent 

management of this material. 

o Ascertaining whether moderate tipping fees could be introduced for private 

sector waste firms, which would change the project economics.

• Confirming the availability and cost of the various unskilled, moderately skilled, 

and skilled labor required.

• Further refining the project scope from this conceptual level to a higher level of 

certainty, clarifying key issues, such as location, infrastructure, utilities, and the 

issues described above. 

10.4Suggestions for Further Study

As noted in the desktop study, there appears to be two viable options for WTE project 

development in Haiti. The first is large-scale development of systems that involve 

cooperation with the energy sector for interconnection, transmission, and distribution, as 

well as cooperation with the waste management authority for waste collection and 

recycling. A second option is to develop community-level WTE systems that could be 

owned, operated, and maintained by members of the community without the reliance on 

entities, such as the waste management authority. These options are not mutually 

exclusive and further analysis is needed to determine the most appropriate scale and 

option.
86

Glossary 

biochemical conversion Waste treatment process in which bacteria are allowed to 

consume the organic materials present in the waste 

under oxygen-deprived conditions, thereby producing 

gaseous emissions consisting primary of methane and 

carbon dioxide. 

centrate (see effluent)

combustion systems Waste treatment systems that burn the waste in the 

presence of oxygen to produce heat.

digestate A byproduct of the anaerobic digestion process that 

contains the portion of the initial feedstock mass that did 

not decompose in the anaerobic digestion process. The 

digestate will typically be 70% to 90% water, with the rest 

as solids.

effluent A liquid byproduct of the anaerobic digestion process 

(also called centrate).

gasification systems Waste treatment systems that heat the waste in the 

presence of a limited quantity of oxygen to produce a gas 

that can be combusted.

leachate Liquid that drains from a landfill after percolating through 

the buried waste.

mesophilic temperature range of approximately 32°C to 40°C

thermochemical conversion Waste treatment process in which heat is applied to the 

waste, either combusting or gasifying the waste, 

converting the carbon in the waste into heat or a carbonrich gas that can be subsequently converted to energy.

thermophilic temperature range of approximately 50°C to 65°C
87

References 

[1] Morton, A., United Nations Environment Programme. Personal communication. Nov. 

14, 2013.

[2] Hoornweg, D. and Bhada-Tata, P. What a Waste. A Global Review of Solid Waste 

Management. Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 2012. 

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2012/03/16537275/waste-global-reviewsolid-waste-management. 

[3] Municipal Solid Waste Collection Needs in Port-au-Prince, Haiti. Solid Waste 

Association of North America (SWANA), August 2010. 

http://swana.org/Portals/Press_Releases/Hurricane/Haiti_Response_Team_Position_P

aper_2010.pdf. 

[4] Booth, S., Haase, S., and Funk, K. Haiti Waste-to-Energy NREL Desktop 

Assessment Final. Golden, CO: The National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Nov.14, 

2010. 

[5] “International Database.” U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed September 2010: 

http://www.census.gov/population/international/data/idb/informationGateway.php. 

[6] Port au Prince Waste Management and Waste-to-Energy Alternatives: Rapid Advice 

Note 26. United Nations Environment Programme, Haiti Sustainable Energy 

Programme. October 2012.

[7] “Haiti: A new sewage plant for Port-au-Price.” H5N1 blog, May 24, 2012. 

http://crofsblogs.typepad.com/h5n1/2012/05/haiti-a-new-sewage-plant-for-port-auprince.html. 

[8] “Port-au-Prince: A City of Millions, with no Sewer System.” NPR blog, April 13, 2012. 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/04/13/150501695/port-au-prince-a-city-of-millionswith-no-sewer-system. 

[9] “Haiti WTE Project Development Memo, Port au Prince Waste-to-Energy Evaluation

(rev. 2).” The National Renewable Energy Laboratory and United Nations Environment 

Programme, Dec. 19, 2011. 

[10] “Haiti WTE Project Development Memo, Port au Prince Waste-to-Energy 

Evaluation.” The National Renewable Energy Laboratory and United Nations 

Environment Programme, Dec. 16, 2011. 

[11] “Presentation by G. Paulemon to the SWANA Haiti Response Team.” Municipal 

Solid Waste Collection Needs in Port-au-Prince, Haiti. Solid Waste Association of North 

America (SWANA), August 2010. 

http://swana.org/Portals/Press_Releases/Hurricane/Haiti_Response_Team_Position_P

aper_2010.pdf. 

[12] Baseline Environmental Site Assessment Report for the Truitier Landfill Port-auPrince, Haiti. Wilmer, AL: Integrity Disaster Consultants, LLC., 2010. 
88

[13] Ground Water Atlas of the United States: Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the U. S. 

Virgin Islands. HA 730-N. United States Geological Survey, 1999. 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_n/N-PR_VItext1.html.

[14] “Minimum Wage Laws in the States–January 1, 2014.” U.S. Department of Labor, 

2014. http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/america.htm. 

[15] Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Grant in the Amount of SDR 59.7 

Million US$90.0 Million Equivalent) to the Republic of Haiti for a Rebuilding Energy 

Infrastructure and Access Project. 72266 – HT. Washington, D.C.: World Bank, August 

2012. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2012/09/16734564/haiti-rebuildingenergy-infrastructure-access-project. 

[16] “Fast Facts on the U.S. Government's Work in Haiti: Energy.” Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Dept. of State, January 2013. 

http://www.state.gov/s/hsc/factsheets/2013/212161.htm. 

[17] Rebuilding Energy Infrastructure and Access. PIDC637. Washington, D.C.: World 

Bank, October 2012. www.worldbank.org/projects/P127203/rebuilding-energyinfrastructure-access?lang=en. 

[18] “E-Power FAQs.” E-Power, undated. Accessed April 9, 2013: 

http://www.epowerhaiti.com/#!faq. 

[19] Manon, M. Personal communication. January 2013. 

[20] Technical Assistance for the Electricity Generation, Transmission and Distribution 

Project. POWER Engineers, prepared for USTDA FRE 098-429 (RB 120374), 

November 2010. 

[21] “Company Profile.” FORTEK Inc., 2013. 

http://www.fortek.co.kr/korea/com/Information%20of%20Company.pdf. 

[22] “Haiti - Economy: Action Plan 2012-2013 for the EDH.” Haiti Libre, Sept. 10, 2012.

http://www.haitilibre.com/en/news-6841-haiti-economy-action-plan-2012-2013-for-theedh.html. 

[23] “USAID Haiti Awards Electrical Reconstruction Project to Perini Management 

Services Inc.” Tutor Perini Corporation, May 3, 2012. 

http://investor.perini.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=106886&p=irolnewsArticle&ID=1691040&highlight=. 

[24] “Electricity Transmission & Distribution Sector.” U.S. Trade and Development 

Agency, undated. Accessed April 9, 2013: 

http://www.ustda.gov/program/sectors/etransmissiondistribution.asp. 

[25] Commercial Assessment of EDH Operations: Initial Highlights. Tetra Tech Inc., 

August 2010. 
89

[26] Razavi, H. Financing Energy Projects in Developing Countries. 2nd Ed. PennWell 

Corp., 2007.

[27] The World Bank Operations Manual. Washington, D.C., World Bank, 2012. 

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/OPSMANUAL/Resources/EntireOM_External.pdf. 

[28] “Environmental Assessment Sourcebook and Updates.” Washington, D.C.: World 

Bank, 2011. Accessed March 25:

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/ENVIRONMENT/EXTENVASS/

0,,contentMDK:20282864~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:407988,00.html. 

[29] Haiti—Law on the Investment Code Modifying the October 30, 1989 Decree on the 

Investment Code. 2002.

[30] A Study on the Economic Valuation of Environmental Externalities from Landfill 

Disposal and Incineration of Waste. European Commission, DG Environment, 2000. 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/waste/pdf/cowi_ext_from_landfill.pdf. 

[31] A Study to Estimate the Disamenity Costs of Landfill in Great Britain. Cambridge 

Econometrics, EFTEC, and WRc. Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, 

February 2003. 

http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/strategy/legislation/landfill/documents/lan

dfill_disamenity.pdf. 

[32] Taylor, D. “Talking Trash.” Environmental Health Perspectives. (107:8); August 

1999. http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/2259845/talking-trash-economicenvironmental-issues-landfills. 

[33] “INVENT Handbook on Integrated Waste Management.” E-Learning Modules. AsiaLink, EuropeAid Co-Operation Office, 2009. 

[34] Synthesis of National Assessment Reports on the Implementation in the Caribbean 

of the Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island 

Developing States. Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Secretariat, November 2003. 

http://www.cep.unep.org/meetings-events/11th-igm/report-regional-synthesis-final.pdf. 

[35] “Cost–benefit Analysis.” Wikipedia, 2013. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cost%E2%80%93benefit_analysis&oldid=5396

74515. 

[36] Port au Prince Waste-to-Energy Evaluation Initial Site Assessment Technical 

Memorandum. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory and HDR Engineering Inc., 

September 2011. 

[37] “Project Development.” E-Power, undated. Accessed Jan. 30, 2013: 

http://www.epowerhaiti.com/#!project-development/vstc7=project-development. 
90

[38] Haiti Energy Sector Development Plan (2007-2017). Ministry for Public Works, 

Transportation, and Communications; Bureau of Mines and Energy; and Electricity of 

Haiti. November 2006.

http://www.bme.gouv.ht/energie/National_Energy_Plan_Haiti_Revised20_12_2006VM.p

df. 

