energies

Review
Review of Organic Waste-to-Energy (OWtE) Technologies as a
Part of a Sustainable Circular Economy
Svetlana Zueva *, Francesco Ferella , Valentina Corradini and Francesco Vegliò

Department of Industrial and Information Engineering and Economics (DIIIE), University of L’Aquila,
67100 L’Aquila, Italy; [email protected] (F.F.); [email protected] (V.C.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Organic waste-to-energy (OWtE) technologies are playing a steadily increasing role in the
Green Transition, thus becoming a powerful driver in the establishment of an ever more efficient and
sustainable circular economy. The advantages of OWtE processes are well known: not only do they
reduce the waste volumes sent to landfills or incineration plants, but also and foremost, through the
energy they yield (biogenic carbon dioxide, amongst others), they reduce dependance on fossil fuels.
This article gives a complete panorama of these technologies, starting from the classical methods and
ending with a review of the latest modern novelties. Advantages and disadvantages of each method
are highlighted, with particular focus on the formation of by-products and the relevant treatment
aimed at preventing environmental pollution. Accordingly, modern techniques for increasing waste-
to-energy efficiency and integrating the concept of circular economy and substitutability are analyzed
from this perspective. Along with an analysis of modern scientific achievements in this area, practical
examples of the implementation of technologies in European countries are given, with an emphasis
on the obvious advantages, both economic and environmental.

Keywords: organic waste; waste-to-energy; circular economy; biochemical processes; thermochemical

processes

Citation: Zueva, S.; Ferella, F.;

Corradini, V.; Vegliò, F. Review of 1. Introduction
Organic Waste-to-Energy (OWtE)
In recent decades, there has been an increase in demand for natural resources and
Technologies as a Part of a Sustainable
Circular Economy. Energies 2024, 17,
materials, the base of the economic system. However, natural resources are not endless.
3797. https://doi.org/10.3390/
There are already shortages in some industries. The circular economy model aims to
en17153797 prevent negative global consequences associated with the scarcity of natural resources, the
degradation of ecosystems, and climate change. Its advantage over the traditional linear
Academic Editors: Franco Berruti and
economic model is that it minimizes the use of natural resources and the release of waste
Fabio Montagnaro
into the environment [1].
Received: 9 May 2024 In this case, waste (or wastes) is unwanted or unusable materials. According to
Revised: 28 July 2024 INTOSAL (Working Group on Environmental Auditing), waste is a product or substance
Accepted: 30 July 2024 which is no longer suited for its intended use. The Waste Framework Directive of the
Published: 1 August 2024 European Union (Article 3) formulates waste as “any substance or object which the holder
discards or intends or is required to discard”.
Resource recovery from waste (RRfW) represents a transition stage toward a sustain-
able circular economy [2]. Not only does it use waste as an input to generate valuable
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
products, but it also reduces the volume of natural raw material required in the production
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
cycle. The need for landfill space is thereby reduced, and the value created from waste is
This article is an open access article
optimized. The resource recovery element of RRfW results in more than just sustainable
distributed under the terms and
waste management; it is part of a circular economy in which the extraction of natural
conditions of the Creative Commons
resources and waste generation are kept to a minimum. Resource recovery is the key to
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
a circular economy, representing the transition to a resource recovery system from waste
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
management alone.

Energies 2024, 17, 3797. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17153797 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

 The Waste Framework Directive [4] has transformed the circular economy to a five-
step “waste hierarchy”, constituting an order of preference for waste management and
disposal. Preventing waste generation is the preferred option, and sending waste to
landfill sites should be the last resort (Figure 1). It is evident that avoiding waste
Energies 2024, 17, 3797 generation is the most powerful method of resource recovery. The creation of so-called 2 of 26
waste-free (zero waste) production should be the main goal of a circular economy.
Organic waste-to-energy (OWtE) processes may involve different waste management
operations, from
Reduce, “disposal”
reuse, and “recovery”
and recycle to “recycling”.
are the “three pillars” of aIncircular
the case of the biochemical
economy, but there is
process of anaerobic digestion, resulting in biogas formation,
more to it than that. According to [3], CE is an economic system where “the valuethis would be resource
of prod-
“recovery”. Instead,
ucts, materials and if energy
other is obtained
resources in thefrom
economyorganic waste due for
is maintained to aasthermochemical
long as possible,
process,
enhancingthistheir
would be resource
efficient recycling. In
use in production andtheconsumption,
case in which waste reducing
thereby is incinerated with
the environ-
limited
mentalenergy
impactrecovery, thisminimising
of their use, would be “Disposal”.
waste and the Figure 1 below
release shows the
of hazardous positionatofall
substances
the organic
stages waste-to-energy
of their processes
life cycle, including withinthe
through theapplication
EU waste hierarchy.
of the waste hierarchy”.
New technologies,
The Waste Framework including
Directivebiological processes more
[4] has transformed consistent
the circular with natural
economy to a five-
processes, are required for complex waste processing and the selective
step “waste hierarchy”, constituting an order of preference for waste management extraction of target
and
materials
disposal.with minimal
Preventing energy
waste consumption.
generation This is especially
is the preferred option, andtruesending
in the case of to
waste organic
landfill
waste, a valuable
sites should asset
be the lastwhich
resortcould
(Figurebe 1).
effectively recycled
It is evident or used towaste
that avoiding produce energy,is
generation
thereby
the mostfulfilling
powerful themethod
worldwide goal of an
of resource increasingly
recovery. waste-free
The creation and sustainable
of so-called future
waste-free (zero
[5].
waste) production should be the main goal of a circular economy.

Figure
Figure1.1.The
Thefive-step “waste
five-step hierarchy”
“waste and
hierarchy” OWtE
and process.
OWtE process.

According to the Commission’s

Organic waste-to-energy (OWtE) report on themay
processes sustainability of bioenergy,
involve different bioenergy
waste management
produced from
operations, agricultural,
from “disposal”forestry, and organic
and “recovery” waste continues
to “recycling”. In thetocase
be the EU’s
of the primary
biochemical
source
processof of
renewable
anaerobicenergy. In 2021,
digestion, it accounted
resulting in biogasforformation,
about 59%thisof renewable energy
would be resource
“recovery”. Instead, if energy is obtained from organic waste due to a thermochemical
process, this would be resource recycling. In the case in which waste is incinerated with
limited energy recovery, this would be “Disposal”. Figure 1 below shows the position of
the organic waste-to-energy processes within the EU waste hierarchy.
New technologies, including biological processes more consistent with natural processes,
are required for complex waste processing and the selective extraction of target materials with
minimal energy consumption. This is especially true in the case of organic waste, a valuable asset
which could be effectively recycled or used to produce energy, thereby fulfilling the worldwide
goal of an increasingly waste-free and sustainable future [5].
According to the Commission’s report on the sustainability of bioenergy, bioenergy
produced from agricultural, forestry, and organic waste continues to be the EU’s primary
source of renewable energy. In 2021, it accounted for about 59% of renewable energy
consumption. According to the EU Energy Union status data for 2023, primary solid
biofuels comprise the largest bioenergy share, followed by liquid biofuels, biogas/bio
methane, and the renewable portion of municipal waste [6] (Figure 2).
Energies 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 27

consumption. According to the EU Energy Union status data for 2023, primary solid
Energies 2024, 17, 3797 biofuels comprise the largest bioenergy share, followed by liquid biofuels, biogas/bio
3 of 26
methane, and the renewable portion of municipal waste [6] (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Renewable
Figure 2. Renewable energy
energy consumption
consumption in
in European Union for
European Union for 2021.
2021.

Indeed, globally, despite the evident necessity

necessity of
of aa transition
transition to
to aa circular
circular economy,
economy,
the share
the share of
of bioenergy
bioenergy in in the
the overall
overall energy
energy balance
balance is
is small. For example,
small. For example, in in 2016
2016 in
in the
the
Northern European
Northern European countries
countries of
of Switzerland,
Switzerland, Sweden,
Sweden, Finland,
Finland, Denmark,
Denmark, and and Norway,
Norway,
more than
more thanhalf
halfofof
all all
generated waste
generated was burned
waste to produce
was burned energy, energy,
to produce while forwhile
the Southern
for the
and Eastern European countries of Spain, Italy, Poland, the Czech Republic,
Southern and Eastern European countries of Spain, Italy, Poland, the Czech Republic, the the share of
waste converted into energy did not exceed an average of 15%, and in Latvia,
share of waste converted into energy did not exceed an average of 15%, and in Latvia, Turkey, and
Serbia, itand
Turkey, was absent
Serbia, [6]. absent
it was At the [6].
sameAt time, the time,
the same potential of bioenergy
the potential sources such
of bioenergy as
sources
agricultural, forestry, and municipal waste is very high.
such as agricultural, forestry, and municipal waste is very high.
This study
This study aims
aims to to analyze
analyze organic
organic waste-to-energy
waste-to-energy (OWtE)
(OWtE) technologies
technologies and and their
their
advantages and disadvantages.
advantages and disadvantages.
2. Strategies for Effective and Sustainable QWtE Cycle
2. Strategies for Effective and Sustainable QWtE Cycle
From a circular economy perspective, organic waste management technologies should
From a circular economy perspective, organic waste management technologies
contribute to environmental protection and sustainable development to provide a constant
should contribute to environmental protection and sustainable development to provide a
cycle of materials during production and consumption in which the output of waste is
constant cycle of materials during production and consumption in which the output of
converted into an input of production without environmental pollution [7]. One may
waste
therebyis conclude
convertedthat intowaste-to-energy
an input of production without
is the one of most environmental pollution [7].for
promising technologies One re-
may
sourcethereby
recoveryconclude that waste-to-energy
from organic waste. OWtE is the one of most
technologies reducepromising
the amounttechnologies
of biowastefor
resource recovery
(household, from
forestry, andorganic waste. OWtE
agricultural waste)technologies reduceand
going to landfills theprovide
amount low-carbon
of biowaste
(household, forestry,
energy as a product [8]. and agricultural waste) going to landfills and provide low-carbon
energy as a product [8].
Due to population growth and enormous pressure on the demand for and consumption
Duefuels,
of fossil to population
especially in growth and enormous
industrialized countries,pressure on the demand
special attention is paid tofor and
energy
consumptionGlobal
production. of fossil fuels, especially
primary in industrialized
energy consumption reachedcountries,
around 620 special attention
exajoules is paid
in 2023 [9].
to energy production. Global primary energy consumption reached around
Its cost is constantly increasing. Fuel extraction is associated with environmental problems.620 exajoules
in
One2023
of the[9].most
Its effective
cost is constantly
approaches increasing.
is to reduceFuel extraction is of
the consumption associated
fossil fuelswith
by
environmental problems. One of the most effective approaches
replacing them with a clean, sustainable, and renewable energy resource. Solid organic is to reduce the
consumption
waste of fossil
is a renewable fuels resource
energy by replacing them
that can be with a clean,
converted intosustainable,
any form ofand fuel,renewable
including
energy resource.
solid, liquid, andSolid organic
gaseous waste
(Figure 3). is a renewable energy resource that can be converted
into any form of fuel, including
Waste-to-energy solid, liquid,
(WtE) technology and gaseous
converts waste into(Figure 3).
electricity or heat instead
of burning fossil fuels, thereby reducing greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions [10]. The
efficient conversion of agricultural organic waste (biomass) into bioenergy sources such as
bioethanol, biobutanol or biomethane, and biohydrogen is possible through biochemical
and thermochemical processes [11,12]. Each of them has its advantages and drawbacks
(Table 1). Biochemical processes are low in energy consumption and have low capital and
operational costs. Moreover, the high organic removal rate meets the requirements of the
circular economy, but they have longer cycle times and a lower efficiency in breaking down
complex biomass sources. Instead, thermochemical processes usually require the inclusion
of solvents or catalysts, which require a significant amount of energy. Each of them has its
own advantages and disadvantages (Table 1).
Energies 2024, 17,
Energies 2024, 17, 3797
x FOR PEER REVIEW 44of 27
of 26

Figure 3. OWtE technologies.

Figure 3. OWtE technologies.
1. Comparative characteristics
TableWaste-to-energy of OWtEconverts
(WtE) technology technologies.
waste into electricity or heat instead of
burning fossil fuels, thereby reducing greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions [10]. The efficient
Processes Description Products Disadvantages
conversion of agricultural organic waste (biomass) into bioenergy sources such as
Biochemical Conversion
bioethanol, biobutanol or biomethane, and biohydrogen is possible through biochemical
Biological process (hydrolysis,
and thermochemical Biogas (50–75%),
processes CO2Each
[11,12]. , digestate (biofertilizer).
of them has its advantages and drawbacks
acidogenesis, acetogenesis, and H2 and Lactic acid are other by-products Low CH4 content in biogas
Anaerobic (Table
methanogenesis) 1). Biochemical
in which an organic processes
from the ADareprocess
low inwhich
energy
isareconsumption andprocess
quality, have inefficiencies,
low capitalandand
digestion operational
matter is broken down into costs.
smaller Moreover, thethe
used for high organic
production removal
of several usefulrate meets the due
inhibition requirements of the
to intermediates
compounds using anaerobic
circular economy, but they products
have such as acrylic
longer acid,times and a lower
cycle Emission of 11 kg of CO
efficiency /kWh
in 2breaking
microorganisms pyruvic acid, and biodegradable polymers
down complex biomass sources. Instead, thermochemical processes usually require the
Fermentation is the process by which Biofuels (Bioethanol)
inclusion
microorganisms (yeast orof solvents or catalysts,
bacteria) Hydrogen gas which
(H2 ) require a significant amount of energy. Each of
Anaerobic The need for energy-intensive
them has
convert biomolecules its own
(glucose) intoadvantages and disadvantages
By-products can be utilized as (Table
fuel for 1).
fermentation pretreatment processes
alcohol or acid under anaerobic boilers or processed further through
conditions gasification
Table 1. Comparative characteristics of OWtE technologies.
Thermochemical process
Processes Description Products Disadvantages
Dewatering step is required
Thermal oxidation in presence of Biochemical Conversion
Produce heat: 544 kWh/ton of waste to Recommended moisture content
Incineration oxygen (from air) the grid (50–75%), CO2, digestate
Biogas should be less than 45%
950–1100 ◦C By-products: flue gases, ash Emission of4 14–35 kg of
Biological process (hydrolysis, (biofertilizer). Low CH content in biogas
CO2 /kWh
acidogenesis, acetogenesis, and H2 and Lactic acid are other by-products quality, process inefficiencies,
Produce heat: 685 kWh/ton of waste
Anaerobic methanogenesis) in which an
Gasification is conversion organic
of biomass from the AD process which isare and inhibition due to
Products: biochar, bio-oil, and syngas, which
digestion into combustible synthetic gas
matter is broken down into smaller under an usedbefor the production of heat Recommended
several useful intermediates moisture content
could adapted for energy and
Gasification oxygen-deficient or low oxygen 10–20%
compounds
environment
using anaerobic products such
By-products: as acrylicmixture
tar (complex acid, of Emission of 11 kg of
Emission of 8 kg of CO2 /kWh
microorganisms condensable
pyruvic acid,hydrocarbons), condensates,
and biodegradable CO2/kWh
700–1200 ◦ C
ash and slag
polymers
Produces heat: 571 kWh/ton
Fermentation is the process by which Biofuels (Bioethanol) A drying step is required before
Thermal decomposition of organic Products: biochar, a solid rich in carbon;
microorganisms (yeast or bacteria) convert Hydrogen gas (H 2) pyrolysis
Anaerobic matter in an oxygen-free environment or bio-oil, obtained as a liquid after The need for energy-intensive
Pyrolisis Moisture content of less than 7%
biomolecules
inert gas. (glucose) into alcohol or acidcondensation
By-productsofcan be utilized
the volatile as fuel
organic for
matter
fermentation ◦C is pretreatment
recommended processes
300–1200
under anaerobic By-products: tar (complex mixture of
boilers or processed further through Emission of 9.5 kg of CO2 /kWh
condensable hydrocarbons)
conditions gasification
Thermochemical conversion process,Thermochemical process
Product: biofuel (hydrochar), a
under hydrothermal conditions in hot
Hydrothermal carbonaceous solid with carbon content Dewatering step is required
pressurized
Thermal oxidationwater in presence of oxygen usually
Produce heat:than
54480%kWh/ton of waste to Wastewater formation
carbonization ◦ greater by weight
180–260 C and Recommended moisture
Incineration (from air)bars By-products:
the grid process water, biogas
10–40 content should be less than
950–1100 °C By-products: flue gases, ash
45%
Energies 2024, 17, 3797 5 of 26

Typically, waste with a high moisture content (i.e., industrial wastewater, livestock
manure, sewage sludge) is sent for biochemical treatment. Instead, solid waste is more
suitable for thermochemical treatment.
Various currently used technologies can transform organic waste into energy, each
of them negatively affecting the environment primarily because of CO2 emissions. A
comparative analysis of CO2 emissions and residual waste generation pertaining to various
technologies is given in Table 2 below. As it may be seen, CO2 emissions vary widely
depending on the specific technology used and the nature of the waste.

Table 2. Environmental impact and efficiency of waste-to-energy technologies.

Technique CO2 Emission Residual Waste Generation Efficiency Ref.

Biogas can be converted to electricity using
combined heat and power (CHP) systems, with
Anaerobic Low to moderate (biogenic) Low
conversion efficiencies of 30–40% for electricity [13]
digestion (50–200 kg of CO2 /kWh) (digestate as fertilizer)
and 50–60% for heat. Energy content around
20–25 MJ/m3 .
Overall efficiency can range from 20 to 30% for
High electricity generation and up to 80–90% if
Incineration Moderate to high (Ash) [14]
(600–1200 kg of CO2 /MWh) combined heat and power (CHP) systems
are used.
The overall efficiency of the gasification process
Moderate
Gasification Low to moderate (char, tar) (from biomass to syngas) can range from 60% [15]
(200–600 kg of CO2 /MWh)
to 80%.
Typical efficiencies of electricity generation
Low to moderate Low
Pyrolisis range from 20% to 40%, reaching 80% in case of [16]
150–500 kg of CO2 /MWh (biochar)
combined heat and power (CHP).
The efficiency of converting hydrochar into
Hydrothermal Low (biogenic) Moderate
heat or electricity depends on combustion [17]
carbonization (100 kg of CO2 /MWh) (hydrochar, process water)
technologies and can range from 20% to 40%.

Incineration tends to have the highest emissions, whereas anaerobic digestion has the
lowest. For comparison, emissions factors quantified as the average CO2 output per unit of
energy from various fossil fuel sources are 403.2 kg of CO2 /MWh in the case of charcoal,
360.0 CO2 /MWh for wood, and 196.5 kg/MWh for biogas [18]. Incineration, while effective
at waste volume reduction, poses challenges with GHG emissions and residual waste.
The proper management of residuals is crucial to minimize environmental impacts
and maximize resource recovery from waste. Bottom ash can be processed and used in
construction materials like aggregate or road base material rather than being disposed
of in landfills. Fly ash is typically classified as hazardous waste due to its heavy metal
content and requires specialized handling and disposal methods. Depending on their
characteristics, char and biochar can be used as soil amendments or activated carbon.
Instead, digestate is used as a fertilizer or soil conditioner after further treatment to stabilize
nutrients and reduce pathogens.
However, a proper evaluation of the true environmental impact of a given technology
can be achieved if the right attention is given to the kind of CO2 emissions that are created.
Indeed, not all such emissions are equal because we can distinguish between CO2 coming
from the degradation or combustion of flora in the present time and fossil CO2 coming from
oil. There is a basic difference between the two. Carbon dioxide emissions coming from
flora degenerated or burnt in present times can be deemed to have zero polluting impact
as the degenerated or burnt flora can be presumed to be replaced, in the life cycle under
normal conditions, by an amount of fresh flora capable of reabsorbing them. It is obviously
impossible to presume the same for CO2 coming from fossil matter, not to mention the
aggravating factor of the much higher CO2 concentration in oil caused over geological eras
by the pressures and temperatures that have turned organic matter into fossil oil.
Summarizing, it is clear that the role of biogenic CO2 is crucial in waste-to-energy
technologies. These can in fact significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions by capturing
Energies 2024, 17, 3797 6 of 26

and utilizing biogenic methane, reducing reliance on fossil fuels, and enhancing carbon
sequestration. Thus, biogenic CO2 can effectively contribute to a more sustainable and
lower-carbon future.
For example, biogenic CO2 from anaerobic digestion and fermentation can be stored,
used, and even earn carbon credits. Companies can use these credits, which also can
be traded, to offset their emissions by funding programs that lower emissions in other
places [19–21]. Apart from this, bio-CO2 can be successfully used as a fumigation gas for
pest control in wheat grain storage [22] or converted into value-added products (short-
chain fatty acids) through anaerobic fermentation and electro fermentation [23]. Various
carbon-smart goods, including monomers and polymers, flavors, solvents, chemicals, and
fuels, can be produced through the effective use of its gas fermentation technique [24]. In
the case of CO2 -assisted pyrolysis, carbon dioxide can be recycled from industrial flue
gases produced at power plants in order to increase energy recovery [25].

3. Biochemical OWtE Conversion

Biochemical processes convert organic solid waste or biomass into gaseous or liquid fu-
els, such as biogas or bioethanol [26], using enzymes from bacteria or other microorganisms.
Anaerobic fermentation and digestion are two of the most common methods for converting
biomass into useful products [27]. They are environmentally friendly, clean, efficient, and
do not require much energy. The process can produce a wide range of intermediate and
final products depending on the choice of enzymes or microorganisms.

3.1. Anaerobic Fermentation (AF)

Anaerobic fermentation can be defined as an anaerobic bacterial redox process of
Energies 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW
anorganic substrate leading to different products, e.g., the fermentation of glutamate 7 of to
27

ammonia, CO2 , acetate, butyrate, and hydrogen [28]. Under anaerobic conditions, some
microorganisms grow using an ETP process with externally supplied oxidized compounds
other than oxygen
compounds as theoxygen
other than terminalas electron acceptor.
the terminal Thisacceptor.
electron type of growth is referred
This type of growth to asis
anaerobic
referred torespiration.
as anaerobic respiration.
AF is an efficient
efficient and cost-effective
cost-effective method for the treatment of organic solids, from
which a large number of renewable
which a large number of renewable resources can be obtained
resources can be [29]. The general
obtained [29]. fermentation
The general
process of ethanol, butanol, and other biofuels can be divided into
fermentation process of ethanol, butanol, and other biofuels can be divided four steps:
into(1)four
physical,
steps:
chemical, or biological pretreatment; (2) enzymatic hydrolysis; (3) microbial
(1) physical, chemical, or biological pretreatment; (2) enzymatic hydrolysis; (3) microbialfermentation;
(4) separation and
fermentation; concentration
(4) separation and [30].
concentration [30].
Unlike
Unlike anaerobic
anaerobic digestion
digestion (AD),
(AD), which
which usually includes the
usually includes the stages
stages of
of hydrolysis,
hydrolysis,
acidogenesis
acidogenesis (fermentation), acetogenesis, and methanogenesis, AF includes only the
(fermentation), acetogenesis, and methanogenesis, AF includes only the first
first
two
two stages of AD (Figure 4). Compared to AD, anaerobic fermentation allows for
stages of AD (Figure 4). Compared to AD, anaerobic fermentation allows for less
less
energy
energy consumption
consumption and and less
less secondary
secondary pollution
pollution of
of the
the environment.
environment.

Figure 4. A flow diagram of the anaerobic digestion and anaerobic fermentation process.
Figure 4. A flow diagram of the anaerobic digestion and anaerobic fermentation process.

Both anaerobic digestion and anaerobic fermentation produce energy by processing

organic waste. The difference is the end products: biogas and fertilizers in the case of AD
and biofuels, hydrogen lactic acid, and volatile fatty acids (VFAs) in the case of AF [29].
AF is one way to convert organic waste into low-carbon renewable fuels, contributing
to the transition to a circular economy. Integrating fuel production from organic waste
into existing biofuel infrastructure can be cost-effective because the waste typically does
not need to be mined or purchased [31].
Bioethanol production from waste, such as organic fraction municipal waste and
Energies 2024, 17, 3797 7 of 26

Both anaerobic digestion and anaerobic fermentation produce energy by processing

organic waste. The difference is the end products: biogas and fertilizers in the case of AD
and biofuels, hydrogen lactic acid, and volatile fatty acids (VFAs) in the case of AF [29].
AF is one way to convert organic waste into low-carbon renewable fuels, contributing
to the transition to a circular economy. Integrating fuel production from organic waste into
existing biofuel infrastructure can be cost-effective because the waste typically does not
need to be mined or purchased [31].
Bioethanol production from waste, such as organic fraction municipal waste and agri-
cultural waste, has consistently been one of the most popular alternative energy production
pathways. In comparison to fossil fuels, bioethanol emits considerably lower levels of green-
house gases and thus receives widespread support as a vehicle fuel source. By mixing it in with
various proportions with gasoline, it transforms into gasohol, which can be used immediately
in internal combustion engines without requiring further engine modifications.
Important intermediate products of anaerobic fermentation are volatile fatty acids (acetic,
propionic, and butyric acids). They can be converted into the corresponding alcohols or used as
materials for the production of spices, drugs, additives, and similar chemicals [32].

3.2. Anaerobic Digestion (AD)

Anaerobic digestion (AD) or the decomposition of sewage or other organic waste
material by anaerobic microorganisms is a method that is widely used in the processing
of animal waste (liquid and solid manure), agricultural wastes (corn stover, sugarcane
residues), waste food, municipal solid waste (MSW) with water content more than 70%,
sewage sludge, and industrial wastewater. Products are biogas and high-quality fertilizers
(Figure 5). Biogas can be used to produce electrical and thermal energy in a cogeneration
Energies 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 27
plant and/or enriched to methane, which is suitable for use as, for example, fuel for vehicles.
A volume of 1 m3 of biogas is equivalent in terms of calorific value to 0.8 m3 of natural gas,
0.6 kg of gasoline,
biofuel. 0.7 kg of
Biogas energy fuel
can oil, 1.5 kgbe
definitely of considered
firewood, oran
3 kg of briquetted
alternative biofuel. Biogas
renewable energy
energy
source.can definitely be considered an alternative renewable energy source.

Figure5.5.A
Figure Aflow
flowdiagram
diagramof
ofthe
theOWtE
OWtEanaerobic
anaerobicdigestion
digestionprocess
processasasa apart
partofofthe
thecircular
circular
economy.
economy.
AD, or biomethanation, is a microbial process that breaks down organic, biodegradable
AD,in the
material or absence
biomethanation,
of oxygen toisproduce
a microbial
biogas and process that
stabilize breaks
sludge. down involves
The process organic,
biodegradable
several differentmaterial in the absence ofworking
types of microorganisms oxygen together
to produce biogas
to break and complex
down stabilize organic
sludge.
The process
material involves
in stages several biogas
to produce different types4).
(Figure of microorganisms working together
The first step is hydrolysis, to break
which involves
down complex
bacteria organic insoluble
that can convert material carbohydrates,
in stages to produce
proteins,biogas (Figure
and fats 4). Thesugars,
into simple first step is
fatty
acids, amino acids,
hydrolysis, whichand peptides.
involves The second
bacteria step convert
that can is a fermentation
insolubleprocess where acid-forming
carbohydrates, proteins,
bacteria,
and fats also
into known
simple as acidogens,
sugars, convert
fatty acids, the products
amino acids, andof hydrolysis
peptides. Theintosecond
simple step
organic
is a
acids, alcohols,process
fermentation carbon where
dioxide, and hydrogen
acid-forming gas. Volatile
bacteria, acids as
also known longer than two
acidogens, carbons
convert the
are converted
products to acetate, into
of hydrolysis H2, and COorganic
simple 2 gas by acetogenic
acids, bacteria.
alcohols, carbonFinally, in
dioxide, the
andfourth step,
hydrogen
methane-forming
gas. Volatile acids archaea
longer(methanogens)
than two carbonsproduce
are biogas fromto
converted acetic acid H
acetate, and H2/CO
2, and [33].by
CO22 gas
The effectiveness of the process depends on the number of feed formulation
acetogenic bacteria. Finally, in the fourth step, methane-forming archaea (methanogens) and pro-
cess parameters,
produce including
biogas from aceticthe organic
acid and Hloading rate, C/N ratio, pH, temperature, moisture
2/CO2 [33].
content,
Theand retention duration
effectiveness [34]. depends on the number of feed formulation and
of the process
process parameters, including the organic loading rate, C/N ratio, pH, temperature,
moisture content, and retention duration [34].
According to data [35], when 1 ton of manure is dismissed for composting, 300–400
m3 of methane gas, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and carbon dioxide are released into the
atmosphere. Methane (CH4) is approximately 22 times more harmful to the ozone layer
Energies 2024, 17, 3797 8 of 26

According to data [35], when 1 ton of manure is dismissed for composting, 300–400 m3 of
methane gas, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere.
Methane (CH4) is approximately 22 times more harmful to the ozone layer than carbon dioxide
(CO2). Therefore, replacing composting with anaerobic fermentation reduces emissions of
harmful gases amounting to 1200 g in CO2-eq/kWh. In the case of anaerobic treatment of corn
silage, the reduction in emissions is about 500 g in CO2-eq/kWh.
As a fuel, biogas is a virtually carbon-neutral form of energy production because as
plants grow, carbon dioxide (CO2 ) from the atmosphere is absorbed by them and stored
in the form of carbon-containing molecules (CO2 reduction). After combustion, the same
amount of CO2 that initially came from the atmosphere is released back into the atmosphere
(a CO2 -neutral process).
For energy recovery by the anaerobic treatment of wastewater with high chemical
oxygen demand (COD) levels, such as the in the paper and board industry, methane yields
are 0.24–0.4 m3 CH4 per kg COD removed [36].
The biogas produced from anaerobic digestion can be utilized in the following ways:
- It can be upgraded to 98% pure biomethane for use as a substitute fuel for natural
gas. In this case, a treatment step is required: the removal of carbon dioxide and the
scrubbing of toxic and corrosive H2 S and other impurities.
- It can be combusted directly to produce heat and power.
- It can be used as row material for hydrogen, methanol, and dimethyl ether production
by means of its additional processing through biomethane reforming in the presence
of steam.
The use of biogas helps to mitigate the effects of global warming by also changing the
consumption of fossil fuels for energy production and motor fuel, and it thus significantly
reduces CO2 , CH4 , and N2 O emissions into the atmosphere. On the other hand, the
development and application of renewable energy sources contributes to the more efficient
use of domestic energy production potential, a reduction in imports of fossil fuels, the
development of local industry, and the creation of new jobs. For example, in Sweden,
there are 138 anaerobic digesters in sewage treatment WWTPs, which produce 727 GWh of
biogas, and 36 co-digestion plants, which produce 963 GWh of biogas annually [34].
Biogas technologies are promising for the development of renewable energy. The
advantages and disadvantages of anaerobic digestion in terms of waste-to-energy processes
are presented in Table 3.

Table 3. The advantages and disadvantages of biogas production as a source of renewable energy.

Advantages Shortcomings
Biogas plants are independent of external conditions (solar activity, the presence
There is a need for a guaranteed supply of
of constant winds or rivers) and can continuously generate electricity and heat,
waste generation facilities.
in the case of constant access to a stable supply of organic waste.
Biogas can be stored, transported, and used as a fuel, unlike the energy of the The need for guaranteed sales of produced
sun, water, or wind, the operation of which requires batteries or power lines. electricity.
Biogas plants are compact and quiet, and the spread of unpleasant odors is
minimized, which makes choosing a site easier. The modularity of biogas plants
Significant capital costs per unit of power.
makes them cost-effective both on sites with low waste flows and in large
complexes with high needs for recycling raw materials and energy consumption.

As can be seen from the above, the use of biogas as an energy source has several
advantages:
1. Biogas, or biomethane obtained from it, is a renewable energy source.
2. The use of biogas can reduce the cost of energy production since it is a cheap and
easily accessible source.
3. The use of biogas makes it possible to reduce dependence on oil and gas, which cause
emissions of greenhouse gases and other harmful substances.
 Energies 2024, 17, 3797 9 of 26

Considering the advantages and shortcomings of this process, we can conclude that
anaerobic decomposition is a promising direction in converting organic waste into energy
as part of the transition to a circular economy.

3.3. Joint AD/AF Process

The case of joint AD/AF producing bioethanol and biomethane from food waste was
proposed by Jarunglumlert et al. [20]. Two possible scenarios were examined. In the first
scenario, (Figure 6a), the liquid fraction of the hydrolysate is separated after hydrolysis
by the enzyme and sent for processing to produce ethanol while the solid fraction is
subjected to anaerobic digestion to produce biogas. Instead, in the second case (Figure 6b),
the hydrolysate is used in ethanol fermentation, followed by the extraction of fermented
solid residues for additional anaerobic digestion. The outcome demonstrates that the
ies 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW co-production of bioethanol and biomethane from food waste is an extremely efficient 10
method for increasing gross energy output when compared to producing either product
alone, with a gross energy output of 8.37 and 9.57 GJ/ton, respectively.

FigureFigure
6. Co-production
6. Co-productionof bioethanol
of bioethanol andand biomethane
biomethane from foodfrom
waste.food waste.
(a) scenario (a)(b)
1 and scenario 1 and (b)
scenario 2.
scenario 2.
4. Thermochemical OWtE Technologies
Thermochemical processes such as pyrolysis, incineration, gasification, and hydrother-
4. Thermochemical OWtE Technologies
mal carbonization are considered effective methods for recycling organic waste through a
Thermochemical
waste-to-energy pathway processes such as products.
into value-added pyrolysis, incineration,
Compared gasification,
to biochemical technolo-and hy
gies, thermochemical ones are energy efficient and require short processing times.
thermal carbonization are considered effective methods for recycling organic w
For example, in the case of pyrolysis, the application of heat above 650–800 K leads
through a waste-to-energy
to the pathway
dissociation of a complex into value-added
molecule products. Compared
into simpler compounds. The result is to
thebiochem
technologies,
productionthermochemical onescharcoal,
of a liquid product, solid are energy efficient
and gaseous and from
compounds require
biomassshort
[37]. proces
times. Indeed, most thermochemical processes can only process dry waste. Their effectiveness
in the case of wet waste rich in organic matter is significantly reduced. This problem can be
For example, in the case of pyrolysis, the application of heat above 650–800 K l
resolved by hydrothermal carbonization (HTC), in which waste is treated in the presence
to theofdissociation
subcritical waterof a[38].
complex molecule into simpler compounds. The result is the
duction ofHTC a liquid product,
is a biomass solid charcoal,
pre-treatment and gaseous
thermochemical processcompounds from biomass
with high moisture con- [3
tent with hot compressed water in the temperature range of 180–280 ◦ C, under pressure
Indeed, most thermochemical processes can only process dry waste. Their effec
(2–6 MPa) for 5–240 min. The primary product of hydrothermal carbonation is a coal-like
ness in the case of wet waste rich in organic matter is significantly reduced. This prob
product called hydro-char. Its by-products are:
can be resolved by hydrothermal carbonization (HTC), in which waste is treated in
presence of subcritical water [38].
HTC is a biomass pre-treatment thermochemical process with high moisture con
with hot compressed water in the temperature range of 180–280 °C, under pressure
MPa) for 5–240 min. The primary product of hydrothermal carbonation is a coal-like p
 of household waste is burned, only 1.3 kg remains in the form of ash [40]. Ano
portant reason is the detoxification of waste, as it may contain pathogenic, infec
toxic materials. Thus, waste incineration is also used to prevent pollution and th
Energies 2024, 17, 3797 of disease. 10 of 26
The incineration process is separated into three main parts: pretreatment, i
tion, energy recovery and conversion, and flue gas cleaning (Figure 7).
- solid (ash), which can be used as a plant nutrient enhancer due to its phosphorus content;
Pretreatment is an important step because during combustion, the waste
- aqueous (nutrient-rich), which can be used to water plants because it is rich in potassium;
-evaporated,
gas phaseswhich
(mostlyrequires
CO2 ). energy and reduces the temperature of the flue gases.
waste bio-residue
In recent should be deeply
years, thermochemical dewatered
waste-to-energy before incineration
processes [41]. The
have been considered a moist
tentimportant
very of the waste should
tool for be >45%. of sustainable energy production and environ-
the development
mentalDuring the combustion process, the amount of heat generated directly dep
management.
the degree of flammability of the substances contained in the waste. The higher the
4.1. Incineration
of flammable substances in the waste, the more air is needed for combustion. For e
Incineration is a thermal waste treatment technique that can be understood as a
if more volatile
controlled combustionsubstances
process witharethereleased into theofgas
primary objective phase
volume when and
reduction there is a lack of
energy
then more
recovery fromash remains
the waste in the
stream. It is solid wasteoxidation
the thermal after the release of matter
of combustible volatilewithparticles
oxygen (from air) at sufficient temperatures to ignite the waste.
pollutants are gaseous (NOx, SO2, CO, CO2, O2, HCl), heavy metals, and toxic ch
AshIncineration
consists ofisresidues
an important technique in waste management systems and the waste
left in the combustion chamber (bottom ash) and in their p
hierarchy from the point of view of waste-to-energy (WtE) processes. It is used to treat
treatment devices
approximately (flywaste
63% of the ash).inModern
Europeanwaste incineration
countries [39]. plants differ in technical s
butTypically,
in all cases, emissions
the purpose are keptwaste
of recycling withinby legal limits,isregardless
incineration to reduce itsof the and
mass compositi
waste being
volume, burned
which would [40]. All
otherwise havedisposal
require multi-stage air purification,
in landfills. For example, bag
whenfiltration,
49.4 kg and
of household waste is burned, only 1.3 kg remains in the form of
and non-selective catalytic reduction to combat nitrogen and sulfur oxides, HCl, ash [40]. Another
important reason is the detoxification of waste, as it may contain pathogenic, infectious, or
most heavy metals [42].
toxic materials. Thus, waste incineration is also used to prevent pollution and the spread
The heat produced from combustion can be recovered and converted to
of disease.
power [43]. Heat process
The incineration generated from waste
is separated is main
into three usedparts:
to produce steam
pretreatment, in the boiler. T
incineration,
energy
steamrecovery
drives andthe conversion,
turbine toand flue gaselectricity
generate cleaning (Figure
[44]. 7).

Figure
Figure 7. Flow
7. Flow diagram
diagram of incineration
of incineration process. process.

Pretreatment is an important step because during combustion, the waste must be

Maintaining the right combustion temperature and effective post-combusti
evaporated, which requires energy and reduces the temperature of the flue gases. Organic
ments
waste is criticalshould
bio-residue for operating
be deeplywaste-to-energy plants, balancing
dewatered before incineration [41]. Theefficient
moistureenergy
with environmental
content of the waste should protection.
be >45%. Temperatures above 850 °C are generally require
During the combustion
sure the complete combustion process, the
ofamount of heatbreaking
the waste, generated directly
down depends
organicon the
compounds
degree of flammability of the substances contained in the waste.
ducing the formation of harmful emissions like dioxins and furans. Indeed,The higher the content of e
flammable substances in the waste, the more air is needed for combustion. For example,
from waste incineration facilities are typically lower than from traditional
if more volatile substances are released into the gas phase when there is a lack of oxygen, coal or
power
then more stations, especially
ash remains when
in the solid modern
waste emission
after the control
release of volatileand adequate
particles. clean-up
The air
of the flue
pollutants aregas are employed
gaseous (NOx , SO2 , CO,[40].
CO2 , O2 , HCl), heavy metals, and toxic chemicals.
Ash consists
Waste moisture content can alsochamber
of residues left in the combustion (bottom ash) and
affect combustion in their pollution
efficiency, energy recov
treatment devices (fly ash). Modern waste incineration plants differ in technical solutions,
emissions. Waste with a high moisture content needs more energy to evaporate th
but in all cases, emissions are kept within legal limits, regardless of the composition of the
Thatbeing
waste reduces the[40].
burned netAll
energy availableair
have multi-stage forpurification,
combustion, loweringand
bag filtration, overall combust
selective
peratures
and and catalytic
non-selective resulting in incomplete
reduction to combatcombustion. Mechanical
nitrogen and sulfur oxides, HCl,or thermal
HF, and pre-tr
most
stepsheavy
can metals [42]. before incineration to address this issue.
be applied
 Energies 2024, 17, 3797 11 of 26

The heat produced from combustion can be recovered and converted to electric
power [43]. Heat generated from waste is used to produce steam in the boiler. Then,
the steam drives the turbine to generate electricity [44].
Maintaining the right combustion temperature and effective post-combustion treat-
ments is critical for operating waste-to-energy plants, balancing efficient energy recovery
with environmental protection. Temperatures above 850 ◦ C are generally required to ensure
the complete combustion of the waste, breaking down organic compounds and reducing
the formation of harmful emissions like dioxins and furans. Indeed, emissions from waste
incineration facilities are typically lower than from traditional coal or oil-fired power sta-
tions, especially when modern emission control and adequate clean-up systems of the flue
Energies 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW
gas are employed [40]. 12 of 2
Waste moisture content can also affect combustion efficiency, energy recovery, and
emissions. Waste with a high moisture content needs more energy to evaporate the water.
That reduces the net energy available for combustion, lowering overall combustion temper-
aturesMoreover, aninincineration
and resulting plant requires
incomplete combustion. significant
Mechanical investment
or thermal and generates
pre-treatment steps hig
operating costs.
can be applied before incineration to address this issue.
Moreover, an incineration plant requires significant investment and generates high
4.2. Gasification
operating costs.
Gasification is a thermochemical process in which biomass is processed at elevated
4.2. Gasification
temperatures in various gasifying media (oxygen, steam, air, CO2, etc.) to form synthesi
Gasification is a thermochemical process in which biomass is processed at elevated
gas, which can be further processed into more valuable chemicals and biofuels [45,46]
temperatures in various gasifying media (oxygen, steam, air, CO2 , etc.) to form synthesis
Air,which
gas, due tocanitsbeavailability and low
further processed intocost,
moreis the most
valuable common
chemicals andgasifying medium.
biofuels [45,46]. Air, The ad
vantage of steam is that the resulting gas contains a higher H/C
due to its availability and low cost, is the most common gasifying medium. The advantageratio [47]. A mixture of ai
and
of steam
steam gives
is that thearesulting
high hydrogen yieldaand
gas contains higher calorific value
H/C ratio [48].
[47]. A mixture of air and
steam Biomass
gives a high hydrogen yield and calorific value [48].
gasification plants are different from the large-scale gasification processe
Biomass
typically usedgasification plants are different
in large industrial facilitiesfrom
suchthe large-scale
as power gasification
plants, processes
oil refineries, and chemi
typically used in large industrial facilities such as power plants, oil refineries,
cal plants. Biomass typically contains a high percentage of moisture, carbohydrates, and and chemical
plants. Biomass typically contains a high percentage of moisture, carbohydrates, and sugar.
sugar. The presence of high levels of moisture in the biomass reduces the temperatur
The presence of high levels of moisture in the biomass reduces the temperature inside the
inside the gasifier, so it must be dried before it is fed into the gasifier. In addition, th
gasifier, so it must be dried before it is fed into the gasifier. In addition, the biomass must
biomass
be processed must
to abe processed
uniform toshape
size or a uniform size
to enter theor shapeatto
gasifier enter the
a constant rategasifier at a constan
and ensure
rateasand
that ensure
much of thethat as much
biomass of the is
as possible biomass
gasified.as possible is gasified.
Typically,
Typically, thethe gasification
gasification process
process involves
involves four different
four different stages, suchstages, such
as the as the
drying of dryin
raw materials, pyrolysis (decomposition), oxidation (combustion), and
of raw materials, pyrolysis (decomposition), oxidation (combustion), and reduction (gasreduction (gasifica-
tion) (Figure
ification) 8).
(Figure 8).

