Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter July 17, 2020

Mixed-integer non-linear programming (MINLP) multi-period multi-objective optimization of advanced power plant through gasification of municipal solid waste (MSW)

Ahmad Syauqi and Widodo Wahyu Purwanto


Multi-objective optimization is one of the most effective tools for the decision support system. This study aims to optimize the gasification of municipal solid waste (MSW) for advanced power plant. MSW gasifier is simulated using Aspen Plus v11 to produce syngas, to be fed into power generation technologies. Four power generation technologies are selected, solid oxide fuel cell, gas turbine, gas engine, and steam turbine. Mixed-integer non-linear programming (MINLP) multi-objective optimization is developed to provide an optimal solution for minimum levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) and minimum CO2eq emissions. The optimization is conducted with a ε-constraint method using GAMS through time periods of 2020–2050. Decision variables include gasifier temperature, steam to carbon ratio, and power generation technologies. The optimization result demonstrates that the lower steam to carbon ratio gives lower LCOE and higher CO2eq emissions, and temperature variation gives no significant impact on LCOE and as it increases, CO2eq emission is reduced. It demonstrates that a gas turbine is the best option for generating electricity from 2020 to 2040 and beyond 2040 SOFC is the best option.

Corresponding author: Widodo Wahyu Purwanto, Sustainable Energy Systems and Policy Research Cluster, Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Indonesia, 16424, Depok, Indonesia, E-mail:

Funding source: DRPM Universitas Indonesia

Award Identifier / Grant number: NKB-0081/UN2.R3.1/HKP.05.00/2019


The authors are grateful to the DRPM UI for financial support under the Hibah Penugasan Publikasi Internasional Terindeks 9 (PIT-9) Universitas Indonesia, Contract Number: NKB-0081/UN2.R3.1/HKP.05.00/2019.

  1. Author contribution: AS : Process simulation and optimization; WWP : Conceptual research design.

  2. Research funding: DRPM Universitas Indonesia.

  3. Employment or leadership: None declared.

  4. Honorarium: None declared.

  5. Conflict of interest statement: The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding this article.


1. BPS-Statistic Indonesia. Environment statistics of Indonesia 2018. Jakarta: BPS–Statistics Indones; 2018. 1–43 pp. Available from: [Internet].Search in Google Scholar

2. Rawlins, J, Beyer, J, Lampreia, J, Tumiwa, F. Waste to energy in Indonesia [Internet]. 2014;1–103. Available from: in Google Scholar

3. IRENA-International Renewable Energy Agency. Renewable power generation costs in 2017 [Internet]. Abu Dhabi: International Renewable Energy Agency; 2018 [Internet]. Available from: in Google Scholar

4. Young, GC. Municipal solid waste to energy conversion processes. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2010.10.1002/9780470608616Search in Google Scholar

5. IRENA-ETSAP. Biomass for heat and power. Abu Dhabi: IRENA-ETSAP; 2015, vol 52.Search in Google Scholar

6. Perrot, JF, Subiantoro, A. Municipal waste management strategy review and waste-to-energy potentials in New Zealand. Sustainability [Internet] 2018;10:3114. in Google Scholar

7. Sadeghi, M, Mehr, AS, Zar, M, Santarelli, M. Multi-objective optimization of a novel syngas fed SOFC power plant using a downdraft gasifier. Energy [Internet] 2018;148:16–31. in Google Scholar

8. Behzadi, A, Gholamian, E, Houshfar, E, Habibollahzade, A. Multi-objective optimization and exergoeconomic analysis of waste heat recovery from Tehran’s waste-to-energy plant integrated with an ORC unit. Energy [Internet] 2018;160:1055–68. in Google Scholar

9. Mavrotas, G, Gakis, N, Skoulaxinou, S, Katsouros, V, Georgopoulou, E. Municipal solid waste management and energy production: consideration of external cost through multi-objective optimization and its effect on waste-to-energy solutions. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;51:1205–22. [Internet].Search in Google Scholar

10. Xiong, J, Ng, TSA, Wang, S. An optimization model for economic feasibility analysis and design of decentralized waste-to-energy systems. Energy [Internet] 2016;101:239–51. in Google Scholar