[39] Transition Electricity Management Contract. U.S. Agency for International 

Development, October 2011. 

[40] Electrical Substation Rehabilitation. U.S. Agency for International Development, 

May 2012. 

[41] “Safeguard Policies—Environmental Assessment.” World Bank, 2012. Accessed 

March 21, 2013: 

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/PROJECTS/EXTPOLICIES/EXTSAFEP

OL/0,,contentMDK:20543912~menuPK:1286357~pagePK:64168445~piPK:64168309~t

heSitePK:584435,00.html. 
91

Appendix A: Anaerobic Digestion Technology 

Description

Introduction

This technical memorandum has been prepared by HDR Engineering Inc. (HDR) to 

provide a comparative summary of approaches and process features of anaerobic 

digestion (AD) technology and evaluates which of these are best suited to digestion of 

municipally generated wastes in the Port-au-Prince area, Haiti. Preliminary municipal 

solid waste (MSW) generation quantities and characteristics were previously estimated 

in HDR’s Waste Sort Analysis—Planning Summary technical memorandum. The waste 

sort analysis suggested that approximately 653 tonnes per day of solid waste is 

generated in the Port-au-Prince area, and approximately 73% of this total 

(approximately 477 tonnes/day) is organic and suitable for AD.

The Haiti Waste-to-Energy Opportunity Analysis prepared by the National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory (NREL) in November 2010 reviewed six different AD approaches, 

which are summarized below:

• Membrane-covered lagoon (MCL)

• Heated and mixed membrane-covered lagoon (HMMCL)

• Plug-flow digester (PFD)

• Complete mix and hybrid digesters (CMHD)

• Fixed-film digester (FFD)

• Upright cylinder digester (UCD). 

This technical memorandum reviews these six potential approaches and features, as 

well as additional AD approaches and features to be considered for the Port-au-Prince 

AD facility.

Approaches and Features of Anaerobic Digestion Technology

Anaerobic digestion is a process where organic matter is consumed by bacteria in the 

absence of oxygen and converted to methane and carbon dioxide. Potential wastederived organic feedstock materials include, but are not necessarily limited to, MSWderived organics, wastewater treatment biosolids, industrial organic residuals, manure, 

farm wastes, and food waste. The technology can be engineered in a variety of ways 

with different features, which are generally categorized and described below. 

• Solids content 

o Low solids 

o High solids 

o Dry fermentation

• Process configuration 

o Single stage

o Phased

o Plug flow
92

• Biomass immobilization

o Suspended growth

o Attached growth

• Reactor construction

o Earthen lagoon

o Concrete or steel tanks

o Bunkers

• Temperature

o Ambient temperature

o Mesophilic

o Thermophilic

• Feeding operation

o Continuous feed

o Batch feed

• Digester mixing

o Unmixed

o Partially mixed

o Completely mixed

Solids Content

AD systems can operate at a wide range of solids concentrations and are characterized 

by total solids (TS) percentage defined as the mass of total solids divided by the total 

feedstock mass (solids plus water). It should be noted there are differing percentages 

for each category reported in literature and used in the industry for low- and high-solids 

systems and dry fermentation. 

Low-Solids Systems

Low-solids systems generally operate with total solids less than 15%. There is extensive 

operating experience with low-solids systems because practically all AD systems at 

municipal wastewater plants are operated at the low end of this range. The reason for 

this is that municipal wastewater biosolids are dilute by nature. In some cases, 

feedstocks high in nitrogen (such as some manure) may need to be diluted to a TS 

concentration with low risk of ammonia toxicity; in such cases, a low-solids digester is 

warranted.

The benefits of low-solids systems are its demonstrated success and that the digester 

contents are simpler to convey and are often pumpable, where high-TS materials 

require augers and/or manual transport. A second advantage of low-solids digestion is 

that the liquid serves as a medium to promote contact between the organic substrate 

and bacteria. At the same time, feedstock impurities, such as plastic bags, can clog 

pumping and other mechanical equipment if not removed from the incoming raw 

feedstock. Other disadvantages of low-solids systems is that they require a larger AD 

reactor size, supplemental feedstock dilution water could be needed, and the digestate 

is normally dewatered, which yields a liquid stream that must be managed, recovered, 

and/or disposed.
93

High-Solids Systems

High-solids systems generally operate in the range of approximately 15% to 40% TS. 

High-solids AD systems have grown in popularity over the past 20 years as more 

experience has been gained with their operation. A key differentiator of high-solids 

systems is the waste that is digested must be handled as a solid rather than a liquid, 

normally requiring the use of augers and conveyors rather than conventional pumping 

equipment. However, high-solids systems are more robust with regard to feedstock 

physical impurities, as they are able to pass larger inert objects, such as plastics, glass, 

metal, and similar objects. Such materials can damage pumps, valves, and associated 

pumping and conveyance equipment in low-solids systems, as noted earlier. 

High-solids AD systems employ mixing; however, such systems serve to agitate, rather 

than completely mix, digester contents. Due to the viscous nature of high-solids AD 

reactor contents, complete mixing is difficult to achieve and so gas-mixing or paddlemixing devices are used to agitate AD reactor contents and allow the material to be 

conveyed from the reactor. High-solids systems are less homogenous and more difficult 

to mix and, as a result, provide less contact between the organic substrate and bacteria. 

This reduced contact results in reduced biogas production compared to low-solids 

systems. 

Dilution water is generally not added to high-solids systems. As a result, an advantage 

of high-solids systems is the digestate from the AD system may not require dewatering, 

as it can be managed and utilized as a solid rather than a liquid. Costs associated with 

dewatering and the need to manage and potentially treat dewatering reject (or centrate) 

is eliminated. 

Dry Fermentation

The use of organics derived from MSW as a feedstock for AD is evolving and involves 

the development of new technologies. Technology advancement has been occurring in 

Europe in response to the need to meet strict regulations limiting quantities of 

biodegradable waste that can be disposed in landfills. The cost of traditional low-solids 

AD systems for MSW-derived feedstock materials has been too high to be financially 

attractive. As a consequence, several companies have developed “dry fermentation” 

digestion technologies primarily for the treatment of mixtures of biosolids, “green” waste, 

and food waste. Dry fermentation AD systems are being considered in the United States 

as a method to efficiently utilize and manage non-liquid organic wastes. Dry systems 

can use input organic material with total solids content of up to 60%; however, 

supplemental green or wood waste is typically required so the bulk material is porous 

enough to allow liquid and biogas to pass through it.

For dry fermentation AD processes, the organic material is maintained in bunker-type 

reactors at solids concentrations of up to 60%. There are several variations on the use 

of this technology, employing different methods of liquid circulation through the solids.
94

Bunker-Type Dry Fermentation 

Bunker-type dry fermentation facilities consist of a series of concrete bunkers equipped 

with air-tight ceilings and doors. The materials are typically loaded using a front-end 

loader; hence stackable feedstock composition is required. If the water content of the 

feedstock is so high the material is not stackable, bulking materials, such as chipped 

wood, must be used to increase porosity, as well as improve the ability to stack the 

material in the bunker. The bunkers are filled and the door sealed closed to initiate the 

anaerobic phase. The bunkers are equipped with a liquids circulation system and a 

biogas collection system. Depending upon the manufacturer’s recommendations, the 

feedstock is moisture conditioned and biogas is extracted from the closed bunker. After 

the digestion process, the bunker is purged with fresh air to cease the anaerobic phase. 

The purged air is collected and treated in a biofilter to remove odorous and 

contaminated air. The remaining material is usually removed from the bunker using a 

front-end loader. This digestate is typically stabilized in a brief aerobic composting 

phase. 

Due to the solid nature of the feedstock, these systems do not typically employ a 

method of mixing; rather, a method of liquid recirculation is used. Unlike low-solids and 

high-solids systems, dry fermentation plants are designed around the principle that 

microorganisms are more easily moved than a large amount of material. To facilitate 

digestion, water is recycled through the system and percolated through the mass of 

waste by the forces of gravity. This allows the organic input to remain stationary for the 

digestion retention time while the needed biochemical reactions still occur. Because the 

mass stays stationary, the overall structure of a dry fermentation plant is very different 

from a wet plant. There are no moving parts inside the fermentation bunker.

Digestate material from a dry digestion process is solid in character, so it does not 

require dewatering prior to the further processing that is required to biologically stabilize 

the mass (e.g., composting) prior to use. Dry fermentation is operated in a batch mode. 

Once gas generation peaks and declines, the partially stabilized organic matter can be 

aerobically cured and used as compost. 

Dry fermentation offers many advantages for the processing of the organic fraction of 

the waste stream. Because material does not require movement or pumping in a dry AD 

plant, pre-processing of the input materials to remove plastic bags and other inert 

materials is significantly reduced; input material does not need to be ground, nor diluted 

with water, nor even have the contaminants removed. These systems do not require 

dilution of the feedstock. As a result, centrate from a digestate dewatering process 

found in low-solids and some high-solids systems is eliminated.

