1. PRODUCTION OF THERMOELECTRIC POWER FROM SOLID WASTE OF SOME EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS OF LAHORE By Mohammad Rafiq Khan Lahore School of Economics

2. INTRODUCTION The study was undertaken with the following objectives in mind:  Safe and techno-economic disposal of solid waste produced in the scheduled educational institutions  Study of the feasibility of production of thermo-electric power from the biomass of solid waste  Later extension of the study to higher levels such as village, town, and national city level  Recommendations to all concerned for effective solid waste management and production of thermoelectric power to eliminate power in Pakistan

3. METHODOLOGY OF RESEARCH Collection of Data Collection of Data Processing of Data Processing of Data Interpretation of Results Interpretation of Results The preliminary enquiry revealed that the total waste produced in the scheduled institutions were approximately as follows: LSE200 Tons per Annum LSE200 Tons per Annum LUMS 500 Tons per Annum LUMS 500 Tons per Annum KC 200 Tons per Annum KC 200 Tons per Annum GCU 720 Tons per Annum GCU 720 Tons per Annum Description of Detailed Methodology in (1) Khan MR and Pervez, F. 2009. Production of Thermoelectric Power from the Solid Wastes of Kinnaird College, Environ Monitor, IX (9&10): 14-28 (2) Khan, MR and Sheikh, S. 2010. Production of Thermoelectric Power from Solid Waste: A Case of Lahore School of Economics, International Energy Journal 11:51-64

4. One related to the actual waste of the institutions and second to the amounts that had the likelihood of qualifying the projects as feasible for subsequent implementation are reported in Table 1 and 2. The two sets of projects;

5. Table 1: Bases and requisites of alternative projects (Assessed weight of solid waste) Alternatives123456 Solid Waste-Tons/Annum 200200500500720720 Cost of Land IncludedExcludedIncludedExcludedIncludedExcluded Live Steam Temperature 600C o to 650C o Live Steam Pressure 70–80 kg/cm² Fuel Steam Ratio 1:71:71:7 Steam Produced 1,400 Ton/Annum 4,200 Ton/Annum 4.200 Ton/Annum Multistage Turbine Light Duty Steam Consumption/ kW 5 kg/kW Electricity Produced 280,000 kW/Ann. 700,000 kW/Annum 1,008,000 kW/Annum Steam Produced /hr 0.16 Ton/hr 0.4050 Ton/hr 0.5832 Ton/hr Electricity Produced/Hr 32-40 kW 81.10 kW 116 kW

6. Table 2: Bases and requisites of alternative projects (Increased weight of solid waste) Alternatives78910 Solid Waste-Tons/Annum 6006001,0001,000 Cost of Land IncludedExcludedIncludedExcluded Live Steam Temperature 600C o to 650C o Live Steam Pressure 70–80 kg/cm² Fuel Steam Ratio 1:71:7 Steam Produced 4,200 Ton/Annum 7,000 Ton/Annum Multistage Turbine Light Duty Heavy Duty Steam Consumption/ kW 5 kg/kW Electricity Produced 840,000 kW/Annum 1,400,000 kW/Annum Steam Produced /hr 0.486 Ton 0.81Ton/hr Electricity Produced/hr 97.22 kW 162kW

7. RESULTS Nature and Composition of Solid Waste Sub-Processes at Sugar Mill Bagasse Storage Bagasse Storage Transport to the Boiler Transport to the Boiler Boilers Boilers Turbines Turbines Supply of Electricity Supply of Electricity

8. Figure 1: Flow sheet showing the sub-processes in the process of production of electricity from bagasse Transport to boiler Bagasse Storage Turbine Supply of electricity Boiler

9. Figure 2: Flow Sheet of Bagasse Transport to Boiler

10. Figure 3: Flow Sheet of Boiler-Supplied by Pattoki Sugar Mill

11. Figure 4: Flow Sheet of Turbine-Supplied by Pattoki Sugar Mill

12. Sub-processes of the Project: Same as above except the substitution of Bagasse by Solid waste Turbine Supply of electricity Transport to boil Solid Waste Boiler Figure.5: Flow sheet diagram of the designed project.

13. RESULTS OF COST ANALYSIS The integrated results of cost analysis are computed in Table 3 to 6. Alt. PV of Benefits PV of Costs. BCRNPV Initial Investment Annual Return PBP-Years 1190,1961,206,5990.15–1,016,403920,950-7,455Infinite 2190,196539,9330.35–349,737264,167--7,455Infinite 8562,967539,9331.0423,034264,16753,2125. 10935,738539,9331.73395,805264,167110,1002.39 Table 3: Computation of results of evaluation of alternatives- for LSE (US$)

14. Table 4: Computation of results of evaluation of alternatives for KC (Rupees) Table 4: Computation of results of evaluation of alternatives for KC (Rupees) Alt. PV of Benefits PV of CostsBCRNPV Initial Investment Annual Return PBP-Years 1 190,196 4,539,9330.04– 4,349.7374,264,167-7,455Infinite 2 190,196 539,9330.35–349,737264,167--7,455Infinite 8562,967539,9331.04 23,034 264,16753,2125 10935,738539,9331.73395,805264,167110,1002.39

15. Table 5: Computation of results of evaluation of alternatives for LUMS (Rupees) Alt. PV of Benefits PV of CostsBCRNPV Initial Investment Annual Return PBP Years 3469,7741,739,9330.26- 1,270,1591,464,16734,26742.7 4469.774539,9330.87– 70,159264,16734,2677.7 8562,967539,9331.0423,034264,16753,2125. 10935,738539,9331.73395,805264,167110,1002.39

16. Table 6: Computation of results of evaluation of alternatives for GCU (Rupees) Table 6: Computation of results of evaluation of alternatives for GCU (Rupees) Alt. PV of Benefits PV of CostsBCRNPV Initial Investment Annual Return PBP Years 5674,7987,206,503.0.09 –6,531,795 6,930,833 67,633 102 6674,798548,2661.23126,532264,16767,6333.90 8562,967539,9331.0423,034264,16753,2125 10615,738539,9331.73395.805264,167 110,100 2.39

17. DISCUSSION Lahore School of Economics Lahore School of Economics Kanaird College Kanaird College Lahore University of Management Sciences Lahore University of Management Sciences Government College & University Lahore Government College & University Lahore

18. CONCLUSIVE REMARKS