Figure8.8.Flow
Figure Flow diagram
diagram of biomass
of biomass gasification
gasification process.
process.

Biomass
Biomasswith a moisture
with content
a moisture of more
content than 20%
of more thanusually requiresrequires
20% usually a dryingastep
drying step
(endothermic evaporation) before it can be used for gasification. At this stage, bound water
(endothermic evaporation) before it can be used for gasification. At this stage, bound wate
turns into steam (at a temperature of 100–200 ◦ C).
turns into steam (at a temperature of 100–200 °C).
In the pyrolysis zone (thermochemical breakdown of biomass), large molecular groups
In the pyrolysis
are converted zone
into smaller (thermochemical
hydrocarbons breakdown
to form biochar, liquid of biomass),
products, and large
gaseousmolecula
groups are converted into smaller hydrocarbons to form biochar, liquid◦
molecules in an oxygen-free environment at temperatures ranging from 125 to 500 C [49]. products, and
gaseous molecules in an oxygen-free environment at temperatures ranging from 125 t
500 °C [49].
Chemical reactions occurring inside the combustion zone occur with the release o
heat (exothermic), which leads to an increase in temperature ranging from 1100 to 150
°C [50]. CO, CO2, H2, and H2O are formed as a result, and generated heat is used for dryin
Energies 2024, 17, 3797 12 of 26

Chemical reactions occurring inside the combustion zone occur with the release of heat
(exothermic), which leads to an increase in temperature ranging from 1100 to 1500 ◦ C [50].
CO, CO2 , H2 , and H2 O are formed as a result, and generated heat is used for drying
pyrolysis processes.
The main product of the gasification process is synthesis gas, consisting of H2 , CO,
CO2 , and CH4 [46]. It should be noted that in order to produce high-quality synthesis gas, a
synthesis gas purification stage is necessary. By-products of the gasification process include
coals, oils, ash, and resins.
The biochar produced during gasification is an important sustainable product of the
gasification process. It has the capacity to absorb pollutants from aqueous waste streams
owing to its complex porous structures [51].
The relative concentration of gasification products depends on the composition of
the starting substrate and process parameters. For example, at high temperatures, the
formation of H2 and CO2 tends to dominate, while at low temperatures, the production of
CO and CH4 prevails [52]. The characteristics of the organic waste (lignin content, mineral
content, volatile substance, moisture, ash content, and size) affect gasification efficiency. For
example, the content of inorganic substances in biomass may have a significant impact on
the reactivity of the gasification process. The higher ash content of raw materials contributes
to the efficiency of gasification. In addition, an increase in moisture content promotes the
processes of supercritical gasification of water and the gas conversion reaction, which
increases the H2 content [53].
Syngas can be used for energy production by feeding it into a gas turbine providing
power, and syngas generated from biomass gasification (after cleaning) may be used in
heat- and steam-generating boilers or in electricity generation by direct burning.

4.3. Pyrolysis
Pyrolysis is the chemical decomposition of organic materials through the application of
heat. Chemical reactions occurring at temperatures from 100 ◦ C to 300 ◦ C are usually called
thermal decomposition. Instead, decomposition that usually occurs at temperatures between
300 ◦ C and 800 ◦ C is called pyrolysis. The rate of pyrolysis increases with temperature. In
industrial applications, the temperatures used are often 430 ◦ C (about 800 ◦ F) or higher.
Pyrolysis, which is also the first step in gasification and combustion, occurs in the
absence or near absence of oxygen, and it is thus distinct from combustion (burning), which
can take place only if sufficient oxygen is present.
In the case of waste recycling, pyrolysis involves the heat treatment of waste—without
access to oxygen—and its consequent decomposition into simple substances, resulting
in the release of useful energy. It converts low energy material into high-energy-density
biofuel [54]. This technology is suitable for working with organic and inorganic substances.
As all stages of pyrolysis are completed, heavy elements break down into lighter ones with
a low molecular weight.
With simple combustion, chemical substances are rapidly oxidized to form water,
which immediately evaporates, along with carbon dioxide. Since there is no contact with
oxygen during pyrolysis, no harmful emissions into the air are observed.
The process itself takes place sequentially in four stages:
1. Placing waste in a special chamber and drying it;
2. The dry distillation of waste;
3. The combustion of solid residues;
4. The formation of gas, coal, and oil (end products of pyrolysis).
In the case of organic waste, pyrolysis is the thermal decomposition in the absence of
oxygen, resulting in the formation of three primary products, coal, oil, and gas, in varying
proportions. However, by changing the process conditions, you can increase the yield of
one or another product [55]. Currently, there are three categories of pyrolysis: slow, fast,
and flash pyrolysis (Table 4) [56–60].
Energies 2024, 17, 3797 13 of 26

Table 4. Comparative characteristics of thermochemical processes OWtE.

Pyrolysis Definition Advantages Conditions

Temperature: 300–800 ◦ C. Residence
Results in a greater yield of high-quality
Slowly heat the organic matter in an time: >1 h.
Slow pyrolysis char, while minimizing the production
anaerobic
Energies 2024, 17, x FOR PEERenvironment.
REVIEW Heating rate: 5–7 ◦ C/min. 14 of 27
of liquid and gaseous products.
Main products: solid residue or char [61].
Maximizes the production of
Organic waste is treated in the absence
high-quality liquid oil. Temperature: 400–600 ◦ C.
of oxygen with a high rate that causes
Rapid (fast) mostly vapors and aerosols, with The process
higher is highly
than slowscalable andCan be
pyrolysis. Residence time: 0.5–2 s.
the organic matter to decompose rapidly,
pyrolysis economically feasible. Gas production is Heating rate: 300–1000 ◦ C/min.
producing mostly vapors and aerosols,
small amounts of gas and coal. higher conducted in pyrolysis.
various reactors.
than slow Can be Main products: liquid or oil [61].
with small amounts of gas and coal.
Produces dark brown pyrolysis oilconducted in various reactors.
Temperature: <650 °C.
postdark
Produces the feedstock decomposition,
brown pyrolysis oil post ◦ C. <0.5 s.
Residence
Temperature: <650time:
cooling,decomposition,
the feedstock and condensation. The Yields
cooling, Yields 75% of pyrolysis oil by the weight
75% of pyrolysis oil by the weight Residence
Flash
Flash pyrolysis
pyrolysis and condensation. The pyrolysis Heating rate:s.104 K/s.
time: <0.5
pyrolysis generates mainly vapoursof of
thethe product.
product. Heating rate: 104 K/s.
generates mainly vapours and aerosols Main products: liquid or oil
Main products: liquid or oil [62].
with aand aerosols
small with
quantity a small quantity
of char. [62].
of char.

The
Theshortage
shortageof of
natural resources,
natural especially
resources, so-called
especially non-renewable
so-called energyenergy
non-renewable resources,
re-
issources,
a problem
is a problem in modern society. From the point of view of the circular recycling
in modern society. From the point of view of the circular economy, economy,
already
recyclinggenerates
already organic
generateswaste, andwaste,
organic converting these into useful
and converting resources
these into usefulisresources
one of theis
ways to alleviate such constraints (Figure 9). In this case, so-called closed-loop recycling
one of the ways to alleviate such constraints. (Figure 9). In this case, so-called closed-loop
(reusing
recyclingand recycling
(reusing andused items to
recycling produce
used items energy through
to produce pyrolysis)
energy through can be classified
pyrolysis) can as
be
closed-loop energy [63].
classified as closed-loop energy [63].

Figure9.9.Flow
Figure Flowdiagram
diagramof
ofpyrolysis
pyrolysisas
asclosed-loop
closed-looprecycling.
recycling.

Pyrolysisresults
Pyrolysis resultsininthe
theformation
formationof ofthree
threemain
mainproducts:
products:aacarbon-rich
carbon-richsolid solidproduct
product
(biochar),volatile
(biochar), volatilematter
matterwhich
whichcancanfurther
furtherbebepartially
partially condensed
condensed to to aa liquid
liquid phase
phase (bio-
(bio-
oil),and
oil), andthe
theremaining
remainingso-called
so-called“non-condensable”
“non-condensable”gases, gases,like
likeCO,
CO,CO CO2 ,2,CHCH44,,and
andH H22 [8].
[8].
“Biochar”
“Biochar”isisaarecently
recentlyinvented
inventedtermtermfor
forrenewable
renewablefuels,
fuels,soil
soilreclamation,
reclamation,and andcarbon
carbon
sequestration.
sequestration.ItItincludes
includescoal
coaland
andcharcoal
charcoalproduced
producedby bythe
thepartial
partialcombustion
combustionof oforganic
organic
materials,
materials,excluding
excludingfossil
fossilfuel
fuelproducts.
products.
Biochar
Biocharisisproduced
producedby bybiomass
biomassheating
heatingatathigh
hightemperature
temperaturein inthe
theabsence
absenceor orlimited
limited
supply
supplyof ofoxygen.
oxygen. ItIt can
can bebeproduced
producedfromfromvarious
varioustypes
typesofofbiomass
biomassand andwaste
waste[64].
[64].ForFor
example,
example, agricultural
agricultural wastes
wastes such
such as
as wood
wood waste,
waste, peanut
peanut shells,
shells, hazelnuts,
hazelnuts, and and wheat
wheat
straw ◦ C in an anoxic
straw cancan be
beused
usedto toproduce
producebiochar
biocharthrough
throughslow
slowpyrolysis
pyrolysis(300–900
(300–900 °C in an anoxic
environment).
environment).Moreover,
Moreover,gases gasesand
andother
otherby-products
by-productsformed
formedduring
duringthisthisreaction
reactioncancanbe be
used as energy sources to produce heat and electricity. On the other hand,
used as energy sources to produce heat and electricity. On the other hand, the pyrolysis the pyrolysis
of
ofwood-based
wood-based feedstock
feedstock such
such as
as olive
olive husks
husks and
and dates
dates results
results in
in aahardier
hardierand andcoarser
coarser
biochar with a carbon content of up to 80%
biochar with a carbon content of up to 80% by weight. by weight.
Pyrolysis
Pyrolysisisiseffective
effectivein inorganic
organicwaste
wastetreatment,
treatment,butbutthe
theeffectiveness
effectivenessof ofthe
theprocess
process
isis strongly dependent on waste composition. The treatment of mixtures
strongly dependent on waste composition. The treatment of mixtures of food waste of food waste
with
this method has thus far received limited attention due to the high variability of the com-
position of this waste.

4.4. Hydrothermal Carbonization (HTC)

Hydrothermal carbonization is a thermochemical process that uses heat and pressure
Energies 2024, 17, 3797 14 of 26

with this method has thus far received limited attention due to the high variability of the
composition of this waste.
Energies 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 27
4.4. Hydrothermal Carbonization (HTC)
Hydrothermal carbonization is a thermochemical process that uses heat and pressure
HTC
to process
convert is significantly
biomass and organic lower. In The
waste. addition, thisproduces
process process improves the dewatering
three products: and
hydrocarbon
hydrophobicity
(solid), liquid, andofgas.
waste and improves
Compared the fuelorproperties
to pyrolysis of solid
gasification, products
the energy [65]. for the
required
HTC process
In recentisyears,
significantly lower.
there has beenIn addition,interest
increasing this process
in theimproves the dewatering
thermochemical and
treatment of
hydrophobicity of waste
organic waste using theand improves
process the fuel properties
of hydrothermal of solid of
carbonization products
biomass[65].
[66]. Several
In recent
factors years,
drive this there has been increasing interest in the thermochemical treatment of
process:
organic
- waste using
The waste can be thewet,
process
whichofavoids
hydrothermal carbonization
the previous of biomass [66]. Several
stage of dehydration;
factors
- drive this process:
Relatively low temperatures compared to other thermochemical processes, thereby
- The waste energy
reducing can be wet,
costs;which avoids the previous stage of dehydration;
-- Relatively low temperatures
Higher product yield in the case compared toproduct
of solid other thermochemical
(coke) compared processes,
to other thereby
thermo-
reducing energy costs;
chemical methods—20–80% with hydrothermal carbonization versus 12–35% with
- Higher product yield in the case of solid product (coke) compared to other thermochemical
pyrolysis;
- methods—20–80%
The resulting liquid with hydrothermal
and carbonization
gas phases can versus
be valorized 12–35%
after furtherwith pyrolysis;
processing.
- The resulting liquid and gas phases can be valorized after further processing.
The hydrothermal conditioning process takes place in a humid environment at tem-
The
peratures hydrothermal
from 180 to conditioning process
260 °C, resulting takes
in the place in a humid
degradation environment
of lignin, cellulose, at
andtemper-
hemi-
atures from 180 to 260 ◦ C, resulting in the degradation of lignin, cellulose, and hemicellulose.
cellulose. The ingredients are then condensed back into a solid product [67]. The mecha-
The
nismingredients
of the HTP arecan
thenbecondensed back
divided into into astages
several solid product
(Figure [67]. The final
10). The mechanism
products of the
will
HTP can be divided into several stages (Figure 10). The final products will
largely depend on the composition of the raw materials, residual moisture, and water largely depend
on the composition of the raw materials, residual moisture, and water quality.
quality.

Figure10.
Figure 10.The
Themechanism
mechanismofofthe
thehydrothermal
hydrothermalconditioning
conditioningprocess.
process.