The operation and maintenance of dry digesters include some complexities not seen 

with other technologies. The feedstock handling is complex as the waste is no longer a 

liquid stream and, like high-solids systems, conveyance of the feedstock can be 

challenging and is typically done with front-end loaders or similar manually operated 

equipment. 
95

Using a dry fermentation system minimizes processing costs, both prior to and after 

digestion, and the use of water and other resources within the system itself. This allows 

for the most efficient and productive recovery of resources within the organic material. 

One disadvantage of a dry fermentation system is that it produces less biogas 

compared to low-solids and high-solids systems, which must be considered when 

evaluating the economics of these systems. 

Flexible Membrane Type Dry Fermentation 

The use of a flexible membrane liner (FML) to enclose the dry fermentation process is 

another alternative. The use of an FML has gained the attention in the US of 

management of several solid waste organizations that own/operate landfills. The FML 

type system is a low-cost alternative to the bunker-type dry fermentation process 

described above. The FML type process employs an HDPE (high-density polyethylene) 

membrane type containment system, typically on a landfill rather than in a concrete 

bunker or tank reactor system. The FML type dry fermentation process employs a 

technique to efficiently process large quantities of organic waste without constructing 

the concrete bunker enclosure described above. The FML-type dry fermentation 

process is in essence a combination of existing organic waste processing technologies 

including anaerobic digestion and composting, but it requires less capital as it takes 

place within a landfill cell. 

Anaerobic digesters produce a stabilized material in a matter of days or weeks; 

composting systems stabilize materials in a matter of months; but the FML-type 

residence time depends on a number of factors such as organic waste mixture, initial 

moisture content, leachate recirculation efficiency, and temperature. The time required 

can range from six months to a few years to complete the entire stabilization process. 

One benefit of the FML-type system is that it does not require the organic waste to 

undergo extensive pre-processing and/or handling during the process. It also has a 

lower capital cost than other techniques used to process and recycle organic waste 

because it can utilize an existing landfill cell and does not require new infrastructure to 

be constructed.

The FML-type system involves the sequential application of anaerobic degradation, 

aerobic decomposition and residuals mining in a single module. Once the module is 

filled, it is capped and sealed with an impermeable geomembrane liner. After the 

module is sealed, it essentially becomes an anaerobic digester to recover biogas 

generated as the organic waste degrades. Once the anaerobic phase is completed, the 

biogas is extracted to produce energy. After the digestion phase is essentially complete, 

air is pushed into the module to create an aerobic condition to finish the composting 

process. The finished compost is then exhumed from the module. Once the material 

has been removed, a final curing step is conducted prior to the use of the stabilized 

material. Once the material has been exhumed, the empty module is then ready to 

accept new organic material to begin the process once again. Because the system 

operates in an extended batch mode, there is little minimal labor required, and the skill 

level required of operators is low compared to other systems. The FML-type system AD

phase is designed to treat many biodegradable wastes, such as biosolids and other 
96

organic wastes generally not considered for conventional composting, including animal 

byproducts, meat, and cooked food.

Process Configuration

Anaerobic digestion systems originated as a one-stage process where feed is digested 

in a single (most often, continuously fed) reactor. As AD technology research and 

experience has progressed, a clearer understanding of the digestion process 

fundamentals has developed. One finding from this experience is the digestion process 

is a sequential process primarily between two types of bacteria.

In general, there are two phases to anaerobic digestion known as the “acid phase” and 

the “methane-producing phase,” or “methanogenic phase.” In the first phase, complex 

organic matter is hydrolyzed and converted to simpler organic acids. In the second 

phase, organic acids are converted to methane, carbon dioxide, water and simpler endproducts. Acid and methane production can occur in a single containment vessel or be 

separated into two vessels, one for each phase. Generally, in a digester that is working 

on a continuous basis, both the acid phase and methanogenic phase occur 

simultaneously within the reactor space through the action of different types of bacteria. 

However, some designs of high-solids and low-solids systems purposely and physically 

segregate the acid phase process from that of the methane-producing phase as 

discussed below. The objective of separating the phases is to provide favorable 

environmental conditions to both the acid-forming and methane-forming bacteria. 

To some extent, phasing can be achieved by designing the reactors to be plug flow. 

Plug-flow reactors are designed with a high length to width (or height to diameter for 

vertical tanks) ratio so that feed travels through the reactor like a plug and is not mixed 

with the balance of the reactor contents. The benefit of plug flow is the two phases of 

digestion can be separated spatially using a plug-flow design. Many of the installed 

high-solids AD systems utilize a plug-flow arrangement, including prominent European 

technology providers Valorga and Kompogas. 

The key benefit of phased systems is they are largely accepted to be more efficient than 

a single-stage process, which results in smaller-volume AD reactor volume compared to 

single-stage systems when digesting the same quantity of feedstock material. A 

disadvantage of phasing is it requires multiple tanks and associated mixing equipment 

and appurtenances. As a result, the cost savings associated with reduced overall 

volume for a phased system are offset by the need for multiple tanks and equipment.

Biomass Immobilization

Suspended Growth

Suspended-growth AD systems are those where bacteria are suspended within the 

reactor along with the organic feedstock. For most low-solids and high-solids systems, 

the bacteria grow within the reactor and then are discharged along with the digester 

effluent (i.e., the digestate). For low-solids systems that operate at TS content less than 

about 1%, a shortfall of suspended growth systems is that bacteria can often be 
97

discharged with the effluent, whereas the goal is sometimes to retain bacteria in the 

reactor for digesting organics. The advantage of suspended growth systems is they are 

well established, and there is significant operating experience using them. 

Attached Growth/Fixed-Film Systems

Anaerobic systems are sometimes designed as attached growth, or fixed-film systems 

where a media is provided (sand or other material) within the anaerobic reactor that

bacteria can attach to. Because anaerobic bacteria are characteristically difficult to 

settle out of wastewater, the media provide an anchor by which bacteria are retained 

within a reactor system. Attached growth systems are used for treating soluble organic 

wastes (TS less than approximately 0.5 to 1.0%) and are not applicable to treating 

organic wastes similar to MSW.

Reactor Construction

Anaerobic digestion reactors are commonly constructed as covered earthen lagoons, or 

concrete, steel, or stainless steel tanks. Tanks are more common for feedstocks with 

higher TS because solids are difficult to remove from lagoons when TS is high. 

Anaerobic tank reactors generally include a rigid stainless steel, fiberglass, or synthetic 

membrane cover for collecting biogas. Concrete construction is typically more 

expensive than steel construction but is dependent on local material availability and 

cost. Tank systems generally include more mechanical components and therefore 

require more skilled operation compared to lagoons.

Lagoons typically require a larger footprint than tank reactors and are commonly used 

for agricultural applications and liquid organic waste treatment. Lagoons often include a 

synthetic liner to help prevent liquid from seeping through the lagoon floor and synthetic 

covers for collecting biogas from the lagoon for recovery. Lagoons are typically less 

expensive to construct than tank-style AD systems and are also common in rural areas 

where abundant space is available. Tanks appear to be the more conventional choice of 

construction for most MSW-type AD applications. For construction in Haiti, lagoons may 

be more susceptible to failure during an earthquake and/or flooding due to liquid soil 

characteristics. Tank construction can be better designed to resist the impacts of 

earthquakes and/or flooding.

A new AD reactor design includes concrete bunkers that are typically used in dry 

fermentation systems described in Section 2.1.3. These AD reactors can be built as 

rectangular bunkers so that feedstock can be delivered to the reactor and digestate can 

be removed from the reactor using manually operated front-end loading equipment. 

Temperature

Anaerobic digestion systems commonly operate either in the mesophilic (32o

C to 40oC) 

or thermophilic (48oC to 58oC) temperature ranges. These above-ambient temperatures 

are required for healthy, functioning methanogenic bacteria. Mesophilic operation has 

been more widely practiced than thermophilic primarily due to historical notions with 

process stability of thermophilic systems and the energy needed to raise the digester 

temperature to more than 48o

C. However, thermophilic operation has become more 
98

common, particularly with digestion of organic wastes and MSW. In the last 10 years, 

approximately one-third of the digesters installed in Europe for organic wastes and 

MSW were thermophilic systems. 

The advantage of thermophilic systems is that the bacteria metabolize organic substrate 

at a higher rate compared to mesophilic systems. A second advantage is the hydrolysis 

of particulate organic matter occurs more rapidly at higher temperatures. As a result of 

these factors, the volume of thermophilic systems is less than mesophilic systems. As 

noted above, the disadvantage of thermophilic systems is reduced process stability and 

additional heat addition required. However, if cogeneration is used to produce 

electricity, a portion of the waste heat from the engines is typically used to heat the 

digester contents for both mesophilic and thermophilic operation. 

A second disadvantage is that free ammonia (which is toxic to methanogenic bacteria at 

elevated levels) is present in higher concentrations in thermophilic systems compared to 

mesophilic systems due to its higher solubility at elevated temperatures. Depending on 

the nitrogen content of the feedstock, the feedstock may require dilution to lower the 

nitrogen concentration to be acceptable to methanogenic bacteria under thermophilic 

operation. Typically, the nitrogen content of MSW feedstocks is low enough that it does 

not present a toxicity concern to safe digester operation. 

Feeding Operation: Continuous and Batch Feed 

AD systems are either operated as a batch or continuous process. A batch system is 

fed raw feedstock, left to react over a prescribed period and followed by removal of the 

reactor contents from the system. A continuous system is fed continuously with raw 

untreated organics and material is also removed from the AD reactor continuously. For 

a single-stage batch process, hydrolysis, acidification, and methane formation occur 

sequentially within the reactor during the prescribed reaction period of the system. It has 

been noted in some cases that batch feeding is more efficient than continuous feeding 

as hydrolysis and acidification are allowed to occur in the early stages of the detention 

period, followed by methane formation in the latter stages. For a single-stage 

continuously fed system, hydrolysis, acidification, and methane formation occur 

simultaneously within the reactor; because of this, localized acid-forming and methaneforming bacteria populations must coexist under sometimes less-than-ideal 

environmental conditions. 

Batch systems are unique in that there must be multiple tanks available for feeding raw 

feedstock. While one AD reactor is in batch operation, it cannot be fed additional 

feedstock, so additional reactor(s) must be available for feeding. Continuous systems 

do not have this limitation. 

Digester Mixing

The goal of digester mixing is to help bring organic feedstock in contact with the 

anaerobic bacteria, maintain relatively uniform temperature and pH, and reduce the 

potential for biogas pockets to accumulate within the digester. Traditional digester 

mixing methods include pumped mixing, mechanical mixing, and gas recirculation 
99

mixing. In pumped mixing, external pumps are used to recirculate digester contents. 

Digester mixing is common for low-solids systems but less common in high-solids and 

dry fermentation systems simply because AD reactor contents are so thick they cannot

be effectively mixed within the reactor. Mixing that is employed for high-solids systems 

serves to agitate digester contents rather than mix them. The efficiency of this method 

varies depending on several parameters, including digester size, viscosity of the 

contents, and turnover rate. The key benefit of pumped mixing is that no moving parts 

are inside the digester and so maintenance of mixing equipment is simplified because it 

is external to the digester. Pumped mixing can only be applied to low-solids systems 

due to difficulty in pumping thick materials and associated excessive power 

requirement. 

Mechanical mixing, also known as internal mixing, uses a mechanical device inside the 

digester to mix the contents. These devices are generally impellers, propellers, and 

turbine wheels, and are subject to wear and tear damage, as well as damage from 

vibration, due to being submerged in the digestate, which could contain grit and debris. 

Mechanical mixing can be used for low-solids digesters but not high-solids digesters 

because they cannot mix systems with TS content above approximately 10% to 15%. 

Nonetheless, mechanical mixing is a relatively simple approach to mixing. 

In gas recirculation mixing, the gas produced is collected, compressed, and then 

released from tubes, lances, or diffusers on the bottom of the digester tank to promote 

mixing. These systems can be unconfined or confined, and the efficiency of either 

depends on energy input. Unconfined systems use top-mounted lances and diffusers on 

the bottom of the digester tank. Confined systems use draft tubes to discharge gas. One 

benefit of gas-mixing systems is their ability to mix reactors with relatively high-solids 

content. A disadvantage of gas mixing is that biogas used for the mixing is an explosive 

and corrosive gas. As a result, it must be handled carefully, and gas-handling 

equipment must use corrosion-resistant materials, which add to the cost for mixing. 

Summary of Anaerobic Digestion Technologies Considered by NREL

As mentioned previously, the Haiti WTE opportunity analysis (NREL, 2010) reviewed six 

different AD approaches. Each of these approaches in some way incorporate some of 

the alternative process and design features presented in Section 2.0 and summarized 

below. Because the specific characteristics of the feedstock were not identified during 

the NREL study, its TS content was unknown and AD approach with regard to low- or 

high-solids operation was not presented. Also, the report does not describe operating 

temperature or if and how the AD reactors would be mixed.

Membrane-covered lagoon: The MCL option uses lagoons as its reactor construction 

method. Some MCLs use a non-insulated membrane cover placed over a concretelined lagoon; lagoons are also commonly constructed of earthen materials. The desired 

approach to lagoon construction is to utilize a cut-and-fill approach with native soils to 

build the lagoon while eliminating the need to import fill material. Lagoons are typically 

lined with a synthetic liner to help prevent seepage from the lagoon and to protect 

groundwater; however, this requirement is dependent on the local regulating authority. 

As with other approaches that utilize lagoons, the footprint required will normally be 
100

larger than with other construction methods. Although the gas production was estimated 

as low (due to a non-insulated cover and lower operating temperature) and the retention 

time was estimated as greater than 20 days, it was also the lowest cost. NREL ranked 

this option first in terms of the lowest capital and operating costs among the approaches 

that was studied. As noted earlier, the drawback of a lagoon is the difficulty in removing 

solids from the reactor. This is a particular issue of concern for the Haiti waste materials 

due to the composition of the waste. The more traditional use of an MCL is for low TS 

feed where solids removal is a lesser concern; the devices used for solids removal in an 

MCL would likely not function for the removal of the Haitian MSW solids. 

Heated and mixed membrane-covered lagoon: The HMMCL is similar to an MCL, 

except it uses an insulated membrane cover instead of a non-insulated one. This 

reduces the reactor size and footprint required because the bacteria are more effective 

at destroying organics at the higher temperature resulting from the insulated cover. 

Again, capital and operating costs were considered substantially lower than other 

approaches, although gas production was also low by comparison and retention time 

was greater than 20 days. Solids removal is also an issue for this method. 

Plug-flow digester: The PFD also uses the lagoon construction method with a cover, 

but has higher capital costs and a substantially higher operating cost. It is designed to 

control material viscosity and function like a plug-flow system at the exit. It does require 

less space than the other two lagoon approaches presented, and the gas production is 

described as highly variable. The retention time was estimated to be 20 days.

Complete mix and hybrid digester: The CMHD use bolted steel vessels with external 

pumps and heating. The report does not specify if the tanks are used as a single-stage 

or phased-process configuration, but does describe the construction method as having 

a significantly lower space requirement than the PFD. The lower space requirement is 

presumably due to a taller reactor size compared to a lagoon. The option is ranked 

fourth in terms of capital and operating costs. Operational costs are higher because of 

the cost of operating the mechanical mixing equipment and providing for their repair and 

replacement as needed. The CMHD provides a medium level of gas production 

compared to the other approaches listed, with a retention time of 20 days. 

Fixed-film digester: The FFD approach described in the NREL report utilizes lowsolids content and attached growth biomass immobilization using plastic media fill-in 

steel tanks. It is listed as having similar footprint requirements to the CMHD, but again 

does not specify single stage or phased. The FFD utilizes external pumps, as in 

pumped mixing, and heating. The retention time is listed as five to 20 days, with

excellent volatile reduction and gas production when compared with the other NREL 

approaches. It requires well-screened, dilute feedstock, and thus has high water usage 

and higher capital and operating costs than previous approaches. As such, this system 

could be considered a low-solids system. 

The significant challenge with an FFD in treating MSW that has relatively high TS is the 

quantity of dilution water needed to prevent the plastic media from exiting the reactor 

with digester contents. FFD systems are more applicable to treating soluble organic 
101

wastewaters with a TS content less than approximately 0.3% to 0.5% TS. As a result, a 

significant amount of dilution water would be needed to reduce feedstock TS, and 

therefore, is not applicable to digesting MSW in Haiti. It is ranked fifth for both capital 

and operating costs.

Upright cylinder digester: The last approach evaluated by NREL is the UCD, which 

employs high-solids content in tall vessels with small diameters, implying a quasi-plugflow process configuration. The NREL report indicates this approach uses proactive 

mixing and a high bacteria concentration. With a reported retention time of only five

days, the UCD has a small footprint and is estimated to have high volatile solids 

reduction and gas production. A five-day retention time appears quite low and would 

likely be higher when designed. It is ranked with the highest capital and operating costs. 

Anaerobic Digestion Approaches Applicable to Haiti 

Screening criteria to identify an appropriate AD technology for Haiti conditions were 

considered. Based on project development to this date, the following criteria appear 

appropriate for selecting a suitable approach to AD.

• Cost. The system should be cost-effective.

• Applicability to feedstock characteristics. The WSA resulted in a feedstock 

that is 73% organic, with a 27% TS content. 

• Footprint. The Trutier dump site is the currently planned location of the AD 

facility and is understood to have adequate footprint for essentially any AD 

technology.

• Contamination. The Trutier site will utilize manual laborers to hand sort and 

remove metals, plastics and other contaminants from MSW hauled to the site 

prior to AD. However, plastic bags and other contaminants may still enter the 

waste stream, and therefore, the AD system shall be able to accommodate such 

contamination.

• Heat Requirements. The biogas from the AD system will be converted to 

electricity, and in doing so, waste heat will be generated and available for 

digester heating.

Table A-1 summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of the features described 

in Section 2.0, and also presents the applicability of the different approaches and 

design feature to Haiti based on criteria presented in Section 4.0. Each feature is 

ranked as high, moderate, low, applicable, or not applicable. 
102

Table A-1. Advantages, Disadvantages, and Applicability of 

Various AD Approaches in Haiti

Approach Advantages Disadvantages Applicability to 

Haiti

Solids Content Low-Solids Demonstrated success (municipal 

biosolids)

Digester contents are easily 

conveyed and pumped

Liquid provides high contact between 

organic substrate and biomass

May require larger AD reactors

Robust preprocessing required, as 

contamination could damage system

Digestate usually requires dewatering 

and resulting liquid needs to be 

managed appropriately

Supplemental water must be available 

to dilute the raw feedstock

Low

High-Solids Can handle higher level of 

contamination because there is no 

easily damaged pumping or 

conveyance equipment

Supplemental water generally not 

required for feedstock dilution

Digestate may not require dewatering 

and can be managed as a solid 

byproduct

Strong operating record for digesting 

MSW. 

Solids are more challenging to handle 

and convey, requiring augers and 

conveyors 

Less homogenous and complete 

mixing is difficult to achieve, leading to 

less contact between organic 

substrate and biomass

Handling thick feedstock and digestate 

to and from can be challenging

High

Dry 

Fermentation

Does not require robust 

preprocessing or dilution of feedstock

Does not require dewatering

Conveyance of feedstock is more 

challenging and requires equipment 

like front-end loaders

Produces less biogas relative to lowand high-solids systems

Less operating experience

May require a green/wood waste to 

provide porosity to bulk material

Moderate to High

Process 

Configuration

Single-Stage Lower costs for tank and related 

equipment

Well established

Requires greater reactor volume Applicable

Phased 

Systems 

More efficient, requiring less reactor 

volume

Stable operation

Increased costs associated with 

multiple tanks and related equipment

Less operating experience

Applicable

Biomass 

Immobilization

Suspended 

Growth

Robust with regard to passing 

material and inerts

Well established

May risk losing biomass inventory in 

low-solids systems operated at very 

low TS content

High

Attached 

Growth/FixedFilm Systems

Provides means to retain bacteria 

within reactor system

Only applicable for soluble organic 

wastes

Low
103

Approach Advantages Disadvantages Applicability to 

Haiti

Reactor 

Construction

Earthen 

Lagoon

Typically less expensive to construct 

than tanks

Require larger footprint than tanks

Better suited for low-solids systems

Difficult to remove solids from system

Higher potential for damage during 

earthquake and/or flood

Moderate to High

Concrete or 

Steel Tanks

More common for feedstocks with 

high total solids, like MSW

Range of costs based on material 

chosen and availability, but typically 

more expensive to construct than 

lagoons

Moderate to High

Bunkers Practical approach to reactor 

construction for high-solids 

feedstocks

Relatively uncommon method

Solids must be removed manually

Moderate

Temperature Ambient 

Temperature

Heating of AD reactor contents 

unneeded

Low gas production Low to Moderate

Mesophilic Stable process

Proven method

Supplemental digester heating 

required

Moderate to High

Thermophilic Required volume of system is lower, 

due to higher rate of metabolism and 

more rapid hydrolysis

Reduced process stability

Increased supplemental heat demand

Higher risk of ammonia toxicity so may 

require dilution of feedstock with high 

concentration

Moderate to High

Feeding 

Operation

Continuous

Feed

Proven method Single-stage tank limits ability to easily 

increase capacity

Applicable

Batch Feed Capacity can be easily increased by 

adding additional 

hydrolysis/acidification tanks

More efficient for single-stage 

systems than continuous feeding

There must be multiple tanks or 

storage available to receive raw 

feedstock

Applicable

Sanitary Landfill as an Alternative Solid Waste Management Approach 

Although the Haiti WTE opportunity analysis prepared by NREL reviewed six different 

AD technologies, the most common and least costly method of managing municipal 

solid wastes in the United States is the placement of wastes in a modern, sanitary 

landfill. If properly constructed, filled, and maintained, a sanitary landfill equipped with a 

landfill gas collection system and landfill gas-to-energy (LFGTE) power system can also 

produce renewable energy in the form of electricity, albeit years later after the landfill 

has been constructed. This method of waste management and power production could 

be considered as a comparable baseline option compared to the use of AD. As such, 

the following description is provided for NREL’s consideration.

The same biological mechanisms for converting organics to biogas that occur at an AD

facility also occur in a landfill. A sanitary landfill can convert the volatile solids of the 

organic fraction of the waste into a biogas (landfill gas) at a similar overall percentage 

yet over a much longer period compared to AD. Landfill gas is similar to biogas and 

consists of methane, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and other trace gases. Landfill gas is 

approximately half methane and generally somewhat lower than biogas. 
104

The process of converting landfilled organics into landfill is typically slower than a 

digester converting the same organics into biogas. This slower landfill rate is due to a 

variety of environmental issues, such as temperature, moisture content, poor contact 

between organics and anaerobic bacteria, and also operational issues, such as the time 

from the initial placement of the waste until such time the landfill gas can be extracted. 

However, on a steady-state basis over the duration of many years, the landfill will 

generally tend to produce a similar quantity of methane as an anaerobic digester. 

A sanitary landfill consists of a properly designed and constructed containment system 

to prevent the leakage of liquids and gases from beneath the waste to the surrounding 

soil or underlying groundwater. The containment system could consist of local clay 

materials if they are available or could be constructed of manmade geo-textile fabrics 

typical of flexible membrane liner products similar to the materials used to prepare the 

lagoon-type digester described above.

Filling of the sanitary landfill requires compaction to properly place the waste materials. 

Compaction provides several necessary benefits, including efficient use of the capacity 

of a lined landfill cell; avoidance of the waste attracting rodents, birds, or other vectors; 

as well as structural integrity for stability as the waste prism is raised in depth. Also, 

properly compacted waste provides the necessary structure to allow drilling through the

waste for the placement of landfill gas extraction wells, which are typically installed after 

a cell or module has been filled. 

The installation of a landfill gas collection and power system is installed once the waste in 

a cell or module has reached its intended depth/grade. The collection system consists of 

vertically drilled wells in the waste, constructed somewhat similar to a groundwater well 

with perforated collection pipes deep in the waste and well seals at the surface to prevent 

the intrusion of oxygen into the waste. Gas is collected by a grid of pipes placed on the 

surface of the landfill and equipped with a blower to draw the gases from the waste using 

a blower. The extracted gas typically requires some pretreatment before use, which is 

somewhat similar to biogas. At a minimum, the gas is pretreated typically to remove 

excess moisture and compressed for use in an internal combustion engine or gas turbine.

Lined landfills require leachate collection and management. If designed properly, the 

leachate can be returned to the landfill, which can enhance the production of landfill 

gases. The limitation of this practice is if liquid levels within the landfill become too high, 

impeding the ability to collect landfill gas. Leachate is also commonly used for dust 

suppression on roads and the waste receiving area. This practice is limited to dry 

seasonal use, however, so leachate storage (either within the landfill or in separate 

tanks) may be necessary. 

Once the landfill has been filled, it can be capped with soils or geo-textile materials 

similar to the liner materials used to construct the liner beneath the waste. Once 

capped, the landfill will continue to produce landfill gas as long as there are organics 

readily available to bacteria within it. Consequently, the ongoing extraction of landfill gas 

is necessary. The generation cycle of landfill gas ranges in a five- to 15-year logarithmic 

declining curve depending on variables such as moisture content and organic content. 
105

Table A-2 summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of the features described in 

Section 2.0 as they apply to Haiti based on the criteria presented in Section 4.0. Each 

feature is ranked as high, moderate, low, applicable, or not applicable. 

Table A-2. Advantages, Disadvantages, and Applicability of LFGTE in Haiti

Approach Advantages Disadvantages Applicability to 

Haiti

Solids Content Does not require waste 

preprocessing 

Does not require dewatering 

Equipment and labor are similar to 

typical construction

Placement of waste requires compaction, 

which requires equipment (bulldozers and 

compactors) 

Produces less biogas relative to low- and 

high-solids systems

Moderate to High

Process 

Configuration

N/A N/A N/A

Biomass 

Immobilization

N/A N/A N/A

Reactor

Construction

Similar to earthen lagoon AD

Typically less expensive to construct 

than tanks

Does not require removal of waste

Require larger footprint than tanks

Moderate potential for damage during 

earthquake, which can be mitigated through 

proper design and operations

Susceptible to flood damage; selection of 

site should be out of flood zone 

High

Temperature No heating of contents needed Low gas production due to lower 

temperature

High 

Feeding/Waste 

Placement 

Operation

Proven method of waste receipt and 

placement 

Direct unloading of trucks into waste 

prism 

Requires construction type equipment High 

Technology Scoring

Upon review of the advantages and disadvantages of the various AD approaches and 

features, including parallel consideration of a modern sanitary landfill alternative as a 

basis of comparison, a scoring system was developed by NREL and HDR to help 

determine the most suitable approach to digesting the organic fraction of Haiti’s MSW. 

The results of the scoring were used to rank and compare the types of technology with 

the ultimate goal of selecting the preferred technology to further develop for the project. 

A weighting factor was applied to each criterion, and a score was applied for each AD 

technology category feature to develop a weighted score for each category feature. 

A score ranging from a low of zero (0) to a high of four (4) was assigned to the specific 

criteria for each of the types of technologies. A weighting was assigned to each criteria 

ranging from a low of () to a high of (). The overall score of each technology type reflect 

the sum of the product of each technology individual criteria score (from 0-4) multiplied 

by the respective weighting factor. The total score of each technology type are 

compared to each other. 

This procedure resulted in a high-solids, single-stage tank AD system as the highest 

scoring AD technology. It is noteworthy that the modern sanitary landfill alternative had 

the overall highest weighted score, however. The purpose of comparing the various AD 
106

systems to a modern sanitary landfill as an alternative is to provide a perspective of how 

the preferred AD system would compare to a modern sanitary landfill on a criteria-bycriteria basis. We believe this to be an important comparison; particularly insomuch as 

energy from landfill gas-fired power plants is considered a renewable source in the 

United States. Also, the comparison allows consideration of the recognition that modern 

sanitary landfills represent the most employed best-available control technology to 

manage MSW in the Unites States. Table 3 provides a summary of the scoring results.

Discussion of Results and Next Steps

The following observations and conclusions can be drawn from the digestion technology 

comparison.

• A high-solids AD system appears to be the most suitable for Haiti considering the 

Haiti feedstock is at 27% TS and the high-solids AD operational experience 

digesting MSW.

• A phased- or single-stage system would be effective at digesting MSW and both 

are suitable for Haiti.

• An attached growth/fixed-film digester is not suitable for Haiti, as this technology 

is suited to soluble, high organic wastewaters.

• Tank construction may be the preferred method for the Haiti AD system; 

however, lagoon construction may also be feasible but provisions for routine 

solids removal should be provided.

• The AD reactors are best operated at mesophilic or thermophilic temperature 

while utilizing waste heat from electricity production.

• The AD system could be operated either as a continuous- or batch-feed system.

• A sanitary landfill equipped with a landfill gas collection and power-generating 

system could be more suitable for Haiti than any of the AD systems considering 

the Haiti waste composition, available labor force, and operational experience. 

These features and benefits should be weighed against the long period that 

biogas is generated over the landfill's extended life.

Further evaluation and development of a high-solids digestion system compared to the 

development of a modern sanitary landfill is recommended. This evaluation would 

include more detailed description of the high-solids digestion system, a conceptual 

mass balance, biogas generation estimates, system residuals, costs, and other 

components. This information will assist NREL in further evaluating the feasibility of an 

AD facility in the Port-au-Prince area. 

Further evaluation and consideration may be appropriate to explore the use of a modern 

sanitary landfill. If employed, we assume a modern sanitary landfill would receive the 

waste stream used for this analysis in addition to other commercial, industrial, 

construction/demolition-type wastes. As such, we envision the modern sanitary landfill 

would be constructed and operated similar to sanitary landfills in the United States, 

meeting groundwater protection standards, etc. We also expect the landfill would be 

equipped with a landfill gas collection system, LFGTE production equipment, etc. The 

further evaluation of a modern sanitary landfill, particularly its landfill gas generation 

estimates, costs, and related issues would be addressed in later analyses.
107

Appendix B: UNOPS Waste Sort Study and National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory Calculations

The following study was used in this analysis to estimate the characteristics and 

composition of the waste arriving at Trutier. Note "taux de matière sèche" in Tableau 1 

indicates the dry matter content of the waste components (total solids [TS]), and 

Tableau 2 shows the volatile solids (VS). There are discrepancies with the body of this 

report due to rounding by UNOPS (e.g., in the waste composition pie chart). 
108
109
110

In addition to a summary report, UNOPS provided an Excel spreadsheet file of the raw 

data. A sample of that data9 is shown in Table B-1. 

Table B-1. Sample Data from Waste Characterization Study 

DayTime SamplingCompanyTruck TypeTime Initial WeightingSample Initial Weight (kg)Time Final Weighting Final Total Weight (kg)% Lost Weight1. Paper 2. Glass 3. Metal 4. Plastic 5. Organic6. Wood7. Textiles 8. Electronics 9. Construction Debris 10. Danger 11. Other

Oct 5 9:15 Jedco Ouvert 10:28 6.485 10:43 3.61 44.3 0.64 0.9 0 0.97 0 0.89 0.215 0 0 0 0

Oct 5 9:18 Boucard Ouvert 10:26 9.255 10:37 9.03 2.4 0.78 1.01 0 1.21 3.465 2.14 0.43 0 0 0 0

Oct 5 9:22 SMCRS Compressif 10:09 6.085 10:12 5.56 8.6 1.865 0 0.02 0.16 2.19 0 1.32 0 0 0 0

Oct 5 9:30 Jedco Ouvert 10:24 3.715 10:41 4.08 -9.7 1.78 0 0 0.595 0.54 0.39 0.77 0 0 0 0

Oct 5 9:34 SMCRS Compressif 10:10 5.105 10:16 5.01 1.9 0.55 0 0 0.33 0.1 0.17 3.865 0 0 0 0

Oct 5 9:55 PNUD Ouvert 11:21 11.56 11:28 11.31 2.2 0.64 0 0.13 0.39 10 0 0.15 0 0 0 0

Oct 5 10:00 SMCRS Ouvert 10:57 4.385 11:01 4.38 0.1 1.59 0 0.12 0.95 1.17 0.55 0 0 0 0 0

Oct 5 10:04 Encort Ouvert 11:06 3.66 11:14 3.58 2.2 1.42 0 0 0.545 1.615 0 0 0 0 0 0

Oct 5 10:08 PNUD Ouvert 10:57 5.51 11:08 5.27 4.4 0.4 0.22 0.11 0.555 2.85 1.06 0.08 0 0 0 0

Oct 5 10:25 Sonapi Ouvert 11:00 2.62 11:04 2.58 1.7 1.965 0 0 0.31 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0

 

9 Some columns of data have been removed from the figure to allow it to fit on the page.
111

Not all of these materials can be converted to energy using a biochemical process 

(which could be either an anaerobic digestion or landfill gas-to-energy facility), so 

NREL’s analysis included only textiles, paper, wood, and organics. The following tables 

are taken directly from Tableau 1 and Tableau 2 in the UNOPS report but converted to 

English. 

Table B-2. Waste Composition—Percent Total Solids

Samples 05/10/11 06/10/11 07/10/11 10/10/11 11/10/11 12/10/11 13/10/11 14/10/11 15a/10/11 15b/10/11 

Textiles 53.5 38.5 46.4 63.9 49.1 51.6 51.5 37.3 78.1 68.3 

Paper 37.6 42.5 61.3 53.3 32.7 45.4 34.8 57.6 47.4 44.2 

Wood 78.9 57.3 69.3 52.9 55.1 84.4 61.0 63.5 84.7 81.2 

Organics 19.0 9.5 19.6 21.4 13.7 22.1 22.1 13.6 22.2 20.1 

Table B-3. Waste Composition—Volatile Solids, as Percent of Total Solids

Samples 05/10/11 06/10/11 07/10/11 10/10/11 11/10/11 12/10/11 13/10/11 14/10/11 15a/10/11 15b/10/11 

Textiles 78.6 81.9 91.9 88.3 83.2 75.7 85.9 97.1 96.5 95.0 

Paper 84.9 89.0 85.9 79.3 86.8 92.4 65.0 97.5 83.2 96.1 

Wood 90.6 77.9 84.2 86.9 86.4 89.3 79.9 95.1 98.6 98.2 

Organics 87.8 74.8 79.1 83.4 86.5 84.0 81.5 92.4 92.8 80.6 

Table B-4 shows volatile solids as a percent of total materials; this is derived from the 

previous tables.

Table B-4. Waste Composition—Volatile Solids as Percent of Total 

Table B-5 provides a summary of the organic materials. 

Volatile Solids [% of total]

Samples 5/10/2011 6/10/2011 7/10/2011 10/10/2011 11/10/2011 12/10/2011 13/10/2011 14/10/2012 15/10/2011 15/10/11 (2)

Textiles 42% 32% 43% 56% 41% 39% 44% 36% 75% 65%

Paper 32% 38% 53% 42% 28% 42% 23% 56% 39% 42%

Wood 71% 45% 58% 46% 48% 75% 49% 60% 84% 80%

Organics 17% 7% 16% 18% 12% 19% 18% 13% 21% 16%
112

Table B-5. Organic Materials Summary—Total and Volatile Solids 

Summary

Samples Average

Standard 

Deviation Average

Standard 

Deviation

Textiles 53.8 12.9 87.4 7.6

Paper 45.7 9.5 86.0 9.3

Wood 68.8 12.5 88.7 7.1

Organics 18.3 4.5 84.3 5.7

Total solids [%] Volatile Solids [% of TS]
113

Appendix C: UNOPS TrutierTruck Monitoring Study

The waste characterization study in Appendix B did not include a determination of the 

quantities of waste delivered per day or per week. Therefore, a separate study was 

performed to estimate these quantities. The truck monitoring study was conducted from 

Dec. 10-14, 2011.

During the study, logs were kept, recording the time of arrival, the type of truck, type of 

load, city of origin, and other relevant data. An example data log, from Saturday, Dec. 

10, is shown in Table C-1. 

Table C-1. Sample Truck Monitoring Log File from Saturday, Dec. 10, 2011

Time Company Type of Truck

Truck 

Capacity 

(m3) 

MSW

Truck 

Capacity 

(m3) 

Debris 

Truck 

Capacity 

(m3) 

Other

Type of 

Waste Immatriculation Number of Passengers Origin

16:29 Sanco Compressive 45 MSW ZA8590 3 Centre-Ville

16:49 SMCRS Compressive 45 MSW IC.021 3 Martissant

16:55 Ampo Open 10 MSW ZA33116 3 Petionville

17:16 Ampo Open 10 MSW ZA10115 3 Sarthes

19:12 SMCRS Open 45 MSW A.10 2 Grand Rue

19:49 MTPTC Open 16 MSW MTPTC_430 2

Croix des 

Bouquets

19:49 SMCRS Open 16 MSW B.06 2

Petite Place 

Cazeau

20:33 SMCRS Open 45 MSW A.10 2 Delmas

21:10 SMCRS Open 16 MSW B.04 2 Mais Gate

21:25 SMCRS Open 45 MSW A.09 3 Mais Gate

21:30 SMCRS Open 16 MSW B.06 3 Mais Gate

21:33 SMCRS Compressive 16 MSW IC.022 2 Delmas

21:46 SMCRS Open 16 MSW B.02 3 Mais Gate

21:56 SMCRS Open 45 MSW A.10 3

Croix des 

Bossales

22:30 SMCRS Open 16 MSW B.04 2 Bon Repos

22:38 SMCRS Open 16 MSW B.06 3 Bon Repos

23:00 SMCRS Open 16 MSW B.02 3 Grand Rue

23:03 SMCRS Open 45 MSW A.10 2 Grand Rue

23:27 SMCRS Compressive 16 MSW IC.10 3

Croix des 

Bouquets
114

23:32 SMCRS Open 45 MSW MC.006 3 Aeroport

23:48 SMCRS Compressive 15 MSW IC.025 3 Clercines

23:49 SMCRS Open 16 MSW B.04 2 Grand Rue

TOTAL 571 0 0

Note two types of truck were encountered: compressive and open.

There is a truck scale at Trutier, but it was not in operation at the time of this study, so 

the truck volumes were converted to weight using the factors shown in Table C-2.

Table C-2. Assumed Densities Used to Convert from Volume to Mass

Assumed Densities (kg/m3) 

MSW 250

Debris 1,850

Dangerous 250

Table C-3 provides a summary of results from the truck monitoring study, including 

duration of monitoring.

Table C-3. Truck Monitoring Data Summary

Day 

Duration of 

Monitoring

(hours)

Volume 

MSW 

(m3) 

Weight 

MSW (t)

Volume 

Debris 

(m3) 

Weight 

Debris (t) 

Volume 

Dangerous 

(m3)

Weight 

Dangerous 

(t)

Total 

Volume 

(m3) 

Total 

Weight (t)

Sat., Dec. 10 8 571 143 0 0 0 0 571 143

Sun., Dec. 11 24 1,478 370 0 0 0 0 1,478 370

Mon., Dec. 12 24 2,857 714 702 1,299 16 4 3,575 2,017

Tue., Dec. 13 24 3,185 796 1,481 2,470 4 1 4,670 3,537

Wed., Dec 14 16 2,606 652 1,579 2,921 0 0 4,185 3,573

TOTAL 96 10,697 2,674 3,762 6,960 20 5 14,479 9,939

Daily Average (weekend) 1,596 399 0 0 0 0 1,596 399

Daily Average (weekdays) 3.021 755 1,092 2,019 10 3 4,123 2,777

Weekly Average 18,296 4,574 5,458 10,096 50 13 23,804 14,683

Average (daily) 653 metric tons (t)

To arrive at the average daily value of 653 tonnes, NREL determined hourly delivery 

rates and multiplied those by 24 hours per day. Periods with shorter monitoring 

(Saturday and Wednesday) have larger waste delivery rates (tonne/hour) than those 

with longer monitoring. Also, NREL did not know if the monitoring on those days was 

shorter due to reduced landfill operating hours or if the landfill was open 24 hours per 
115

day but monitoring only occurred for part of the day. Therefore, NREL ignored in its

analysis the data from December 14, but included the data from December 10 to arrive 

at an annual MSW collection rate of 653 tonnes per day (4,574 tonnes/week).

This rate was multiplied by the component fractions from the waste sort analysis to 

estimate quantities of all components arriving at the landfill, as shown in Table C-4. 

Table C-4. Total Quantities of Materials Delivered to the Landfill

Waste Category Percentage of 

Total Waste 

by Mass (%)

Tonnes/Day 

Food and misc. organics 54.8 358.1

Paper 10.6 69.2

Textiles 6.5 42.7

Wood 1.9 12.3

Plastic 13.8 90.3

Debris 4.8 31.3

Glass 2.3 15.2

Metal 1.4 9.3

Electronics 0.4 2.7

Hazardous waste 0.2 1.0

Other 3.2 20.7

Totala 100 653

a Individual line items do not sum to totals due to rounding.
116

Appendix D: Study on Colocating and Co-Firing Biogas 

in Diesel Gensets

HDR Engineering Inc. was contracted to prepare an analysis of the preferred anaerobic 

digestion (AD) technology option and include an evaluation of the potential for 

colocating or co-firing of biogas from AD with a diesel power plant. This memorandum 

addresses the colocation or co-firing of biogas with a diesel power plant but does not 

address the broader analysis of AD in Haiti. 

This study concludes the following:

• Colocating a biogas-fired power plant with a diesel-fueled power plant is 

beneficial in terms of connection to the power grid and efficiencies related to 

facility operations and maintenance.

• Co-firing of biogas with diesel fuel in a bifuel power plant is potentially viable in 

terms of securing either engine or boiler manufacturers to provide the necessary 

equipment modifications. Further study of the biogas quantity and quality would 

need to be performed to determine the ideal mixture of biogas with diesel, 

engine, or boiler configuration, etc.

These findings are described below.

Colocating a Biogas Power Plant with a Diesel-Fueled Power Plant

The colocation of a biogas-fueled power plant with a diesel-fueled power plant has 

potential benefits for a variety of issues. Clarifying, however, our assumption in 

colocating these two uses is they would remain independent, separately fueled and 

operated power systems. Namely, the biogas-fueled internal combustion (IC) engine 

would operate entirely independent from the diesel-fueled IC engine. This configuration 

is the more common way to use biogas in the generation of electricity. Similarly, 

maintaining a separately fueled diesel IC engine is the more common way diesel-fueled 

electrical power generation units (typically called “gensets”) are configured. 

Although the two power-generating units would be separate, colocating of separate 

biogas and diesel power plants is beneficial for a number of reasons. Both of these 

types of plants can share some of the same costly infrastructure, such as sharing the 

electrical grid connectivity, maintenance, and shop areas and other building or 

equipment needs. In addition, colocating these facilities can help minimize operation 

and maintenance requirements, reducing the cost substantially. Both plants can utilize 

the same staff. Of course, colocating the AD project that produces biogas near a diesel 

boiler plant can be advantageous as well by using the biogas in the diesel boiler.

Co-Firing Biogas with Diesel Fuel in a Bi-Fuel Power Plant 

To clarify the assumptions used in this report, our understanding in preparing this 

memorandum is the co-firing of biogas would involve the use of either a diesel IC 

engine configured as a bifuel system or a blended biogas/diesel boiler. The 
117

development of electricity generation from biogas will provide a reliable fuel source 

developed locally from AD facilities. Another means to capture energy contained in 

biogas is to burn it in steam or hot-water boilers. Many industrial facilities that use AD to 

treat waste and utilize boiler systems choose to capture and return biogas to existing 

facility boilers to supplement natural gas or diesel fuel use.

Development of an IC bifuel system consisting of modifications to existing diesel 

generators is feasible and should be studied further for the specific biogas treatment 

facilities and the IC engine modifications that will be required. However, a drawback to 

this type of system is the facility would have a continued reliance on diesel fuel because 

the bifuel-configured engines rely on the compression of diesel to ignite the fuel in the 

engine. For complete independence from diesel fuel, the alternative is a spark-ignited IC 

engine system optimized to operate on biogas fuel. 

All three of these technologies are summarized in Table D-1, including their individual 

advantages and disadvantages.

Table D-1. Technology Summary

Technology Fuel Type Advantages Disadvantages

IC Engine—Gas Biogas No need for diesel storage

Only one fuel system to maintain, 

optimized to run on specific fuel

Can run on treated biogas

Original equipment manufacturer

(OEM) product

Relatively higher capital cost for a 

new unit compared to diesel fueled 

unit

Lower power density than a diesel 

engine

IC Engine—Bifuel Biogas and 

Diesel

Conversion of existing diesel unit to 

accept bifuel mixtures

Fuel flexibility, 100% diesel backup 

possible

Maintain diesel ignition system

Requires diesel storage

Two fuel systems to maintain

Extensive gas treatment required

Equipment is generally aftermarket 

modification (non-OEM) 

Boiler Applications Biogas and 

Diesel

Moderately low cost to retrofit a 

boiler

Lower gas treatment compared to 

diesel bifuel requirements

May not be readily available as an 

option for this project

Biogas generated during anaerobic treatment can be recovered in a variety of ways to 

generate electricity or to provide an additional heat source. This evaluation focused on 

summarizing a few select electricity or heat source technologies, and their respective 

compatibility with biogas fuel, colocating, and co-firing. A summarized discussion of 

select available technologies to utilize biogas is provided below.