11. Mirdar Harijani, A, Mansour, S, Karimi, B, Lee, CG. Multi-period sustainable and integrated recycling network for municipal solid waste – A case study in Tehran. J Clean Prod [Internet]. 2017;151:96–108. in Google Scholar

12. Mavrotas, G, Skoulaxinou, S, Gakis, N, Katsouros, V, Georgopoulou, E. A multi-objective programming model for assessment the GHG emissions in MSW management. Waste Manag [Internet] 2013;33:1934–49. in Google Scholar

13. Shahrier, NA. Regional development in Indonesia: some notes for the Jokowi Government. Bandung: Indonesian Regional Science Association (IRSA); 2015.Search in Google Scholar

14. BPS-Statistic Indonesia. Total population and gender ratio by district in Depok city, 2017; [Internet] 2018. Available from: [Accessed 6 Nov 2019].Search in Google Scholar

15. Kristanto, GA, Gusniani, I, Ratna, A, Ratna, A. The performance of municipal solid waste recycling program in Depok, Indonesia. Int J Technol [Internet] 2015;6:263. in Google Scholar

16. Khuriati, A, Purwanto, P, Setiyo Huboyo, H, Suryono, S, Bawono Putro, A. Application of aspen plus for municipal solid waste plasma gasification simulation: case study of Jatibarang Landfill in Semarang Indonesia. J Phys Conf Ser 2018;1025:012006. in Google Scholar

17. Carlson, EC. Don’t gamble with physical properties. Chem Eng Prog 1996;92:35–46.Search in Google Scholar

18. Arena, U. Process and technological aspects of municipal solid waste gasification. A review. Waste Manag [Internet] 2012;32:625–39. in Google Scholar

19. Hejazi, B, Grace, JR, Bi, X, Mahecha-Botero, A. Kinetic model of steam gasification of biomass in a bubbling fluidized bed reactor. Energy and Fuels 2017;31:1702–11. in Google Scholar

20. Abbas, SZ, Dupont, V, Mahmud, T. Kinetics study and modelling of steam methane reforming process over a NiO/Al2O3 catalyst in an adiabatic packed bed reactor. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2017;42:2889–903. in Google Scholar

21. Yu, J, Smith, JD. Validation and application of a kinetic model for biomass gasification simulation and optimization in updraft gasifiers. Chem Eng Process - Process Intensif [Internet] 2018;125:214–26. in Google Scholar

22. Olsbye, U, Wurzel, T, Mleczko, L. Kinetic and Reaction engineering studies of dry reforming of methane over a Ni/La/Al2O3 catalyst. Ind Eng Chem Res 1997;36:5180–8. in Google Scholar

23. Kaisalo, N, Simell, P, Lehtonen, J. Benzene steam reforming kinetics in biomass gasification gas cleaning. Fuel 2016;182:696–703. in Google Scholar

24. Jess, A. Mechanisms and kinetics of thermal reactions of aromatic hydrocarbons from pyrolysis of solid fuels. Fuel 1996;75:1441–8. in Google Scholar

25. Świerczyński, D, Libs, S, Courson, C, Kiennemann, A. Steam reforming of tar from a biomass gasification process over Ni/olivine catalyst using toluene as a model compound. Appl Catal B Environ [Internet] 2007;74:211–22. in Google Scholar

26. Beheshti, SM, Ghassemi, H, Shahsavan-Markadeh, R. Process simulation of biomass gasification in a bubbling fluidized bed reactor. Energy Convers Manag [Internet] 2015;94:345–52. in Google Scholar

27. Gómez-Barea, A, Leckner, B. Modeling of biomass gasification in fluidized bed. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2010;36:444–509. in Google Scholar

28. Baruah, D, Baruah, DC. Modeling of biomass gasification: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;39:806–15. in Google Scholar

29. Begum, S, Rasul, MG, Akbar, D. A numerical investigation of municipal solid waste gasification using Aspen Plus. Procedia Eng 2014;90:710–7. in Google Scholar

30. Adeyemi, I, Janajreh, I. Modeling of the entrained flow gasification: kinetics-based Aspen Plus model. Renew Energy 2015;82:77–84. in Google Scholar