Asaaresult
As resultofofthe
the process,
process, solid
solid andand liquid
liquid products
products are are formed.
formed. The The
solidsolid
productproduct
can
can
be be used
used to produce
to produce solidwith
solid fuels fuelshigh
withenergy
high energy
density.density. Theproduct
The liquid liquid product is a com-
is a composition
position
of of commercially
commercially valuable chemicals,
valuable chemicals, acids and
acids and phenols, andphenols,
therefore and therefore
their extractiontheir ex-
from
traction from the liquid phase can become economically feasible. The
the liquid phase can become economically feasible. The gaseous product typically consists gaseous product
typically
of consists90%
approximately of approximately
CO2 . Other gases,90% such
CO2. as
Other
CO, gases,
CH4 , or such
H2 ,as
mayCO, CHbe
also 4, or H2, may
present in
alsogas,
the be but
present in the
in small gas, but in
quantities small quantities [68].
[68].
Thehydrothermal
The hydrothermaltreatment
treatment process
process mainly
mainly depends
depends on on treatment
treatment time,time, water
water con-
content,
pH,
tent,and
pH,the temperature
and of the process.
the temperature Other factors
of the process. Other include the pressure,
factors include thermodynamic
the pressure, thermo-
equilibrium, feedstock feedstock
dynamic equilibrium, destruction, intensity of
destruction, reaction,
intensity of amount
reaction,ofamount
obtained of product,
obtained
particle size, and stability.
product, particle size, and stability.
For
Forexample,
example,higher
highertemperatures
temperatures accelerate thethe
accelerate degradation
degradation andandpolymerization
polymerization of or-
of
ganic
organicwaste, while
waste, lower
while temperatures
lower temperaturesactivate the depolymerization
activate the depolymerization(product fragmentation)
(product fragmen-
process ◦ C, waste is disinfected; temperatures around 200
tation) [69]. At temperatures
process above 100above
[69]. At temperatures 100 °C, waste is disinfected; temperatures
◦ C significantly accelerate decomposition and polymerization. Finally, temperatures above
around 200 °C significantly accelerate decomposition and polymerization. Finally, tem-
250 ◦ C can promote the production of oil or gas instead of hydrocoal [68]. With an increase in
peratures above 250 °C can promote the production of oil or gas instead of hydrocoal [68].
temperature to above
With an increase 260 ◦ C, the hydrothermal
in temperature to above 260process
°C, theishydrothermal
further refinedprocess
into twoistechniques:
further re-
(i) hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) and (ii) hydrothermal gasification
fined into two techniques: (i) hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) and (ii) hydrothermal(HTG) [70]. gas-
ification (HTG) [70].
The process of hydrothermal carbonization be influenced not only by higher temper-
atures but also by changing the pressure in the reactor. The increased efficiency created
by higher temperatures may be further enhanced by greater pressure [71].
 Energies
Energies 2024, 17,17,
2024, 3797PEER REVIEW
x FOR 1516
of 26
of 27

The process of hydrothermal carbonization be influenced not only by higher tempera-

Higher
tures water
but also content accelerates
by changing the pressurehydrothermal carbonization
in the reactor. The reactions,created
increased efficiency throughby its
effect on the decarboxylation and hydrolysis process [72].
higher temperatures may be further enhanced by greater pressure [71].
The chemical
Higher watercomposition of the hydrothermal
content accelerates hydrochar (end solid product
carbonization after HTC)
reactions, changes
through its
significantly.
effect on the Carbonization
decarboxylationnot andonly results process
hydrolysis in an increase
[72]. in carbon content but also in a
decrease
Thein hydrogen,
chemical oxygen,ofand
composition nitrogen (end
the hydrochar [73]. solid
The product
hydrochar,
after in addition
HTC) changestosignifi-
biofuel,
can be used
cantly. to improve
Carbonization notsoil
onlyhealth,
resultsasinwell as for sequestration
an increase to reduce
in carbon content but alsogreenhouse
in a decreasegas
in hydrogen,
emissions [74].oxygen, and nitrogen [73]. The hydrochar, in addition to biofuel, can be used to
improve soil health, as well as for sequestration to reduce greenhouse gas emissions [74].
5. Advanced OWtE Techniques
5. Advanced OWtE Techniques
Recent times have seen considerable advances in organic waste-to-energy technol-
Recent times have seen considerable advances in organic waste-to-energy technology,
ogy, driven by an ever-increasing demand for sustainable waste management and the
driven by an ever-increasing demand for sustainable waste management and the generation
generation of renewable energy with processes optimized in terms of (i) efficiency, (ii)
of renewable energy with processes optimized in terms of (i) efficiency, (ii) stability, and (iii)
stability, and (iii)Figure
biogas output. biogas 11output. Figurean11overview
below offers below offers
of thean overview
different of the techniques
advanced different ad-
vanced techniques for converting organic waste to energy, enhancing efficiency, optimiz-
for converting organic waste to energy, enhancing efficiency, optimizing resource utilization,
ing
reducing environmental impact, and improving the economic viability of waste-to-energyvi-
resource utilization, reducing environmental impact, and improving the economic
ability
(WTE)ofprocesses.
waste-to-energy (WTE) processes.

Figure 11. Flow chart. Advanced OWtE techniques.

Figure 11. Flow chart. Advanced OWtE techniques.

It has been seen that combining different types of organic waste (so called co-diges-
tion) can lead to improved biogas yields while reducing chemical consumption and oper-
ational costs. For instance, an optimal C/N ratio in a substrate provides bacteria with the
nutrients they need to produce the highest amount of methane [75]. Typically, food waste,
Energies 2024, 17, 3797 16 of 26

It has been seen that combining different types of organic waste (so called co-digestion)
can lead to improved biogas yields while reducing chemical consumption and operational
costs. For instance, an optimal C/N ratio in a substrate provides bacteria with the nutrients
they need to produce the highest amount of methane [75]. Typically, food waste, animal
manure, and sewage sludge are N-rich materials (C/N = 10–20), while lignocellulosic
biomass is rich in carbon (C/N > 50). For example, co-digesting sewage sludge (FW) [76,77]
co-digesting cattle [64] or chicken manure [78] and food waste (FW) produces higher
methane yield than the AD of FW alone.
Furthermore, pre-treatment methods have been developed that help breaking down
complex organic materials, making them more accessible for microbial digestion. They
include the following:
- Applying high temperature and pressure to hydrolyze complex organic compounds
into simpler molecules is called thermal hydrolysis [79,80]. Furthermore, thermal
hydrolysis destroys pathogens; enhances the solubility of organic molecules, making
them more accessible to microbial action; and reduces raw material viscosity, which
improves mixing and reduces energy consumption during the breakdown process. As
a result, this produces excellent biogas yields.
- Using ultrasonic waves to disrupt cell walls and increase the surface area for microbial
action is called ultrasonic pre-treatment [81,82].
- Adding chemicals (e.g., acids, alkalis) to solubilize organic matter is called chemical
pre-treatment.
Innovative processes that use natural or synthetic microbial communities to produce
liquid biofuels (microbial oils, ethanol, etc.), biogas, biohydrogen, and electricity inte-
grate biotransformation with other processes to improve biodegradability and energy
recovery. Genetic engineering is used to develop specific consortia of microorganisms
that can enhance their metabolic pathways for better substrate degradation and methane
production [83].
Finally, process optimization plays an important role. Advanced computational
models and simulation tools are called to predict and optimize the anaerobic digestion
process. These models can simulate different scenarios and help in decision-making
for process improvements by implementing advanced sensors and control algorithms to
monitor parameters such as pH, temperature, and volatile fatty acids in real time, allowing
for immediate adjustments [84].
Hydrogen is one of the end products obtained from the fermentation of organic waste.
It has a high energy density and releases no greenhouse gases when it burns. As an
alternative to classic anaerobic fermentation, dark fermentation involves anaerobic microor-
ganisms in darkness, produces a higher concentration of bio H2 , and has a shorter doubling
time for microorganisms [85]. On the other hand, photo-fermentative hydrogen production
employs light to transfer electrons and protons from organic compound oxidation into
hydrogen molecules in anaerobic, nitrogen-controlled environments. Adding photogener-
ated electrons from the photo-nano-catalyst accelerates the fermentative mechanism and
increases biohydrogen production [86].
In the case of bioethanol production, consolidated bioprocessing combines the pro-
duction of saccharolytic enzymes, pretreatment, saccharification, and fermentation steps
in a single reactor and mediates the process using a single microorganism or microbial
consortium [87,88]. This potentially reduces the operational costs and achieves higher
process efficiency.
Bioethanol production from lignocellulosic biomass is an advanced process that con-
verts plant-based materials into ethanol, a renewable fuel. Lignocellulosic biomass, such as
agricultural residues (corn stover, wheat straw), forestry residues, and dedicated energy
crops (switchgrass, miscanthus), is abundant and does not compete with food crops. In
recent decades, bioethanol production from lignocellulosic biomass has been gaining atten-
tion due to its high availability, positive environmental impact, and economic potential,
thanks to its high organic content including hemicellulose, cellulose, and lignin [89]. The
Energies 2024, 17, 3797 17 of 26

process involves pretreatment followed by enzymatic hydrolysis, fermentation by microbes

(bacteria and yeast), and bioethanol distillation [90].
Advanced techniques in pyrolysis for OWtE include catalytic pyrolysis, microwave-
assisted pyrolysis (MAP), two-step pyrolysis, co-pyrolysis, etc. (Figure 11). CO2 -assisted
pyrolysis, as an alternative to conventional pyrolysis, is perfect for treating organic waste
materials like plant biomass, animal manure, and household and municipal wastes. It
uses CO2 to help materials decompose and prevent the formation of many dangerous
chemicals. Adding CO2 produces more stable bio-oil and higher-quality pyrogas, which has
a considerably favorable impact on product composition. In addition, it valorizes organic
wastes like plant biomass, animal dung, algae, food, textiles, plastics, and other materials.
Another advantage of CO2 pyrolysis is reducing the emission of hazardous chemical
species, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and benzene derivatives [91].
Microwave-assisted pyrolysis uses microwave energy to heat the biomass, providing
uniform and rapid heating. It has faster heating rates, better control over process conditions,
and potentially higher efficiency. The MAV is suitable for a wide range of organic wastes,
including food waste, plastics, and agricultural residues [92]. Fast pyrolysis is characterized
by rapid heating rates and short residence times (seconds) at 450 ◦ C and 600 ◦ C, resulting
in bio-oil with smaller amounts of biochar and syngas. Instead, slow pyrolysis involves
slower heating rates and longer residence times (hours) at lower temperatures (between
300 ◦ C and 500 ◦ C), increasing biochar yield, with bio-oil and syngas as by-products [93].
Ablative pyrolysis mechanically forces the biomass against a hot surface, causing thermal
decomposition. It has high heat transfer rates and is suitable for large biomass particles,
producing bio-oil, biochar, and syngas with high energy efficiency [94]. Solar-assisted
pyrolysis uses concentrated solar power to provide the necessary heat for the pyrolysis
process, reducing reliance on fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, it requires
efficient solar concentrators and reliable sunlight availability [95]. Co-pyrolysis involves
the simultaneous pyrolysis of multiple feedstocks to enhance the process efficiency and
product quality. Synergistic effects can improve bio-oil quality, increase liquid yields, and
reduce overall process costs [96].
Advanced gasification techniques offer promising solutions for converting organic
waste into valuable energy products, contributing to sustainable waste management and
renewable energy production. Plasma gasification uses plasma torches to create extremely
high temperatures (up to 5000 ◦ C), breaking organic waste into syngas with minimal residue.
It has high efficiency and the ability to handle a wide variety of wastes, including hazardous
materials. The by-product of the process, vitrified slag, can be used in construction,
showcasing its versatility. It is a potential technology that is compatible with circular
economy principles, especially the one about “keeping materials in use for as long as
possible.” [97]. Supercritical water gasification operates at temperatures and pressures
above the critical point of water (374 ◦ C and 221 bar), efficiently converting wet biomass
into hydrogen-rich syngas. It has high hydrogen yield and is effective for wet biomass
and organic waste, but it requires high pressure and temperature-resistant materials [98].
Catalytic gasification involves the use of catalysts to lower the gasification temperature
and improve the quality of the syngas produced. Catalytic biomass gasification offers
many benefits over conventional biomass gasification techniques, including increased
hydrocarbon conversion and catalytic yield (higher production of syngas) [99]. Oxygen-
blown gasification uses pure oxygen instead of air for gasification, reducing nitrogen
content in the syngas and increasing its calorific value. Indeed, it requires an oxygen supply
system, which can be costly [100]. The Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC)
combines gasification with a combined cycle power plant, utilizing both the syngas and
the heat produced for electricity generation. It has several benefits: high efficiency, low
emissions, and the ability to create power and chemical products suitable for large-scale
power generation from organic waste [101]. Co-gasification involves gasifying biomass
with other organic wastes, such as plastics or municipal solid waste, to improve process
efficiency and syngas quality. Synergistic effects improve overall gasification performance
Energies 2024, 17, 3797 18 of 26

and increase flexibility in feedstock utilization. However, managing feedstock variability

and optimizing process parameters can be challenging.
Advanced Hydrothermal Carbonization (HTC) techniques called for enhanced energy
conversion efficiency and higher yields with improved hydrochar properties, with the
ability to handle a wide range of organic waste materials, making it more suitable as a
fuel or soil amendment. Additionally, it can reduce greenhouse gas emissions with better
waste management and the potential for nutrient recovery. The shortcomings include high
capital and operational costs, the necessity of consistent supply, and feedstock quality.
Catalytic HTC involves catalysts to enhance the reaction rates and improve the quality
of hydrochar [102]. Combined HTC and hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) integrate both
processes to maximize the energy recovery from organic waste. HTC pre-treats the biomass
to produce hydrochar, which is then subjected to HTL to produce bio-crude oil, optimizing
the utilization of both solid and liquid fractions of the waste, improving overall energy
yield [103]. HTC integration with anaerobic digestion involves pre-treating biomass with
HTC to improve the digestibility of the remaining organics. It enhances biogas production,
improves waste management, and reduces processing time [104]. Hybrid HTC–gasification
systems combine the benefits of HTC and gasification to produce solid and gaseous fuels.
Hydrochar produced from HTC is further gasified to produce syngas, enhancing the overall
energy recovery [105].
Waste-to-energy (WtE) incineration is a viable solution to both municipal solid waste
management and renewable energy concerns [106]. Although incineration has several
advantages, it has the problem of associated environmental pollution due to flue gas emis-
sions, contaminated fly ash, as well as the challenge of combustion instability. Advanced
oxyfuel combustion (OFC) and oxygen-enriched combustion (OEC) reduce secondary gas
emissions. In the first scenario, air is substituted by high-quality oxygen (95%) for fuel
combustion, resulting in high flame temperatures, and exhaust gas is recycled to dilute the
oxygen stream provided to the incinerator. In the second scenario, OFC can enrich CO2
concentration in the flue gas to 90–95% by volume, significantly reducing the total flue gas
quantity. However, the high expense of pure oxygen makes the technology unfeasible eco-
nomically. OEC has thus gained popularity as a method for reducing secondary emissions
in waste-to-energy (WTE) facilities [14,107,108].
Advanced techniques for organic waste-to-energy are crucial for achieving sustainable
waste management and renewable energy goals. Ongoing research, development, and
collaboration among industry, government, and academia will be essential for overcoming
challenges and realizing the full potential of these technologies.

6. OWtE Technologies, Practical Application in EU

The European Union (EU) has implemented various policies and initiatives to promote
the conversion of organic waste to energy as part of its broader goals of waste reduction,
renewable energy production, and climate change mitigation.
According to CEWEP (Confederation of European Waste-to-Energy Plants), incinera-
tion includes about 500 plants from 23 countries [109]. Instead, biological treatment waste
plants in the EU count more than 4500 units [104] with a capacity of more than 45 million
tons of bio-waste per year.
Bioenergy produced from agricultural, forestry, and organic waste feedstock continues
to be the main source of renewable energy in the EU, accounting for about 59% of renewable
energy consumption in 2021. Primary solid biofuels (70.3%) represent the largest share
of bioenergy, followed by liquid biofuels (12.9%), biogas/bio-methane (10.1%), and the
renewable share of municipal waste (6.6%) [6]. Here are some notable cases demonstrating
the application of these technologies across different European countries.
One of the most advanced waste-to-energy complexes in Europe, Högdalenverket
(Sweeden), uses combustible domestic and industrial waste, including organic waste, to
generate heat and power. It is a crucial part of Stockholm’s southern district heating net-
work. The Högdalen incinerator facility can handle about 700,000 tons of garbage annually.
Energies 2024, 17, 3797 19 of 26

The town of Stockholm and the power company Fortum jointly own Stockholm Exergi,
the facility’s owner. Stockholm Exergi operates several waste and biofuel incinerators in
Stockholm. The facilities owned by Stockholm Exergi generate 2138 GWh of energy (heat
and electricity) annually, and the environment and the city of Stockholm both profit from
this recycled energy [110].
Biogas and fertilizers are produced from organic waste at a biorefinery in Linköping,
Sweden. The plant processes 100,000 tonnes of organic waste from the food industry and
households every year, converting it to biogas and biofertilizer, which return essential
nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen to neighboring fields. The biogas is utilized as
fuel for automobiles, particularly the city’s public transportation system, once it is converted
to biomethane. The Tekniska verken Group made the decision to build a facility in 2023 to
handle the biogenic carbon dioxide that is created when food waste, slaughterhouse waste,
and other wastes are digested and subsequently removed during the biogas generation
process. The system will be installed at Svensk Biogas, Tekniska verken’s biogas facility in
Linköping, and it will purify and liquefy the carbon dioxide (CO2 ) from the biogas output.
By next summer, in 2025, the factory should be completed and producing 20,000 tons of
food-grade quality bioCO2 annually [111].
In Germany, agricultural residue is transformed into bioenergy by biomass gasification.
Agricultural organic waste such as straw and corn stover are converted into syngas through
gasification. The syngas is then used to generate electricity and heat. Farmers benefit
from an additional revenue stream by selling agricultural residues and using the bioenergy
produced for their operations. In Germany, about 400 biomass gasification plants provide
approximately 35 MWe of electricity. This initiative promotes sustainable agricultural
practices, reduces waste, and supports Germany’s renewable energy targets. The largest
German DFB (Dual Fluidized Bed) gasification plant currently in operation in Europe is
Neu-Ulm. This infrastructure presents a thermal input load of 15.1 MWth and an output of
4.6 MWe and provides power for 21,000 inhabitants of Neu-Ulm [112].
The Ecotricity Green Gas Mill, located in Gloucestershire, UK, focuses on converting
grass and other organic materials into renewable biogas. Using anaerobic digestion, the
mill processes grass and other organic materials to produce biogas. This biogas is then
purified and injected into the national gas grid, while a natural fertilizer produced as a
by-product will go back onto farmland. The plant can generate enough green gas to power
approximately 6000 homes annually [113]. It demonstrates a sustainable alternative to
fossil fuels, reducing reliance on natural gas and contributing to energy security.
The Kymijärvi II power plant is a unique energy production facility in Lahti, Finland.
It is the world’s first gasification power plant to use waste-based solid recovered fuel (SRF)
and waste wood to generate electricity and district heat. The fuel is made from plastic,
wood, and paper waste collected from industrial, commercial, and household sources.
The 160 MW plant has the capacity for up to 250,000 tonnes of SRF and waste wood per
year, which amounts to about 170,000 tonnes of coal and produces about 280–300 GWh of
electricity as well as 680–700 GWh of heat annually. Kymijärvi II produces 110,000 tonnes
of carbon dioxide annually, whereas the same amount of energy generated with coal would
produce 410,000 tonnes more [114]. Kymijärvi II processes 250,000 tons of waste annually,
producing electricity for 50,000 homes and district heating for 30,000 homes. It represents
an advanced and efficient method of waste management and energy production [115].
Another promising direction is reconverting existing oil refineries into Hydrotreated
Vegetable Oil (HVO) biorefineries, using sustainable feedstock in their operations in the
near future to comply as biofuel in the EU. In Italy, ENI has converted its Venice and
Sicily refineries to Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil (HVO) production. The Venice plant will be
producing 420,000 tonnes/y in 2024, while the Sicily refinery aims to use feedstock not in
competition with the food chain. Today, ENI has a total processing capacity of 1.1 million
tonnes per year, with a goal of doubling its total capacity by 2024, reaching 5–6 million
tonnes by 2050. “HVOlution” is already available in 50 Eni Live Stations in Italy and
expected to be available in 150. Produced from waste raw materials and plant residues,
Energies 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 27

Energies 2024, 17, 3797 from oils generated from crops not in competition with the food supply chain, it can al-
20 of 26
ready be used by approved engines [116].
Ingelia, Valencia (Spain), has designed and built a hydrothermal carbonization plant
forand
biomass,
from oils producing
generatedafrom solidcrops
carbon-based biomaterial
not in competition with (hydrochar).
the food supply Hydrochar
chain, it can can be
used as a be
already raw usedmaterial for industry,
by approved enginessubstituting
[116]. fossil fuels, and as a biofuel with a high
GCV (grossIngelia, Valencia
calorific (Spain),
value), lowhas designed high
humidity, and built a hydrothermal
performance carbonization
on combustion, and plant
without
for biomass,
CO2 emissions [117]. producing a solid carbon-based biomaterial (hydrochar). Hydrochar can be
used as a raw material for industry, substituting fossil fuels, and as
To sum up, it should be noted that in the EU in 2021, biomass fuels and bioliquids a biofuel with a high
GCV (gross calorific value), low humidity, high performance on combustion, and without
were used for the production of 17.3 mtoe of gross heat: solid biomass (76.0%), renewable
CO2 emissions [117].
municipal waste (18.1%), and biogases (5.0%). In the electricity sector, 45.6 mtoe of bio-
To sum up, it should be noted that in the EU in 2021, biomass fuels and bioliquids
mass
were fuels
usedandfor bioliquids
the production were ofused to produce
17.3 mtoe of gross14.6
heat:mtoe
solidof gross electricity.
biomass That is, 74%
(76.0%), renewable
of municipal
gross electricity from biomass was produced in combined heat and
waste (18.1%), and biogases (5.0%). In the electricity sector, 45.6 mtoe of biomass power plants,
mainly
fuels andfrom solid biomass
bioliquids were used (54.8%), biogases
to produce (31.1%),
14.6 mtoe and electricity.
of gross renewableThat municipal
is, 74% ofwaste
(11.6%) [118].
gross electricity from biomass was produced in combined heat and power plants, mainly
fromOne solid
of biomass
the most (54.8%),
evidentbiogases (31.1%),
examples of and renewable
converting municipal
organic wastewaste (11.6%)
into energy[118].
in full
accordanceOne ofwiththe most evident examples
the concept of converting
of a circular economyorganic waste
is biogas into energyininDenmark
technology full accor-(Fig-
uredance withenergy
12). The the concept of a of
content circular economy(livestock
the biomass is biogas technology
waste and in Denmark
residues (Figure
from 12).
households,
The energy content of the biomass (livestock waste and residues from households, industry,
industry, and agriculture) is employed to generate biogas, an alternative to fossil fuels.
and agriculture) is employed to generate biogas, an alternative to fossil fuels. Instead,
Instead, the waste and residues are extracted and utilized as fertilizer in agriculture. After
the waste and residues are extracted and utilized as fertilizer in agriculture. After all,
all,before
before biomethane
biomethane is introduced
is introduced into theinto
gasthe gas biogenic
system, system, CO biogenic CO2 is extracted and
2 is extracted and used to
used to produce
produce Power-to-X
Power-to-X fuels andfuels
storeand
CO2store
[119].CO2 [119].

Figure 12.12.
Figure An Anexample
examplebiogas
biogas plant ascircular
plant as circulareconomy
economyin in practice
practice (Denmark).
(Denmark).

These
Theseexamples
examplesdemonstrate Europe’sdiverse
demonstrate Europe’s diverse andand innovative
innovative approaches
approaches to convert-
to convert-
inging organicwaste
organic waste into
into valuable
valuableenergy,
energy,contributing
contributing to sustainability and reducing
to sustainability reliance reli-
and reducing
on on
ance fossil fuels.
fossil TheThe
fuels. overall transformation
overall transformationof organic waste to
of organic value-added
waste bioproducts
to value-added bioprod-
enhances the circular economy approach.
ucts enhances the circular economy approach.
The Confederation of European Waste-to-Energy Plants (CEWEP) represents over
The Confederation of European Waste-to-Energy Plants (CEWEP) represents over
400 plants from 23 countries. Its mission is to contribute to European environmental and
400energy
plantslegislation
from 23 and
countries. Its mission
participate in ongoing is to contribute
studies to European
with international environmental
organizations like and
energy legislation
the UNEP, OECD,andandparticipate
EU [120]. Thisin ongoing
legislation studies
defineswithEfWinternational organizations
as an industrial activity that like
themust
UNEP, OECD, and EU [120]. This legislation defines EfW as an industrial
comply with stringent industrial emission levels and report monthly to the relevant activity that
must complywhile
authorities with maintaining
stringent industrial emissionmanagement.
ongoing pollution levels and report monthly to the relevant
Each while
authorities EU Member State hasongoing
maintaining devised pollution
its plan to achieve
management.these shared goals while adher-
ingEach
to theEU
Directives. EU countries have frequently
Member State has devised its plan to achieve utilized strong
theseregulatory leverages,
shared goals while ad-
such as landfill bans or taxes. The EU has increased the efficiency of energy
hering to the Directives. EU countries have frequently utilized strong regulatory lever- recovery.
ages, such as landfill bans or taxes. The EU has increased the efficiency of energy recovery.

7. Conclusions
Energies 2024, 17, 3797 21 of 26

7. Conclusions
Reducing dependence on fossil fuels and reducing environmental pollution are the
main trends forcing humanity to look for new energy sources. This paper summarizes the
current OWtE technologies as a part of the sustainable resource recovery process. We started
with classical methods and concluded with discussing the most recent innovations. The
merits and disadvantages of each process were discussed, with a particular emphasis on the
generation of by-products and the appropriate treatment to prevent environmental harm.
As a result, new strategies for enhancing waste-to-energy efficiency and incorporating it
into the principles of a circular economy and substitutability have been examined from this
perspective. Along with a review of recent scientific breakthroughs in this field, practical
examples of technology application in European countries were given, focusing on the
clear economic and environmental benefits.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.Z.; methodology, F.F. and V.C.; validation, PIN, formal
analysis, F.F.; investigation and data curation, S.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, S.Z.; writing,
review and editing, S.Z.; visualization, V.C.; editing and review, F.F.; supervision, management,
editing, and review, F.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: The data are available upon reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
CE Circular economy
OWtE Organic waste-to-energy
WtE Waste-to-energy
GHGs Greenhouse gasses
RRfW Resource recovery from waste
OSW Organic solid waste
AF Anaerobic fermentation
ETP Electron transport phosphorylation
AD Anaerobic digestion
VFAs Volatile fatty acids
MSW Municipal solid waste
COD Chemical oxygen demand
HTC Hydrothermal carbonization
HTL Hydrothermal liquefaction
HTV Hydrothermal vaporization
HTG Hydrothermal gasification
DCWG Super critical water gasification

References
1. Velenturf, A.; Purnell, P. Principles for a Sustainable Circular Economy. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 1437–1457. [CrossRef]
2. Lag-Brotons, A.J.; Velenturf, A.P.M.; Crane, R.; Head, I.M.; Purnell, P.; Semple, K.T. Editorial: Resource Recovery From Waste.
Front. Environ. Sci. Sec. Microbiol. Chem. Geomicrobiol. 2020, 8, 35. [CrossRef]
3. Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2020 on the Establishment of a Framework to
Facilitate Sustainable Investment, and Amending Regulation (EU) 2019/2088. 2020. Available online: http://data.europa.eu/eli/
reg/2020/852/oj (accessed on 10 April 2024).
4. Waste Framework Directive. Available online: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/waste-and-recycling/waste-
framework-directive_en#ref-2023-amendment-to-the-waste-framework-directive (accessed on 10 March 2024).
5. Bakan, B.; Bernet, N.; Bouchez, T. Circular Economy Applied to Organic Residues and Wastewater: Research Challenges. Waste
Biomass-Valorization 2022, 13, 1267–1276. [CrossRef]
6. Bioenergy Report Outlines Progress Being Made across the EU. Available online: https://energy.ec.europa.eu/news/bioenergy-
report-outlines-progress-being-made-across-eu-2023-10-27_en (accessed on 10 March 2024).
Energies 2024, 17, 3797 22 of 26

7. Silva-Martínez, R.D.; Sanches-Pereira, A.; Ortiz, W.; Gómez Galindo, M.F.; Coelho, S.T. The state-of-the-art of organic waste to
energy in Latin America and the Caribbean: Challenges and opportunities Renew. Energy 2020, 156, 509–525. [CrossRef]
8. Wainaina, S.; Awasthi, M.K.; Sarsaiya, S.; Chen, H.; Singh, E.; Kumar, A.; Ravindran, B.; Awasthi, S.K.; Liu, T.; Duan, Y.; et al.
Resource recovery and circular economy from organic solid waste using aerobic and anaerobic digestion technologies. Bioresour.
Technol. 2020, 301, 122778. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9. Primary Energy—Global Consumption 2023. Statista. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/265598
/consumption-of-primary-energy-worldwide/ (accessed on 15 July 2024).
10. Kalair, A.R.; Seyedmahmoudian, M.; Stojcevski, A.; Abas, N.; Khan, N. Waste to energy conversion for a sustainable future.
Heliyon 2021, 7, e08155. [CrossRef]
11. Kataya, G.; Cornu, D.; Bechelany, M.; Hijazi, A.; Issa, M. Biomass Waste Conversion Technologies and Its Application for
Sustainable Environmental Development—A Review. Agronomy 2023, 13, 2833. [CrossRef]
12. Elalami, D.; Barakat, A. State of the art of energy production from agricultural residues using thermochemical and biological
processes. In Clean Energy and Resources Recovery; Volume 1; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 1–24.
13. Zhang, J.; Du, Z.; Fu, L.; Han, Y.; Zheng, W.; Yu, F.; Chen, H.; Feng, L.; Li, Y.; Ping, W. Novel Anaerobic Digestion and Carbon
Dioxide Emissions Efficiency Analysis of Food Waste Treatment Based on SBM-DEA Model. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 328, 129591.
[CrossRef]
14. Unegg, M.C.; Steininger, K.W.; Ramsauer, C.; Rivera-Aguilar, M. Assessing the Environmental Impact of Waste Management: A
Comparative Study of CO2 Emissions with a Focus on Recycling and Incineration. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 415, 137745. [CrossRef]
15. Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle|Climate Technology Centre & Network|1181699. Available online: https://www.ctc-n.
org/technology-library/production-efficiency/integrated-gasification-combined-cycle (accessed on 27 June 2024).
16. Schwartz, N.R.; Paulsen, A.D.; Blaise, M.J.; Wagner, A.L.; Yelvington, P.E. Analysis of Emissions from Combusting Pyrolysis
Products. Fuel 2020, 274, 117863. [CrossRef]
17. Yu, S.; He, J.; Zhang, Z.; Sun, Z.; Xie, M.; Xu, Y.; Bie, X.; Li, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Sevilla, M.; et al. Towards Negative Emissions:
Hydrothermal Carbonization of Biomass for Sustainable Carbon Materials (Adv. Mater. 18/2024). Adv. Mater. 2024, 36, 2470139.
[CrossRef]
18. Carbon Dioxide Emissions Factor, kg CO2 per MWh. Our World in Data. Available online: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/
carbon-dioxide-emissions-factor (accessed on 27 June 2024).
19. Vikjær-Andresen, E. How Can Biogenic CO2 Be Used to Address the Climate Crisis? World Economic Forum. Available online:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/10/biogenic-co2-climate-green-hydrogen/ (accessed on 11 July 2024).
20. Jarunglumlert, T.; Bampenrat, A.; Sukkathanyawat, H.; Prommuak, C. Enhanced Energy Recovery from Food Waste by Co-
Production of Bioethanol and Biomethane Process. Fermentation 2021, 7, 265. [CrossRef]
21. Kumar, H.; Vijay, V.K.; Subbarao, P.M.; Chandra, R. Studies on the Application of Bio-Carbon Dioxide as Controlled Atmosphere
on Pest Management in Wheat Grain Storage. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2022, 95, 101911. [CrossRef]
22. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Emission Factor Database (EFDB). Available online: https://www.ipcc-
nggip.iges.or.jp/EFDB/ (accessed on 27 October 2023).
23. Lanza, L.J. Tech’s Bacteria Carbon Capture Tech. Carbon Credits. Available online: https://carboncredits.com/lanzatech-capture-
carbon/ (accessed on 24 June 2024).
24. Velvizhi, G.; Sarkar, O.; Rovira-Alsina, L.; Puig, S.; Mohan, S.V. Conversion of Carbon Dioxide to Value Added Products through
Anaerobic Fermentation and Electro Fermentation: A Comparative Approach. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2022, 47, 15442–15455.
[CrossRef]
25. Kwon, E.E.; Kim, S.; Lee, J. Pyrolysis of Waste Feedstocks in CO2 for Effective Energy Recovery and Waste Treatment. J. CO2 Util.
2019, 31, 173–180. [CrossRef]
26. Williams, C.L.; Dahiya, A.; Porter, P. Introduction to bioenergy and waste to energy. In Bioenergy, 2nd ed.; Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge, UK, 2020; pp. 5–44.
27. Manikandan, S.; Vickram, S.; Sirohi, R.; Subbaiya, R.; Krishnan, R.Y.; Karmegam, N.; Sumathijones, C.; Rajagopal, R.; Chang, S.W.;
Ravindran, B.; et al. Critical review of biochemical pathways to transformation of waste and biomass into bioenergy. Bioresour.
Technol. 2023, 372, 128679. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
28. Buckel, W. Energy Conservation in Fermentations of Anaerobic. Bacteria. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 703525.
29. Zhang, Y.; Wang, X.; Zhu, W.; Zhao, Y.; Wang, N.; Gao, M.; Wang, Q. Anaerobic fermentation of organic solid waste: Recent
updates in substrates, products, and the process with multiple products co-production. Environ. Res. 2023, 233, 116444. [CrossRef]
30. Lin, J.; Zhang, Y.; Song, T.; Su, H. Waste Fermentation for Energy Recovery. In Waste-to-Energy: Recent Developments and Future
Perspectives towards Circular Economy; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 207–225.
31. Hegde, S.; Trabold, T.A. Sustainable Waste-to-Energy Technologies: Fermentation. In Sustainable Food Waste-To-Energy Systems;
Chapter 5; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018; pp. 69–88.
32. Fan, Y.X.; Zhang, J.Z.; Zhang, Q.; Ma, X.Q.; Liu, Z.Y.; Lu, M.; Qiao, K.; Li, F.L. Biofuel and chemical production from carbon one
industry flux gas by acetogenic bacteria. In Advances in Applied Microbiology; Chapter 1; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA,
2021; Volume 117, pp. 1–34.
33. Zueva, S.; Kovalev, A.A.; Litti, Y.V.; Ippolito, N.M.; Innocenzi, V.; De Michelis, I. Environmental and Economic Aspects of
Biomethane Production from Organic Waste in Russia. Energies 2021, 14, 5244. [CrossRef]
Energies 2024, 17, 3797 23 of 26

34. Yan, J.; Salman, C.A. Waste-to-energy (WtE): Current technologies and their future potential. In Waste Biorefineries; Elsevier:
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2023; pp. 83–97.
35. Dong, H.; Mangino, J.; Mcallister, T.A.; Hatfield, J.L.; Johnson, D.E.; Bartram, D.; Gibb, D. Emissions from Livestock and Manure
Management. 2006. Available online: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_10_Ch10_Livestock.
pdf (accessed on 16 July 2024).
36. Gopal, P.M.; Sivaram, N.M.; Barik, D. Paper Industry Wastes and Energy Generation From Wastes. In Energy from Toxic Organic
Waste for Heat and Power Generation; Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy; Chapter 7; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK,
2019; pp. 83–97.
37. Singh, V.; Das, D. Chapter 3. Potential of Hydrogen Production From Biomass. In Science and Engineering of Hydrogen-Based Energy
Technologies; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; pp. 123–164.
38. Sharma, H.B.; Venna, S.; Dubey, B.K. Resource recovery and circular economy approach in organic waste management using
hydrothermal carbonization. In Clean Energy and Resources Recovery; Chapter 13; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021;
pp. 313–326.
39. Thabit, Q.; Nassour, A.; Nelles, M. Flue Gas Composition and Treatment Potential of a Waste Incineration Plant. Appl. Sci. 2022,
12, 5236. [CrossRef]
40. Alao, M.A.; Popoola, O.M.; Ayodele, T.R. Waste-To-Energy Nexus: An Overview of Technologies and Implementation for
Sustainable Development. Clean. Energy Syst. 2022, 3, 100034. [CrossRef]
41. Wei, R.; Zhang, R.; Song, L. Incineration disposal of organic waste bio-residue via a deep dewatering process using refuse
incineration bottom ash: Moisture transfer and low calorific value improvement. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 78107–78119.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
42. Dal Pozzo, A.; Antonioni, G.; Guglielmi, D.; Stramigioli, C.; Cozzani, V. Comparison of alternative flue gas dry treatment
technologies in waste-to-energy processes. Waste Manag. 2016, 51, 81–90. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
43. Moharir, R.V.; Gautam, P.; Kumar, S. Waste Treatment Processes/Technologies for Energy Recovery. In Current Developments in
Biotechnology and Bioengineering; Chapter 4; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 53–77.
44. Lam, C.H.K.; Ip, A.W.M.; Barford, J.P.; McKay, G. Use of Incineration MSW Ash: A Review. Sustainability 2010, 2, 1943–1968.
[CrossRef]
45. Murugesan, P.; Raja, V.; Dutta, S.; Moses, J.A.; Anandharamakrishnan, C. Food waste valorisation via gasification. A review on
emerging concepts, prospects and challenges. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 851, 157955. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
46. Mishra, S.; Upadhyay, R.K. Review on biomass gasification: Gasifiers, gasifying mediums, and operational parameters. Mater. Sci.
Energy Technol. 2021, 4, 329–340. [CrossRef]
47. Yang, H.; Chen, H. Biomass gasification for synthetic liquid fuel production. In Gasification for Synthetic Fuel Production; Woodhead
Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2015; pp. 241–275.
48. McCaffrey, Z.; Thy, P.; Long, M.; Oliveira, M.; Wang, L.; Torres, L.; Aktas, T.; Chiou, B.S.; Orts, W.; Jenkins, B.M. Air and steam
gasification of almond biomass. Front. Energy Res. 2019, 7, 84. [CrossRef]
49. Tezer, Ö.; Karabağ, N.; Öngen, N.; Çolpan, C.Ö.; Ayol, A. Biomass gasification for sustainable energy production: A review. Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy 2022, 47, 15419–15433. [CrossRef]
50. Sansaniwal, S.K.; Pal, K.; Rosen, M.A.; Tyagi, S.K. Recent advances in the development of biomass gasification technology: A
comprehensive review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 72, 363–384. [CrossRef]
51. Kane, S.; Ulrich, R.; Harrington, A.; Stadie, N.P.; Ryan, C. Physical and chemical mechanisms that influence the electrical
conductivity of lignin-derived biochar. Carbon Trends. 2021, 5, 100088. [CrossRef]
52. Su, H.; Hantoko, D.; Yan, M.; Cai, Y.; Kanchanatip, E.; Liu, J.; Zhou, X.; Zhang, S. Evaluation of catalytic subcritical water
gasification of food waste for hydrogen production: Effect of process conditions and different types of catalyst loading. Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy 2019, 44, 21451–21463. [CrossRef]
53. Su, H.; Liao, W.; Wang, J.; Hantoko, D.; Zhou, Z.; Feng, H.; Jiang, J.; Yan, M. Assessment of supercritical water gasification of food
waste under the background of waste sorting: Influences of plastic waste contents. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2020, 45, 21138–21147.
[CrossRef]
54. Czajczyńska, D.; Anguilano, L.; Ghazal, H.; Krzyżyńska, R.; Reynolds, A.J.; Spencer, N.; Jouhara, H. Potential of pyrolysis
processes in the waste management sector. Therm. Sci. Eng. Prog. 2017, 3, 171–197. [CrossRef]
55. Shahbaz, M.; AlNouss, A.; Parthasarathy, P.; Abdelaal, A.H.; Mackey, H.; McKay, G. Investigation of biomass components on the
slow pyrolysis products yield using Aspenlus for techno-economic analysis. Biomass Conv. Bioref. 2020, 12, 669–681. [CrossRef]
56. Chen, W.H.; Farooq, W.; Shahbaz, M.; Naqvi, S.R.; Ali, I.; Al-Ansari, T. Current status of biohydrogen production from
lignocellulosic biomass, technical challenges and commercial potential through pyrolysis process. Energy 2021, 226, 120433.
[CrossRef]
57. Venderbosch, R.H.; Prins, W. Fast pyrolysis technology development. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefining 2010, 4, 178–208. [CrossRef]
58. Uddin, M.N.; Techato, K.; Taweekun, J.; Rahman, M.M.; Rasul, M.G.; Mahlia, T.M.I. An overview of recent developments in
biomass pyrolysis technologies. Energies 2018, 11, 3115. [CrossRef]
59. Amenaghawon, N.; Anyalewechi, C.L.; Okieimen, C.O.; Kusuma, H.S. Biomass pyrolysis technologies for value-added products:
A state-of-the-art review. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 14324–14378. [CrossRef]
Energies 2024, 17, 3797 24 of 26

60. Al-Rumaihi, A.; Shahbaz, M.; Mckay, G.; Mackey, H.; Al-Ansari, T. A review of pyrolysis technologies and feedstock: A blending
approach for plastic and biomass towards optimum biochar yield. Renew. Sustain. Energy 2022, 167, 112715. [CrossRef]
61. Liu, W.J.; Jiang, H.; Yu, H.Q. Development of biochar-based functional materials: Toward a sustainable platform carbon material.
Chem. Rev. 2015, 115, 12251–12285. [CrossRef]
62. Onay, O.; Kockar, O.M. Slow, fast and flash pyrolysis of rapeseed Renew. Energy 2003, 28, 2417–2433.
63. Andooz, A.; Eqbalpour, M.; Kowsari, E.; Ramakrishna, S.; Cheshmeh, Z.A. A comprehensive review on pyrolysis from the circular
economy point of view and its environmental and social effects. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 388, 136021. [CrossRef]
64. Fang, J.; Zhan, L.; Ok, Y.S.; Gao, B. Minireview of potential applications of hydrochar derived from hydrothermal carbonization
of biomass. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2018, 57, 15–21. [CrossRef]
65. Czerwińska, K.; Śliz, M.; Wilk, M. Hydrothermal carbonization process: Fundamentals, main parameter characteristics and
possible applications including an effective method of SARS-CoV-2 mitigation in sewage sludge. A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 2022, 154, 111873. [CrossRef]
66. González-Arias, J.; Sánchez, M.E.; Cara-Jiménez, J. Hydrothermal carbonization of biomass and waste: A review. Environ. Chem.
Lett. 2022, 20, 211–221. [CrossRef]
67. Parshetti, G.K.; Liu, Z.; Jain, A.; Srinivasan, M.P.; Balasubramanian, R. Hydrothermal carbonization of sewage sludge for energy
production with coal. Fuel 2013, 111, 201–210. [CrossRef]
68. Antero, R.V.P.; Alves, A.C.F.; De Oliveira, S.B.; Ojala, S.A.; Brum, S.S. Challenges and alternatives for the adequacy of hydrothermal
carbonization of lignocellulosic biomass in cleaner production systems: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 252, 119899. [CrossRef]
69. Wang, L.; Chang, Y.; Li, A. Hydrothermal carbonization for energy-efficient processing of sewage sludge: A review. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 108, 423–440. [CrossRef]
70. Tekin, K.; Karagöz, S.; Bektaş, S. A review of hydrothermal biomass processing. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 40, 673–687.
[CrossRef]
71. Yan, M.; He, L.; Prabowo, B.; Fang, Z.; Lin, J.; Xu, Z.; Hu, Y. Effect of pressure and atmosphere during hydrothermal treatment on
the properties of sewage sludge derived solid fuel. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2018, 20, 1594–1604. [CrossRef]
72. He, C.; Wang, K.; Giannis, A.; Yang, Y.; Wang, J.Y. Products evolution during hydrothermal conversion of dewatered sewage
sludge in sub- and near-critical water: Effects of reaction conditions and calcium oxide additive. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2015, 40,
5776–5787. [CrossRef]
73. Kim, D.; Lee, K.; Park, K.Y. Hydrothermal carbonization of anaerobically digested sludge for solid fuel production and energy
recovery. Fuel 2014, 130, 120–125. [CrossRef]
74. Yang, J.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, J.; Zhao, X.; Zhao, Y.; Qian, J.; Wang, T. Pyrolysis and hydrothermal carbonization of biowaste: A
comparative review on the conversion pathways and potential applications of char product. Sustain. Chem. Pharm. 2023, 33,
101106. [CrossRef]
75. Vinardell, S.; Astals, S.; Koch, K.; Mata-Alvarez, J.; Dosta, J. Co-Digestion of Sewage Sludge and Food Waste in a Wastewater
Treatment Plant Based on Mainstream Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactor Technology: A Techno-Economic Evaluation. Bioresour.
Technol. 2021, 330, 124978. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
76. Morelli, B.; Cashman, S.; Ma, X.C.; Turgeon, J.; Arden, S.; Garland, J. Environmental and Cost Benefits of Co-Digesting Food
Waste at Wastewater Treatment Facilities. Water Sci. Technol. 2020, 82, 227–241. [CrossRef]
77. Pramanik, S.K. Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Municipal Organic Solid Waste: Achievements and Perspective. Bioresour. Technol. Rep.
2022, 20, 101284. [CrossRef]
78. Zhang, W.; Kong, T.; Xing, W.; Li, R.; Yang, T.; Yao, N.; Lv, D. Links between Carbon/Nitrogen Ratio, Synergy and Microbial
Characteristics of Long-Term Semi-Continuous Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Food Waste, Cattle Manure and Corn Straw. Bioresour.
Technol. 2022, 343, 126094. [CrossRef]
79. Chuenchart, W.; Logan, M.; Leelayouthayotin, C.; Visvanathan, C. Enhancement of Food Waste Thermophilic Anaerobic Digestion
through Synergistic Effect with Chicken Manure. Biomass Bioenergy 2020, 136, 105541. [CrossRef]
80. Liu, X.; Lee, C.; Kim, J.Y. Thermal Hydrolysis Pre-Treatment Combined with Anaerobic Digestion for Energy Recovery from
Organic Wastes. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2020, 22, 1370–1381. [CrossRef]
81. Kim, S.; Lee, C.; Kim, J.; Kim, J.Y. Feasibility of Thermal Hydrolysis Pretreatment to Reduce Hydraulic Retention Time of
Anaerobic Digestion of Cattle Manure. Bioresour. Technol. 2023, 384, 129308. [CrossRef]
82. Li, X.; Guo, S.; Peng, Y.; He, Y.; Wang, S.; Li, L.; Zhao, M. Anaerobic Digestion Using Ultrasound as Pretreatment Approach:
Changes in Waste Activated Sludge, Anaerobic Digestion Performances and Digestive Microbial Populations. Biochem. Eng. J.
2018, 139, 139–145. [CrossRef]
83. Pasalari, H.; Gholami, M.; Rezaee, A.; Esrafili, A.; Farzadkia, M. Perspectives on Microbial Community in Anaerobic Digestion
with Emphasis on Environmental Parameters: A Systematic Review. Chemosphere 2021, 270, 128618. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
84. Ganeshan, P.; Rajendran, K. Dynamic Simulation and Optimization of Anaerobic Digestion Processes Using MATLAB. Bioresour.
Technol. 2022, 351, 126970. [CrossRef]
85. Ahmad, A.; Rambabu, K.; Hasan, S.W.; Show, P.L.; Banat, F. Biohydrogen Production through Dark Fermentation: Recent Trends
and Advances in Transition to a Circular Bioeconomy. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 52, 335–357. [CrossRef]
Energies 2024, 17, 3797 25 of 26

86. Nadeem, F.; Zhang, H.; Tahir, N.; Zhang, Z.; Singhania, R.R.; Shahzaib, M.; Ramzan, H.; Usman, M.; Rahman, M.U.; Zhang, Q.
Advances in the Catalyzed Photo-Fermentative Biohydrogen Production through Photo Nanocatalysts with the Potential of
Selectivity, and Customization. Bioresour. Technol. 2023, 382, 129221. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
87. Phwan, C.K.; Ong, H.C.; Chen, W.-H.; Ling, T.C.; Ng, E.P.; Show, P.L. Overview: Comparison of Pretreatment Technologies and
Fermentation Processes of Bioethanol from Microalgae. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 173, 81–94. [CrossRef]
88. Maleki, F.; Changizian, M.; Zolfaghari, N.; Rajaei, S.; Noghabi, K.A.; Zahiri, H.S. Consolidated Bioprocessing for Bioethanol
Production by Metabolically Engineered Bacillus Subtilis Strains. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 13731. [CrossRef]
89. Mussatto, S.I.; Yamakawa, C.K.; van der Maas, L.; Dragone, G. New Trends in Bioprocesses for Lignocellulosic Biomass and CO2
Utilization. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 152, 111620. [CrossRef]
90. Malik, K.; Sharma, P.; Yang, Y.; Zhang, P.; Zhang, L.; Xing, X.; Yue, J.; Song, Z.; Nan, L.; Yujun, S.; et al. Lignocellulosic Biomass for
Bioethanol: Insight into the Advanced Pretreatment and Fermentation Approaches. Ind. Crops Prod. 2022, 188, 115569. [CrossRef]
91. Parthasarathy, P.; Zuhara, S.; Al-Ansari, T.; McKay, G. A Review on Catalytic CO2 Pyrolysis of Organic Wastes to High-Value
Products. Fuel 2023, 335, 127073. [CrossRef]
92. Ren, X.; Shanb Ghazani, M.; Zhu, H.; Ao, W.; Zhang, H.; Moreside, E.; Zhu, J.; Yang, P.; Zhong, N.; Bi, X. Challenges and
Opportunities in Microwave-Assisted Catalytic Pyrolysis of Biomass: A Review. Appl. Energy 2022, 315, 118970. [CrossRef]
93. Zaman, C.Z.; Pal, K.; Yehye, W.A.; Sagadevan, S.; Shah, S.T.; Adebisi, G.A.; Marliana, E.; Rafique, R.F.; Johan, R.B. Pyrolysis: A
Sustainable Way to Generate Energy from Waste. In Pyrolysis; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2017; pp. 3–36. [CrossRef]
94. Mong, G.R.; Chong, C.T.; Chong, W.W.F.; Ng, J.-H.; Ong, H.C.; Ashokkumar, V.; Tran, M.-V.; Karmakar, S.; Goh, B.H.H.; Mohd
Yasin, M.F. Progress and Challenges in Sustainable Pyrolysis Technology: Reactors, Feedstocks and Products. Fuel 2022, 324,
124777. [CrossRef]
95. Ndukwu, M.C.; Horsfall, I.T.; Ubouh, E.A.; Ekop, I.E.; Ezejiofor, N.R. Review of Solar-Biomass Pyrolysis Systems: Focus on the
Configuration of Thermal-Solar Systems and Reactor Orientation. J. King Saud Univ.—Eng. Sci. 2020, 33, 413–423. [CrossRef]
96. Xing, B.; Hu, Y.; Xu, D.; Li, B.; Li, Y.; Guan, W.; Li, R.; Wang, S. Recent Advances and Perspectives of Copyrolysis of Biomass and
Organic Solid Waste. Energy Fuels 2023, 37, 4769–4790. [CrossRef]
97. Sanjaya, E.; Abbas, A. Plasma Gasification as an Alternative Energy-From-Waste (EFW) Technology for the Circular Economy: An
Environmental Review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2023, 189, 106730. [CrossRef]
98. Ma, Z.; Wang, J.; Feng, Y.; Wang, R.; Zhao, Z.; Chen, H. Supercritical Water Gasification of Organic Solid Waste: H2 Yield and
Cold Gas Efficiency Optimization Considering Modeling Uncertainties. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 48, 30702–30717. [CrossRef]
99. Faizan, M.; Song, H. Critical Review on Catalytic Biomass Gasification: State-of-Art Progress, Technical Challenges, and
Perspectives in Future Development. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 408, 137224. [CrossRef]
100. Choudhary, N.K.; Deep, A.P.; Karmakar, S. Thermodynamic Analysis of Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Integrated with
Organic Rankine Cycle for Waste Heat Utilization. Waste Biomass Valorization 2024, 15, 3691–3709. [CrossRef]
101. Ramos, A.; Monteiro, E.; Silva, V.; Rouboa, A. Co-Gasification and Recent Developments on Waste-To-Energy Conversion: A
Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 81, 380–398. [CrossRef]
102. Djandja, O.S.; Liew, R.K.; Liu, C.; Liang, J.; Yuan, H.; He, W.; Feng, Y.; Lougou, B.; Duan, P.-G.; Lu, X.; et al. Catalytic Hydrothermal
Carbonization of Wet Organic Solid Waste: A Review. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 873, 162119. [CrossRef]
103. Lachos-Perez, D.; César Torres-Mayanga, P.; Abaide, E.R.; Zabot, G.L.; De Castilhos, F. Hydrothermal Carbonization and
Liquefaction: Differences, Progress, Challenges, and Opportunities. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 343, 126084. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
104. Ahmed, M.; Andreottola, G.; Elagroudy, S.; Negm, M.S.; Fiori, L. Coupling Hydrothermal Carbonization and Anaerobic Digestion
for Sewage Digestate Management: Influence of Hydrothermal Treatment Time on Dewaterability and Bio-Methane Production.
J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 281, 111910. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
105. Huang, W.; Zhang, R.; Giannis, A.; Li, C.; He, C. Sequential Hydrothermal Carbonization and CO2 Gasification of Sewage Sludge
for Improved Syngas Production with Mitigated Emissions of NOx Precursors. Chem. Eng. J. 2023, 454, 140239. [CrossRef]
106. Zeng, J.; Mustafa, A.B.; Liu, M.; Huang, G.; Shang, N.; Liu, X.; Wei, K.; Wang, P.; Dong, H. Environmental, Energy, and
Techno-Economic Assessment of Waste-To-Energy Incineration. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4140. [CrossRef]
107. Comoglio, C.; Castelluccio, S.; Scarrone, A.; Fiore, S. Analysis of Environmental Sustainability Reporting in the Waste-To-Energy
Sector: Performance Indicators and Improvement Targets of the EMAS-Registered Waste Incineration Plants in Italy. J. Clean.
Prod. 2022, 378, 134546. [CrossRef]
108. Odunlami, O.A.; Vershima, D.A.; Oladimeji, T.E.; Nkongho, S.; Ogunlade, S.K.; Fakinle, B.S. Advanced Techniques for the
Capturing and Separation of CO2 —A Review. Results Eng. 2022, 15, 100512. [CrossRef]
109. CEWEP—The Confederation of European Waste-to-Energy Plants. Available online: https://www.cewep.eu/what-cewep-does/
(accessed on 13 July 2024).
110. Turning Waste into Energy at Högdalenverket|Best Practice. Smart City Sweden. Available online: https://smartcitysweden.
com/best-practice/76/waste-incineration-at-hogdalenverket/ (accessed on 25 June 2024).
111. Svenselius, M.W. Linköping Home to Sweden’s Largest Biogas Facility. Available online: https://liu.se/en/news-item/storsta-
biogasanlaggningen-finns-i-linkoping (accessed on 13 July 2024).
112. Pio, D.T.; Tarelho, L.A.C. Industrial Gasification Systems (>3 MWth) for Bioenergy in Europe: Current Status and Future
Perspectives. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 145, 111108. [CrossRef]
Energies 2024, 17, 3797 26 of 26

113. Green Gasmill Submitted into Planning in Gloucestershire. Available online: https://www.ecotricity.co.uk/our-news/2016
/green-gasmill-submitted-into-planning-in-gloucestershire#:~:text=Ecotricity,%20Britain%E2%80%99s%20leading%20green%
20energy%20company,%20has%20submitted (accessed on 13 July 2024).
114. Kymijärvi II, the World’s First SRF Gasification Power Plant—Nordregio. Available online: https://archive.nordregio.se/en/
Publications/Publications-2016/GREEN-GROWTH-IN-NORDIC-REGIONS-50-ways-to-make-/Clean-tech-and-renewable-
energy--/Kymij/index.html (accessed on 27 June 2024).
115. Lahti Energia’s Unique Gasification Plant Reference. Makron. Available online: https://makron.com/en/references/lahti-
energia-s-unique-gasification-plant/ (accessed on 26 June 2024).
116. Eni Sustainable Mobility: Il Biocarburante 100% da Materie Prime Rinnovabili Arriva Nelle Stazioni di Servizio. Avail-
able online: https://www.eni.com/it-IT/media/news/2023/02/eni-sustainable-mobility-biocarburante-100-materie-prime-
rinnovabili-arriva-stazioni-servizio.html (accessed on 29 June 2024).
117. About Us. Available online: https://ingelia.com/index.php/quienes-somos/?lang=en (accessed on 29 June 2024).
118. Sustainable and Optimal Use of Biomass for Energy in the EU beyond 2020 Final Report PricewaterhouseCoopers EU Services
EESV’s Consortium to EC Directorate General for Energy Directorate C1—Renewables and CCS Policy; 2017. Available
online: https://energy.ec.europa.eu/document/download/e23523df-5718-439d-94da-58c1b647e0d4_en?filename=biosustain_
report_final.pdf (accessed on 29 June 2024).
119. Biogas Outlook 2024 Production and Use of Biogas in Denmark. Available online: https://www.biogas.dk/wp-content/uploads/
2024/05/Biogas-Outlook-2024-05-30-WEB-engelsk.pdf (accessed on 12 July 2024).
120. ISWA White Book on Energy-From-Waste (EfW) Technologies Working Together for a Cleaner, Healthier Planet 3 2 ISWA White
Book on Energy-From-Waste (EfW) Technologies Contents. Available online: https://www.iswa.org/wp-content/uploads/2023
/07/ISWA-Whitebook-on-Energy-from-Waste-Technologies.pdf (accessed on 28 June 2024).

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.