It should be noted that the use of biogas with cogeneration or combined heat and power 

(CHP) technologies can produce electricity in addition to recovering heat from the 

combustion unit. Combined heat and power facilities provide high overall cycle 

efficiency. If the facility is located near a plant that requires thermal energy, this can be 

efficient and cost-effective for both facilities.
118

Internal Combustion Engines—Biogas 

Biogas IC engines are the most widely used technology for generating electricity from 

biogas. The size of IC engines range from approximately 300 kilowatts (kW) to 3 

megawatts (MW) and larger. Electrical efficiency for IC engines typically ranges 

between 32%-40%. Heat is recovered from IC engines, providing there is a location for 

utilizing the heat (as discussed above in cogeneration or CHP applications); otherwise, 

the heat must be wasted. A disadvantage of IC engines is they characteristically 

produce higher air emissions as compared to other electrical generation technologies 

for biogas. However, IC engine capital cost is competitive when comparing this engine 

to other methods for generating electricity. 

A biogas IC engine is typically designed to operate only on a gaseous fuel, which relies 

on a spark ignition engine system. Spark-ignited engines can be designed to perform 

efficiently using a specific fuel, such as a high energy fuel like gasoline or a low energy

fuel like biogas. These types of engines are readily available from an OEM/supplier. 

Internal Combustion Engines—Bifuel 

A diesel IC engine is designed to operate on the compression of the fuel as the ignition 

source. Diesel engines do not utilize spark plugs for ignition; instead, high compression 

ratios produce ignition of the diesel/air fuel mixture. 

A bifuel IC engine is a diesel engine that has been modified with an aftermarket fuel 

system such that the engine runs on a combination of natural gas and diesel fuel. The 

bifuel system modifications are typically external to an existing diesel engine and do not 

employ internal modifications. Typically, the modifications for a bifuel system are limited 

to the fuel intake/injection system. The modifications include revising the fuel injection 

system so as to inject gaseous fuel into the air intake system ahead of the turbocharger. 

The combination air/natural gas mixture is compressed in the turbocharger and fed to 

each cylinder by the existing engine air intake manifold. The gas mixture is ignited in 

each cylinder by the existing diesel injector system. The bifuel system intake controls 

the amount of gas flowing to the engine based on engine performance, load, or ambient 

conditions. A bifuel system provides the benefit of fuel flexibility, given full diesel 

operation is still possible if there is an upset in gas supply. However, a bifuel system 

requires available diesel for the ignition of the engine in order to run. Operating 

conditions and existing diesel engine physical characteristics typically limit the 

maximum gas-to-diesel fuel ratio possible; the maximum gas ratio is typically 65%-70%, 

based on gasoline caloric values but would be lower using biogas. Lower quality gas, 

operating conditions, and maximum engine loads typically limit the gas ratio to 50%-

65%. As a result, using biogas in diesel IC engines could be an attractive option, 

provided the availability of diesel remains consistent and the AD facility is colocated or 

in close proximity to the diesel-fueled power plant. This would be an example of 

colocating an AD facility near diesel IC engine facilities. In addition, bifuel operation 

emissions typically reduce emission levels as compared to 100% diesel operation. 
119

Typically, bifuel systems are applied to high-speed diesel engines up to 3 MW. An 

aftermarket bifuel system supplier, GTI Technologies, offers standard models covering 

a range of generator sizes. Table D-2 summarizes the range available. 

Table D-2. GTI Technologies—Bifuel Model Series Summary

Model Generator Size (kW)

Series A Up to 150 kW

Series I Up to 300 kW

Series II 350-600 kW

Series III 650-1100 kW

Series IV 1200-3000 kW

Bifuel Case Studies 

Our research has identified numerous examples of bifueled facilities. For the most part,

the use of bifueled facilities appears to be a relatively recent practice. All of the projects 

that HDR located have been developed since 2003. Consequently, the operating history 

of their success is relatively minimal as compared to single-fuel (either biogas or diesel) 

power plants. Table D-3 is a listing of 10 completed GTI bifuel projects, their location, 

power output, and installation date. The estimated capital cost of bifuel is $40/kW, and 

the installation and commissioning would be an additional $15/kW, for a total of $55/kW.

Table D-3. Bifuel Reference Projects

Location Engine kW Rating Installation Date

Jacksonville, FL Cummins KTA-19 350 October 2004

Fayetteville, AR Caterpillar 3516B 2,000 June 2005

Fort Walton, FL Caterpillar 3412 500 June 2005

Miami, FL Cummins KTA-38 750 June 2005

Sunrise, FL Detroit Diesel 800 March 2004

India Caterpillar 3508B 1,000 June 2005

Toronto, CA Caterpillar D349 800 March 2005

Torreon, Mexico Cummins QST30 800 March 2005

Miami, FL Mitsubishi S16R- 1,600 June 2003

Hancock Co, MS CAT C-18 500 N/A

Source: http://diesel2gas.com/projects

Bifuel Boiler Applications

Another efficient means to capture energy contained in biogas is to burn the biogas in a 

steam or hot water boiler. Steam boilers are approximately 80% efficient in producing 

energy in the form of steam. Many industrial facilities that use AD to treat waste and 

utilize boiler systems choose to capture and return biogas to existing facility boilers to 

supplement natural gas or diesel fuel use. Typically, minor improvements and 
120

modifications are necessary to allow biogas to either be blended with a natural gas 

boiler feed or burned directly in diesel or liquid fuel boilers through burner replacements, 

modifications, or designated biogas burner additions. As a result, using biogas as a fuel 

for a boiler is an attractive option, providing boiler facilities are in close proximity to AD 

facilities. Emissions from boilers are moderately high and, as a result, boilers are 

typically fitted with special burners to reduce air pollutants, particularly nitrogen oxide 

emissions.

Biogas Quality and Pretreatment

Biogas may contain approximately 60%-70% methane (dry basis), with the remainder 

composed of carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and other trace gases. Biogas is also 

saturated with moisture. As the biogas cools during handling, water will condense in the 

biogas piping. Therefore, provisions for condensate removal must be considered in this 

type of system.

Depending on how biogas is recovered and used, as described below, extraneous 

biogas constituents, including water, sulfur, carbon dioxide, and siloxanes, will likely 

need to be removed from the gas before it is used. Furthermore, air emission 

restrictions may require additional biogas treatment upstream of utilization beyond what 

may be required by the biogas utilization equipment. Therefore, careful consideration of 

the quality of the biogas is important to properly account for the extent and cost of 

biogas treatment requirements needed for a particular facility. Appropriate treatment 

requirements should continue to be further defined and anticipated as the project 

progresses. 

Biogas Treatment Requirements 

In order to prepare the biogas for use as either a fuel for an IC engine or a boiler, 

removal of moisture, hydrogen sulfide, and other trace gases is necessary. For biogas 

IC engines, the manufacturers generally recommend moisture be substantially removed 

(to less than 80% relative humidity) from the biogas prior to sending it to an IC engine. 

Sulfur should also be removed (to less than 250 parts per million by volume) from the 

biogas to reduce sulfur air emissions from the IC engine. To achieve these gas quality 

requirements, it is assumed a chiller system and iron sponge would be used for 

moisture and sulfur removal.

For biogas fed to a boiler, the biogas pretreatment typically requires a similar level of 

cleanup prior to utilizing biogas, especially if a facility is trying to limit its sulfur 

emissions. If sulfur emissions are not a critical concern, gas treatment may not be 

required prior to utilization. However, for planning purposes, we have included the 

removal of sulfur (in the form of hydrogen sulfur or H2S), as well as moisture removal, 

as shown in Table D-4.
121

Table D-4. Summary of Biogas Cleaning Costs for Various Recovery Alternatives

Biogas Recovery 

Alternative

Technology Approach to Biogas 

Cleaning

Range of Potential Equipment 

Costs (20%/+40%) ($/SCFD)

IC Engine—Biogas

Chiller system (moisture removal)

Single-stage iron sponge (sulfur 

removal)

$3.05-$5.42/SCFD

IC Engine Bifuel

(bio-methane)

Water scrubber (carbon dioxide and 

H2S removal)

Biofilter (air stripper off-gas)

$8.81-$15.59/SCFD

Boiler Applications 

Chiller system (moisture removal)

Single-stage iron sponge (sulfur 

removal)a

$3.05-$5.42/SCFD

a Could be eliminated depending on air emission permitting limits.

Summary

In summary, biogas can be used as a fuel for power production in a variety of ways 

including:

• Direct use of biogas in an internal combustion engine 

• Blended biogas with diesel in a bifueled internal combustion engine

• Blended biogas with diesel in a boiler system. 

In two of the alternatives, IC engine bifuel and boiler applications, both the biogas and 

diesel fuels could be used in combination; however, the AD facility would need to be 

colocated near the diesel fuel user’s application. There would also be certain costs for 

retrofitting, as well as adding clean-up systems as discussed above. The most preferred 

use of biogas would be an IC engine dedicated to one fuel, as opposed to the bifuel 

configuration. This recommendation is based on the long history and relative simplicity 

of the biogas-fueled IC engines, in contrast to the relatively short history and elevated 

complication of the biogas/diesel intake equipment for the bifueled systems.