31. Doherty, W, Reynolds, A, Kennedy, D. Aspen plus simulation of biomass gasification in a steam blown dual fluidised bed. In: Méndez-Vilas A, editor. Materials and processes for energy: communicating current research and technological developments. Badajoz, Spain: Formatex Research Centre; 2013. 212–20 pp.Search in Google Scholar

32. Nikoo, MB, Mahinpey, N. Simulation of biomass gasification in fluidized bed reactor using Aspen Plus. Biomass Bioenergy 2008;32:1245–54. in Google Scholar

33. Quan, LM, Tran, TN, Pham, VV, Nguyen, KN, Tan, TV, Le, PT, et al.. Process simulation of rice husk gasitication in updraft gasifier using Aspen Plus. In: 5th international conference on sustainable development (ICSD). Rome: ECSDEV; 2017: 36 p.Search in Google Scholar

34. Eikeland, MS, Thapa, RK, Halvorsen, BM. Aspen plus simulation of biomass gasification with known reaction kinetic. Proceedings 56th conference simulation model (SIMS 56), October, 7-9, 2015. Linköping: Linköping University; 2015: vol 119. 149–56 pp.10.3384/ecp15119149Search in Google Scholar

35. Singh, RN, Singh, SP, Balwanshi, JB, Vishwavidhlya, DA. Tar removal from producer gas: a review. Res J Eng Sci [Internet] 2014;3:16–22.Search in Google Scholar

36. He, F, Li, Z, Liu, P, Ma, L, Pistikopoulos, EN. Operation window and part-load performance study of a syngas fired gas turbine. Appl Energy 2012;89:133–41. in Google Scholar

37. Pradhan, A, Baredar, P, Kumar, A. Syngas as an alternative fuel used in internal combustion engines: a review. J Pure Appl Sci Technol 2015;5:51–66.Search in Google Scholar

38. Ohji, A, Haraguchi, M. 2 - Steam turbine cycles and cycle design optimization: the rankine cycle, thermal power cycles, and IGCC power plants. In: Tanuma T, editor. Advances in steam turbines for modern power plants. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing; 2017. 11–40 pp. Available from: in Google Scholar

39. Sahli, Y, Ben Moussa, H, Zitouni, B. Optimization study of the produced electric power by SOFCs. Int J Hydrogen Energy [Internet] 2018;44:1–10. in Google Scholar

40. Naraharisetti, PK, Lakshminarayanan, S, Karimi, IA. Design of biomass and natural gas based IGFC using multi-objective optimization. Energy 2014;73:635–52. in Google Scholar

41. U.S. EIA. Annual energy outlook 2019 with projections to 2050; [Internet] 2019, vol 44. 1–64 p. Available from: in Google Scholar

42. Rivera-Tinoco, R, Schoots, K, Van Der Zwaan, B. Learning curves for solid oxide fuel cells. Energy Convers Manag [Internet] 2012;57:86–96. in Google Scholar

43. Heuberger, CF, Rubin, ES, Staffell, I, Shah, N, Mac Dowell, N. Power capacity expansion planning considering endogenous technology cost learning. Appl Energy [Internet] 2017;204:831–45. in Google Scholar

44. Duch, AD, Bermejo, JH. Biomass gasification: the characteristics of technology development and the rate of learning [Master]. Göteborg: Chalmers University of Technology; 2008.Search in Google Scholar

45. Chang, NB, Pires, A. Sustainable solid waste management: a systems engineering approach. 1st ed. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2015:908 p.10.1002/9781119035848Search in Google Scholar

46. IPCC. Chapter 5: Waste. In: IPCC good practice guidance and uncertainty management in national greenhouse gas inventories. Kanagawa: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES); 2000.Search in Google Scholar

47. Weber, G, Fu, Q, Wu, H. Energy efficiency of an integrated process based on gasification for hydrogen production from biomass. Dev Chem Eng Miner Process [Internet] 2006;14:33–48. in Google Scholar

48. Sharma, S, Celebi, AD, Maréchal, F. Robust multi-objective optimization of gasifier and solid oxide fuel cell plant for electricity production using wood. Energy 2017;137:811–22. in Google Scholar

Received: 2019-11-19
Accepted: 2020-05-02
Published Online: 2020-07-17

© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston