Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg Nkumbulo Sithole Supervisor Dr P Mohlala A research report submitted to the Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, University of the Witwatersrand, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Management in the Field of Energy Leadership Johannesburg, 2022 Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg ii ABSTRACT The City of Johannesburg's population growth and economic activity have resulted in increased amounts of generated municipal solid waste (MSW); concerns developed about landfill airspace depletion. Environmental concerns subsist as a landfilling activity often create greenhouse gases, air pollution and water contamination, therefore, contributing to climate change. Conversely, the City requires electricity to keep its economic activity functional, while providing its citizens with electricity. This case study examined the opportunities and impediments of waste-to-energy (WtE) implementation in the City of Johannesburg. Focus was on thermal conversion by mass-burn incineration, identifying the function of decision-making frameworks in supporting the integrated solid waste management leading to development and WtE implementation. The study established that WtE will stimulate the circular economy in the City of Johannesburg, therefore, contributing to environmental preservation, waste minimisation, and additional electricity capacity for the City. To align with the legislated decision framework, the waste hierarchy, the WtE facility should incorporate the material recovery facility (MRF). The waste hierarchy and other legislated processes, such as the Municipal Finance Management Act (MFMA) and the public-private partnership (PPP) Framework, are inadequate to support WtE development. The research recommends developing a local government-based decision-making framework by the City of Johannesburg—service delivery focused; this would complement existing legislation. A multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) model is suggested. The increase in grid tariffs, cost-reflective gate fees, and introducing landfill tax could contribute to the commercial viability of WtE. The identified barriers are a lack of education and awareness, and improper stakeholder engagement with WtE. Findings indicate a lack of expedited legislation processes tailor-made for projects, such as WtE and five-year political terms, hampering service delivery plans. Findings also identified access to waste by independent power producers Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg iii (IPPs) and the City of Johannesburg’s financial viability as barriers. These should be focused on to realise WtE implementation. KEY WORDS – City of Johannesburg, waste-to-energy, municipal solid waste, landfill, circular economy, decision-making frameworks Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg iv DECLARATION I, Nkumbulo Sithole , declare that this research report is my own work except as indicated in the references and acknowledgements. It is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Management in the Field of Energy Leadership at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. It has not been submitted before for any degree or examination in this or any other university. Name: Nkumbulo Sithole Signature: Signed at Johannesburg On the …3rd………………………. Day of …August……….……………… 2022 Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg v DEDICATION I dedicate this research to my late grandmother, WIN Sithole, and my mother, TG Sithole. My wife, Nosisa Sithole, and my children, Owethu and Thando Sithole. Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I thank my supervisor, Dr Mohlala, for guiding me throughout this research; when things were tough, you inspired me to continue. I am grateful to the faculty leadership and lecturers for their guidance throughout the research. I would like to thank the participants who offered their time to contribute to this study. I am grateful to Transnet for sponsoring my studies. My appreciation to my editor, Elizabeth Marx, representing Academic and Professional Editing Services (APES), for editing and formatting my report. Last, my colleagues for their input and support whenever I called upon them. Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg vii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ..................................................................................... ii DECLARATION .............................................................................. iv DEDICATION .................................................................................. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................... vi LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................... xi LIST OF ACRONYMS ..................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................... 4 1.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 4 1.2 STUDY PURPOSE ......................................................................................... 4 1.3 CONTEXT OF THE STUDY .............................................................................. 4 1.4 RESEARCH PROBLEM .................................................................................. 5 1.5 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ................................................................................ 7 1.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY ....................................................................... 8 1.7 DELIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY...................................................................... 9 1.8 DEFINITION OF TERMS ............................................................................... 10 1.9 ASSUMPTIONS .......................................................................................... 10 1.10 STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT ...................................................................... 11 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................... 13 2.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 13 2.2 ENERGY AND WASTE MANAGEMENT EVOLUTION ........................................... 14 2.3 THEORETICAL FOUNDATION........................................................................ 22 2.4 POSITIVE CONTRIBUTIONS OF IMPLEMENTING WASTE-TO-ENERGY ................. 24 2.4.1 CATALYSING AND IMPLEMENTING THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY...................................... 25 2.4.2 PROPOSITION 1 ..................................................................................................... 27 2.5 DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORKS AND ACTIONS TO IMPLEMENT WASTE-TO- ENERGY ................................................................................................... 27 2.5.1 ENERGY POLICY AND LEGISLATION IN SOUTH AFRICA .............................................. 29 2.5.2 PROPOSITION 2 ..................................................................................................... 30 Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg viii 2.6 THE CONSEQUENCES OF WASTE-TO-ENERGY NON-IMPLEMENTATION ............. 30 2.6.1 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN JOHANNESBURG ..................................................... 31 2.6.2 ELECTRICITY DELIVERY .......................................................................................... 32 2.6.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ....................................................................................... 32 2.6.4 PROPOSITION 3 ..................................................................................................... 33 2.7 WASTE-TO-ENERGY COMMERCIAL VIABILITY ................................................ 33 2.7.1 GRID ELECTRICITY TARIFFS .................................................................................... 34 2.7.2 LANDFILL GATE FEES AND LANDFILL TAX ................................................................. 35 2.7.3 WASTE-TO-ENERGY REVENUE STREAM ................................................................... 35 2.7.4 WASTE-TO-ENERGY SUBSIDIES .............................................................................. 36 2.7.5 PROPOSITION 4 ..................................................................................................... 36 2.8 BARRIERS TO WASTE-TO-ENERGY IMPLEMENTATION ..................................... 36 2.8.1 FINANCIAL BARRIERS ............................................................................................. 37 2.8.2 TECHNOLOGY BARRIERS ........................................................................................ 38 2.8.3 INSTITUTIONAL BARRIERS ....................................................................................... 39 2.8.4 ENVIRONMENTAL BARRIERS ................................................................................... 40 2.8.5 PROPOSITION 5 ..................................................................................................... 41 2.9 CONCLUSION OF LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................... 42 2.9.1 PROPOSITION 1 ..................................................................................................... 43 2.9.2 PROPOSITION 2 ..................................................................................................... 43 2.9.3 PROPOSITION 3 ..................................................................................................... 44 2.9.4 PROPOSITION 4 ..................................................................................................... 44 2.9.5 PROPOSITION 5 ..................................................................................................... 44 CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .............................. 45 3.1 RESEARCH APPROACH .............................................................................. 45 3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN ................................................................................... 46 3.3 DATA COLLECTION METHODS ..................................................................... 47 3.4 POPULATION AND SAMPLE.......................................................................... 48 3.4.1 POPULATION ......................................................................................................... 48 3.4.2 SAMPLE AND SAMPLING METHOD ............................................................................ 49 3.5 THE RESEARCH INSTRUMENT ..................................................................... 50 3.6 PROCEDURE FOR DATA COLLECTION ........................................................... 51 3.7 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION ........................................................ 51 3.8 STUDY LIMITATIONS ................................................................................... 52 3.9 TRUSTWORTHINESS .................................................................................. 53 3.9.1 TRANSFERABILITY ................................................................................................. 53 3.9.2 CREDIBILITY .......................................................................................................... 53 3.9.3 DEPENDABILITY ..................................................................................................... 54 3.9.4 CONFIRMABILITY ................................................................................................... 54 3.10 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................................... 55 CHAPTER 4. PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS ........................... 58 4.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 58 Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg ix 4.2 QUALITATIVE METHODOLOGY ..................................................................... 58 4.2.1 QUALITATIVE METHODOLOGY ................................................................................. 58 4.2.2 PURPOSIVE SAMPLING ........................................................................................... 59 4.2.3 TRUSTWORTHINESS .............................................................................................. 59 A) VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY ......................................................................................... 59 4.2.4 DATA ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... 60 4.3 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF PARTICIPANTS .................................................. 61 4.4 PROPOSITION 1 FINDINGS .......................................................................... 62 4.4.1 THEME 1: WASTE-TO-ENERGY CIRCULAR ECONOMY STIMULATION ............................ 62 4.4.2 THEME 2: ADDRESS CHALLENGES .......................................................................... 65 4.4.3 PROPOSITION 1 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................... 66 4.5 PROPOSITION 2 FINDINGS .......................................................................... 66 4.5.1 THEME 3: MUNICIPALITY DECISION FRAMEWORKS ................................................... 67 4.5.2 THEME 4: INEFFECTIVE DECISION FRAMEWORK ....................................................... 71 4.5.3 PROPOSITION 2 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................... 72 4.6 PROPOSITION 3 FINDINGS .......................................................................... 73 4.6.1 THEME 5: INSUFFICIENT LANDFILL AIRSPACE ........................................................... 73 4.6.2 THEME 6: SUSTAINABILITY IMPACTS ....................................................................... 75 4.6.3 PROPOSITION 3 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................... 76 4.7 PROPOSITION 4 FINDINGS .......................................................................... 76 4.7.1 THEME 7: SUBSIDISATION NOT PREFERRED............................................................. 77 4.7.2 THEME 8: TECHNOLOGIES AND GUARANTEES .......................................................... 78 4.7.3 THEME 9: IMPROVEMENT LEVERS ........................................................................... 79 4.7.4 PROPOSITION 4 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................... 81 4.8 PROPOSITION 5 FINDINGS .......................................................................... 81 4.8.1 THEME 10: STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION ........................................................... 82 4.8.2 THEME11: SERVICE DELIVERY LEGISLATION ............................................................ 84 4.8.3 THEME 12: ACCESS AND FINANCIAL VIABILITY ......................................................... 85 4.8.4 PROPOSITION 5 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................... 87 4.9 DATA TRIANGULATION ............................................................................... 87 4.10 MEMBER REFLECTION ................................................................................ 94 4.10.1 MEMBER REFLECTION ANALYSIS ......................................................................... 94 4.10.2 MEMBER REFLECTION CONCLUSIONS .................................................................. 95 4.11 SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS ....................................................................... 95 4.12 COMPARISON OF LITERATURE REVIEW AND OWN FINDINGS ............................ 98 CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS ....................... 101 5.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 101 5.2 PROPOSITION 1 DISCUSSION .................................................................... 101 5.3 PROPOSITION 2 DISCUSSION .................................................................... 102 5.4 PROPOSITION 3 DISCUSSION .................................................................... 105 5.5 PROPOSITION 4 DISCUSSION .................................................................... 106 5.6 PROPOSITION 5 DISCUSSION .................................................................... 108 5.7 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................ 111 Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg x CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS ......... 113 6.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 113 6.2 RESEARCH QUESTION 1 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................... 113 6.3 RESEARCH QUESTION 2 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................... 114 6.4 RESEARCH QUESTION 3 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................... 115 6.5 RESEARCH QUESTION 4 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................... 115 6.6 RESEARCH QUESTION 5 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................... 116 6.7 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 121 6.8 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH .................................................. 123 REFERENCES ............................................................................ 124 APPENDIX A – City of Johannesburg permission letter ......... 133 APPENDIX B – Consent form .................................................... 134 APPENDIX C – Research instrument ........................................ 136 APPENDIX D – Ethics clearance certificate ............................. 140 APPENDIX D – Certificate from language editor ..................... 142 Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg xi LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Waste-to-energy plants in South Africa (Source: as indicated per row) ........................................................................................................... 19 Table 2: Profile of participants ........................................................................... 50 Table 3: Consistency table: research questions, propositions, data collection, and data analysis ...................................................................................... 56 Table 4: Data triangulation ................................................................................ 89 Table 5: Member reflection................................................................................ 94 Table 6: Comparison of literature review and findings ...................................... 98 Table 7: Consistency table: research questions, conclusions, and contribution to knowledge ........................................................................................ 117 Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg xii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Waste hierarchy (AlQattan et al., 2018) ............................................. 16 Figure 2: Waste conversion processes adopted from (Young, 2010) ................ 16 Figure 3: EU-28 MSW Treatment 2015 to 17 (Castillo-Giménez et al., 2019) ... 18 Figure 4: The City geographic area (City of Johannesbug, 2017) ..................... 21 Figure 5: Waste-to-energy participation in a circular economy (Van Caneghem, Van Acker, De Greef, Wauters, & Vandecasteele, 2019) .................. 26 Figure 6: General framework for waste-to-energy suitable technology (Farooq et al., 2021) ............................................................................................ 29 Figure 7: Eskom average electricity tariff (nominal)c/kWh (Eskom, 2021,May 11) ........................................................................................................... 34 Figure 8: The net CO2e emission of incineration and AD process in various countries (Van Fana et al., 2019) ....................................................... 41 Figure 9: Framework for data analysis derived from Braun et al. (2012) ........... 61 Figure 10: Findings on Proposition 1 from semi-structured interviews .............. 62 Figure 11: Findings on Proposition 2 from semi-structured interviews .............. 67 Figure 12: Findings on Proposition 3 from semi-structured interviews .............. 73 Figure 13: Findings on Proposition 4 from semi-structured interviews .............. 76 Figure 14: Findings on Proposition 5 from semi-structured interviews .............. 82 Figure 15: Recommended decision-making framework for waste-to-energy suitable technology adapted from (Farooq et al., 2021) ................... 122 Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 1 LIST OF ACRONYMS AD anaerobic digestion AHP analytical hierarchy process ANP analytic network process APES Academic and Professional Editing Services AWTT alternative waste treatment CoGTA Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs DEMATEL decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory DFI Development Financial Institution DMRE Department of Mineral Resources and Energy DPE Department of Public Enterprises EIA environmental impact assessment EISD Environment and Infrastructure Services Department EPR extended producer responsibility ESI electricity supply industry GCRO Gauteng City Region Observatory GHG greenhouse gases Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 2 IDP Integrated Development Plan IMCDM integrated multi-criteria decision-making model IPP independent power producers IRP integrated resources plan ITSO independent transmission system operator LCA life cycle assessment LCC life cycle costing LFGTE landfill gas extraction to energy MCDM multi-criteria decision-making MFMA Municipal Finance Management Act MOE municipal-owned entities MRF material recovery facility MSA Municipal Systems Act MSW municipal solid waste MSWM municipal solid waste management O&M operations, and maintenance PPA power purchase agreements PPP public-private partnership Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 3 QLFS Quarterly Labour Force Survey REIPPPP Renewable Energy Independent Power Producer Procurement Programme RFP request for proposals SADC Southern Africa Development Community SALGA South African Local Government Association SAW simple additive weighting SDG Sustainable Development Goal WEC World Energy Council WtE waste-to-energy Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 4 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Introduction This chapter outlines the study purpose while providing orientation on the topic. This is achieved by discussing the study purpose, the context of the study, the research problem, the research questions, the significance of the study, the delimitations, and assumptions. 1.2 Study purpose This research was based on a case study examining the opportunities and impediments to WtE implementation in the City of Johannesburg (the City). The focus was on thermal conversion by mass-burn incineration and how decision- making frameworks play a significant role in supporting integrated solid waste management, leading to WtE development and implementation. 1.3 Context of the study As per the Constitution of South Africa, municipalities are mandated to provide basic services (Covary, 2020), including electricity and municipal solid waste (MSW) management. The City of Johannesburg provides these services through its municipal-owned entities (MOEs), such as City Power and Pikitup, responsible for electricity services and MSW management, respectively. The South African state-owned utility Eskom, provides electricity to parts of the City (Abrahams & Everatt, 2019). Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 5 South Africa encountered electricity security supply problems since the capacity shortages begun in late 2007 and early 2008, leading to rotational load shedding to avoid total grid collapse (Covary, 2020; Kelly, 2016). This study is crucial as it tackles both the electricity security problems and challenges relating to landfill airspace, which, according to Dlamini et al. (2019), is expected to be depleted by 2023. This is compounded by that the City of Johannesburg has the highest population growth in South Africa and is at the centre of South Africa’s economy (Dlamini et al., 2019). It was clear from the studies that the City of Johannesburg needs to approach two critical issues, electricity security and MSW disposal. Ironically MSW, is a proven source of energy in several parts of the world (Moya, Aldás, López, & Kaparaju, 2017). The City has indicated interest in exploring WtE by undertaking activities, including feasibility studies, scrutinising, and enabling by-laws and industry engagements both locally and abroad (City of Johannesbug, 2017). Despite all these efforts, the City is struggling to implement WtE as one of the optimal solutions to curb the waste problem. While there seems to be a challenge on thermal conversion implementation, it is worth noting that on the landfill gas extraction to energy (LFGTE) projects with a combined capacity of 19 MW were awarded in the Renewable Energy Independent Power Producer Procurement Programme (REIPPPP). This case study indicated that WtE is one of the critical components addressing the MSW management problem, while reducing the need for new landfill sites. WtE also contributes to curbing emissions emanating from landfill sites while adding to electricity capacity and, therefore, contributing to catalysing the circular economy. Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 6 1.4 Research problem According to Dlamini et al. (2019), the City of Johannesburg’s landfill airspace would be depleted by 2023. The City already encounters high transportation costs as the landfills in the northern regions, running out of airspace, therefore, needed to transport MSW to the southern regions-based landfills. No approval for the new landfill site development exists; however, the City earmarked two land parcels for new landfill sites. This provides an environmental challenge as landfills are known for their ecological degradation through water contamination, as reasoned by Nevondo et al. (2019). There are still problems with air pollution (CO2, CH4 and N2O) and other hazards, therefore, contributing to the climate change problem (Scheutz, Kjeldsen, & Gentil, 2009). Besides its waste management problems, the City encountered electricity security of supply emanating from the Eskom load shedding since 2007 and 2008 and capacity shortages, resulting in electrification backlogs (Nxumalo, 2018). This is further exacerbated by theft and illegal connections. In 2020, Eskom initiated load reduction programmes in areas affected by high loading emanating from illegal connections (Eskom, 2021). These activities lead the City to exceed its notified maximum demand during peak hours and encounter associated penalties. To address these challenges, the City of Johannesburg undertook several studies assisted by appointed experts called “transaction advisors”. According to the City of Johannesburg (2017), the first study was conducted in 2008; the second in 2010; the third in 2015; and lastly, in 2017. These studies identified MRF and WtE as alternative waste treatment (AWTT) to landfilling, addressing electricity security concerns and climate change mitigation. Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 7 Despite all these efforts, the City did not implement thermal conversion WtE for more than a decade since the inception of its AWTT programme. In 2020, the City of Johannesburg issued a request for proposals (RFP) for AWTT, which included two MRF at Robinson Deep and Marie Louise Landfill sites and WtE at Robinson deep. The scope of work is for the environmental impact assessment (EIA) and PPP procurement process; the project is expected to reach a financial close in 2023. More than a decade after the inception of its AWTT programme, the City is yet to implement the programme. In the process appointing several transaction advisers and obtaining funding from development financial institutions (DFIs). The study indicated that barriers derailing the progress still apply to the ongoing work the City is undertaking. Studies indicated that by 2023 the City would run out of landfill airspace if the AWTT programme is not implemented, so the City should implement its programme before this eventuality. The problem that the study evaluated was to explore and investigate decision-making frameworks the City employs and actions they should undertake for successful WtE implementation. 1.5 Research questions By sanctioning several studies to determine the feasibility of WtE implementation technologies, the City of Johannesburg only advanced and implemented LFGTE in the REIPPPP. The City has not yet implemented thermal conversion technologies despite their proven success in reducing MSW by electricity generation from the global perspective. This study contends this is because of the lack and non-implementation of decision-making frameworks in the City. For example, the City must conform to the Waste Act of 2008, prescribing the waste Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 8 hierarchy as a framework for MSW management. The City is not aligned with the waste hierarchy, with the waste disposal still dominating at 80%. For this research, therefore, the questions were: a) What are the potential benefits of WtE implementation for the City? b) What decision-making frameworks and actions are needed to implement WtE? c) What would be the consequences of WtE non-implementation in the City? d) Is WtE a commercial proposition? e) What are barriers to WtE implementation through thermal conversion? 1.6 Significance of the study This research attempted to contribute to the literature undertaken in WtE, focusing on the City of Johannesburg, South Africa. The area of contribution is on the impediments or barriers to WtE implementation and opportunities. Whereas there was WtE implementation in the developed countries, minimal implementation in Africa was established, particularly with thermal conversion technology (Makarichi et al., 2019). This study observed decision-making frameworks and why they were not implemented or adopted, identifying amendments required which may help WtE implementation; for example, the integrated multi-criteria decision-making (IMCDM) model developed by Wang et al. (2018) and the energy justice criteria and alternatives as described by Fetanat et al. (2019). These decision-making frameworks are suitable in WtE as they follow similar approaches to the waste management hierarchy prescribed in the Waste Act of 2008. Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 9 Additional research was reviewed; for example, Dlamini et al. (2019) contend that implementing thermal conversion WtE technologies could lead to 93% diversion of waste from landfills and extend landfill airspace to 2030 instead of depletion by 2023 as forecasted. They have not indicated explicitly in their studies why it has not been implemented even though it could present such benefits. This study, therefore, identified the barriers to implementation while analysing the decision- making frameworks by the City and WtE operators across the globe. Emissions emanating from the WtE plant, and its commercial viability, were also assessed. According to Stafford (2019), the increase in MSW generation results from rapid urbanisation in Africa. This is supported by Dlamini (2019), contending that urbanisation in the City of Johannesburg resulted in increased waste quantities. This urbanisation cause growth in electricity demand within cities. Stafford (2019) asserts that MSW treatment with WtE technologies addresses both challenges at once, indicating the disposal of waste and associated environmental pollution and energy demand and security. From similar studies, it is concluded that Johannesburg implemented LFGTE projects under the REIPPPP (Baker & Letsoela, 2016). Second, WtE thermal conversion technologies have not been implemented yet in Johannesburg despite their successful deployment in other cities abroad. The expected beneficiaries of the study include: f) The City of Johannesburg and its entities on developing, adopting, and amending decision-making frameworks in alignment with the country’s Constitution. g) Government policymakers and administrators across the country. Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 10 h) The private sector, in particular IPPs, which attempt to enter power purchase agreements (PPAs) with municipalities to generate electricity from WtE technologies. i) The academic research fraternity concerning the barriers and opportunities of WtE in metropolitan municipalities in Africa. 1.7 Delimitations of the study According to Young (2010), the methods of treating MSW to Energy are primarily: a) A thermal conversion includes mass-burn combustion, often called incineration, gasification, pyrolysis, and plasma arc gasification b) A biological conversion includes anaerobic digestion (AD) and landfill gas extraction. The City implemented LFGTE technology and conducted several studies on the feasibility of thermal conversion technologies without success. The study was limited to the City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality to ascertain barriers to WtE implementation by thermal conversion technologies in the City. The study undertook that the information provided by the participants is correct and a true reflection based on their expertise and experience. 1.8 Definition of terms Incineration: also called mass-burn incineration, is combustion of waste in the presence of oxygen or air (Young, 2010). Municipal solid waste: waste “garbage generated from households, commercial business and schools” (Young, 2010, p. 2). Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 11 Landfill: a site allocated to dispose of waste designed and equipped to limit harm to the environment (Young, 2010). Thermal conversion: waste treatment by combustion processes to produce heat, fuel, or gas (Kumar & Samadder, 2017). Waste-to-energy: generation of energy from MSW conversion by either biological or thermal technologies (Awasthi et al., 2019; Kumar & Samadder, 2017; Young, 2010). 1.9 Assumptions The assumptions of this research were as follows: a) There is a willingness by the City to implement WtE based on several feasibility studies conducted, yet there are known and unknown impediments. b) The City’s MSW characteristic content is suitable for WtE generation and sufficient as indicated by feasibility studies. c) The answers provided by the selected participants generate the answers this research pursued. 1.10 Structure of the report This research report comprises the following six chapters: 1. CHAPTER 1: This chapter serves as an outline of the purpose of this study while providing orientation to the reader on the topic it discusses the study purpose, the context of the study, research problem, research questions, and significance of the study delimitations and assumptions. Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 12 2. CHAPTER 2: This chapter analyses the literature on the subject where the crucial terms and concepts regarding the study are elaborated. The important terms for this study are circular economy, decision-making frameworks, consequences of non-implementation, commercial viability, and impediments to WtE implementation. At the end of the literature, review, propositions are stated as possible answers to the research questions posed in Chapter 1. 3. CHAPTER 3: This is chapter outlines the methodology followed in this study, it describes the approach where the research questions of the study were addressed and how the data was analysed. The areas covered include research approach, research design, data collection method, population and sample, research instrument, the procedure for data collection, data analysis and interpretation, limitations of the study, and ethical considerations. 4. CHAPTER 4: This chapter presents the research findings from the data collected on the semi-structured interviews from various experts sampled based on a purposive sampling approach. Data is analysed by the generation of initial codes extracted from transcripts. This is followed by categorisation of codes in various themes and lastly mapping the correlation among themes, defining and naming themes. 5. CHAPTER 5: This chapter discusses findings of the qualitative study within the context of the literature review conducted in Chapter 2, integrated with the findings in Chapter 4. 6. Error! Reference source not found.: This chapter integrates findings of the propositions into the original research questions in Chapter1, responding to each research question. Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 13 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Introduction This research was based on a case study, examining the opportunities and impediments of WtE implementation in the City of Johannesburg, focusing on thermal conversion by mass-burn incineration. How decision-making frameworks support the integrated solid waste management leading to WtE development and implementation was evaluated. This chapter analyses the literature on the subject, attending to the divergences within the literature. First, the background of energy and waste management evolution is investigated and presented and how this led to implementing first waste treatment technologies and how later energy was recovered from the same technologies. Second, the review of WtE implementation technologies explores the global perspective, South African context, and the City of Johannesburg. The drivers leading to implementation and understanding of the constraints are analysed and demonstrated through theoretical frameworks. This is followed by: a) Identifying positive contributions, including opportunities for WtE implementation b) Consequences of inaction c) The required decision-making frameworks and actions to implement WtE d) The commercial viability of WtE e) Identifying the barriers to implementation The research contends that the City encounters the electricity security challenges and associated rising costs. MSW generation and disposal challenges could Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 14 contribute to resolving the electricity problem and climate change mitigation by energy recovery from MSW. 2.2 Energy and waste management evolution This section focuses on energy and waste management evolution and the WtE technology implementation and advancement globally. The information collected demonstrates that the WtE technology is worldwide well advanced. Since the industrial revolution in the 1760s, energy has played an integral role in transformation, economic growth, and the transition of human development from one phase to the next. Wrigley (2013) contends that before the industrial revolution, humanity and communities relied on the annual cycle of plant photosynthesis for their energy needs—wood and water were the choices of energy sources. According to Zou et al. (2016), after this age of wood, coal took over as the main primary energy source, followed by oil and gas. It could be deduced that the primary energy sources evolved with new resource discoveries and innovative technologies which derive value from fossil fuels and conversion into valuable energy. According to Ritchie et al. (2017), fossil fuel-based primary energy sources of coal, oil, and gas have maintained a high share in the energy systems globally as of 2017. Fossil fuel-based energy sources were the major influencer and impetus in the technological, socio-economic, and development progress during the industrial revolution. Fossil fuel-based energy sources are a major cause of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions leading to climate change. To curb the climate change problem globally, the energy sector is undergoing an unprecedented transition from centralised carbon-intensive fossil fuel-based systems to Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 15 decentralised low carbon systems. This transition is led by renewable and clean energy sources and technologies with energy efficient and storage systems. While the newly discovered energy sources and related technologies actualised high paced industrialisation and modern cities. People flocked to the cities, pursuing jobs and business opportunities to improve their livelihood. This urbanisation generated large MSW quantities (Dlamini, 2019; Qazi, Abushammala, & Younes, 2018; Rasmeni & Madyira, 2019). This rapid increase of population and economic activity often leads to illegal dumping of MSW, as contended by Dlamini (2019), lacking sufficient infrastructure creating environmental and health problems in cities. According to Young (2010), systematic burning of waste began in Nottingham, England, during the 1870s. The first waste incinerator was commissioned in New York, the United States, in 1885. These initiatives were to approach waste problems as urbanisation increased and the space for dumping was already decreasing. Young (2010) continues that Washington DC experienced a lack of space for waste during 1889. In 1898, the first recycling occurred in New York. In recent years, waste disposal challenges and its environmental and health problems led to adopting solid waste management systems supported by implementing the waste hierarchy. This study considers that energy recovery from waste is second from the bottom of the waste hierarchy, as demonstrated in Figure 1. Studies revealed that countries embracing and implementing recycling enjoy significant waste reduction. They also hold successful WtE energy operation regimes (Kumar & Samadder, 2017). Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 16 Figure 1: Waste hierarchy (AlQattan et al., 2018) According to Godfrey and Oelofse (2017), South Africa remains behind the developed countries in waste management, with 90% of MSW being landfilled. A huge opportunity remains for South Africa to benefit from MSW availability to resolve electricity shortages, environmental and health problems, and landfill airspace depletion. According to Young (2010), the methods of treating MSW to Energy are primarily: a) Thermal conversion, including mass-burn combustion, is often called incineration and gasification, pyrolysis, and plasma arc gasification b) Biological conversion, including AD and landfill gas extraction Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 17 The two treatment technologies are demonstrated as schematic in Figure 2 below. Figure 2: Waste conversion processes adopted from (Young, 2010) 2.2.1 Global context Globally, based on the urbanisation trends, MSW daily generation is projected to grow to 6 million tonnes in 2025 (Makarichi, Jutidamrongphan, & Techato, 2018; Qazi et al., 2018). With this rapid urbanisation and population growth come infrastructural constraints about landfill airspace availability (Dlamini, 2019). This implies that as waste generation quantities continue to grow, it will lead to inadequate landfills to accommodate MSW. As contended by Qazi et al. (2018), cities should adopt and implement waste management according to the priorities of the waste hierarchy. The waste hierarchy regard landfilling as the last option after exhausting all other levels, indicating prevent, reduce, reuse, recycle, and recovery (WtE). For the period 2015 to 2017, European Union 28 countries (EU-28) generated MSW—98.1%, treated in this manner: Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 18 a) Composed and digested: 16.7% b) Recycled: 30.1% c) Incinerated (WtE): 28.1% d) Landfilled: 25.1% (Castillo-Giménez, Montañés, & Picazo-Tadeo, 2019) This translates to 75% average of landfill airspace saved. Denmark and Sweden, where waste landfilling for all combustible material was banned, achieved a landfill rate of 1% and 0.6%, respectively. Defined and implemented legislation and policy, therefore, influence the outcomes. Figure 3 comprises the graph of the EU-28 concerning their MSW management. The total number of plants in Europe is 420 (Awasthi et al., 2019). Figure 3: EU-28 MSW Treatment 2015 to 17 (Castillo-Giménez et al., 2019) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% E U - 2 8 B e lg iu m B u lg a ri a C z e c h ia D e n m a rk G e rm a n y E s to n ia Ir e la n d G re e c e S p a in F ra n c e C ro a ti a It a ly C y p ru s L a tv ia L it h u a n ia L u x e m b o u rg H u n g a ry M a lt a N e th e rl a n d s A u s tr ia P o la n d P o rt u g a l R o m a n ia S lo v e n ia S lo v a k ia F in la n d S w e d e n U n it e d K in g d o m EU-28 MW Treatment Landfilled Incinerated Recycling Composting and digestion Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 19 Japan is the world leader in WtE conversion by incineration with 1900 WtE units, whereas China has 434 WtE units (Awasthi et al., 2019). Japan, as of 2015 generates about 41 million tonnes and incinerates about 32,9 million tonnes of MSW (Japan Industrial Waste Information Center, 2018). Several Asian countries implement WtE technologies and MSWM. According to Kumar et al. (2017), Singapore recycles 44% of its waste. Other countries, such as India, Malaysia, and Vietnam, are deploying their WtE projects. Sub-Saharan Africa still has the lowest waste generation compared to other regions (Awasthi et al., 2019). Ethiopia has one WtE incineration plant in Sub- Saharan Africa (Makarichi, Kan, Jutidamrongphan, & Techato, 2019); this plant was commissioned in 2018 with an installed capacity of 20MW. Other countries, such as South Africa and Mauritius, have LFGTE plants (Makarichi et al., 2019). 2.2.2 South African context In 2011, South Africa generated 108 million tonnes of waste, of which 59 million tonnes is MSW (Dlamini, 2019; Mabalane, Oboirien, Sadiku, & Masukume, 2020). According to Mabalane et al. (2020), 10% of this MSW is recycled, and 53 million tonnes are disposed in landfill sites. With increased population growth and urbanisation, it is expected to continue to grow. WtE has made little progress in South Africa's electricity supply industry (ESI), which is heavily reliant on coal as its primary energy source. According to Ratshomo and Nembahe (2019), coal contributes 69% of primary energy sources, with renewables contributing 11%. This high coal dependence is a huge contributor to CO2 emissions in South Africa—2020 electricity generation contributed 212 Mt CO2 e (Eskom, 2020). Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 20 Despite the potential presented by MSW for energy conversion, South Africa lacks WtE thermal conversion plants by incineration. Some plants are LFGTE based, commissioned in South Africa. Additional biogas plants exist, as illustrated in Table 1 below. Table 1: Waste-to-energy plants in South Africa (Source: as indicated per row) Location Plant description Johannesburg Combined installed capacity of 19 MW from five landfill sites of the City (Baker & Letsoela, 2016) Durban eThekwini Metro projects: Marianhill (1MW) and Bisasar Road (6.5 MW) – LFGTE projects commissioned in 2006 and 2008, respectively (Sangham, 2017) Cape town New Horizons WtE plant - 560 tpd of MSW to produce biogas (Surroop, Bundhoo, & Raghoo, 2019) Bronkhorstspruit, Bio2Watt's biogas plant – a biogas to energy plant (4.6 MW) (Surroop et al., 2019) Grabouw Elgin Fruit Juices biogas facility - 5 tpd of waste fruit (0.5 MW) (Surroop et al., 2019) 2.2.3 Johannesburg context MSW management services in the City of Johannesburg is mandated to Pikitup, the MOE wholly owned by the City. The City generates 1.5 million of solid waste annually (Rasmeni & Madyira, 2019). This spans the City’s geographical area of 1 646km² (Dlamini, 2019) and a population of 5.4 million in 2017 (Abrahams et al., 2018). The City’s geographic area is indicated in Figure 4 as in 2017, the City operated four landfill sites, and the two new sites were proposed (City of Johannesbug, 2017). The other two new sites have not been approved yet. Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 21 Figure 4: The City geographic area (City of Johannesbug, 2017) In 2015, under the REIPPPP, five landfill sites in of the City of Johannesburg were awarded for landfill gas to energy extraction (LFGTE); with a combined capacity of 19 MW, this capacity can supply electricity to 12500 middle-income households (Baker & Letsoela, 2016). The City lacks WtE incineration projects despite several feasibility studies. In 2017, the City released a feasibility report, proposing an AWTT solution. According to the City of Johannesburg (2017), this solution would entail two MRFs at Robinson Deep and Marie Louise landfill sites. Waste not recovered from the MRF would be channelled to the proposed 25 MW WtE site at Robinson Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 22 Deep. The WtE plant would treat 335 000 tonnes annually by deploying incineration, moving grate combustion technology (City of Johannesbug, 2017). The proposed project has not yet begun with construction. In June 2020, the City issued the RFP to appoint the service provider, overseeing the EIA and the procurement according to the PPP framework. It is expected that the financial close would be reached in 2023, when construction may begin. 2.3 Theoretical foundation Municipal solid waste management involves various stakeholders (Wang et al., 2018). There are several treatment technologies commercially viable today. The most prominent technologies include landfill gas extraction, AD, incineration, gasification, pyrolysis, and plasma arc gasification (Young, 2010). Based on these options, it is often a complex process to select MSW treatment technology. This section analyses theoretical frameworks supporting WtE implementation. Wang et al. (2018) contend there are often conflicts among stakeholders in WtE technology selection and implementation; therefore, decision frameworks are critical as they handle these conflicts. Soltani et al. (2016) developed a decision framework for selecting the most mutually agreed sustainable solution and technology options for conflicting stakeholders. The conflicting priorities for stakeholders are environmental, economic, and social aspects. The components of the decision framework by Soltani et al. (2016) include sustainability assessment frameworks, life cycle assessment (LCA), and life cycle costing (LCC) of competing for technology options to determine both environmental affects and costs over a lifetime. An MCDM analysis was performed to rank and select suitable options by weighing the components of the Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 23 selected criteria and technology options comparison. For optimal use of the MCDM framework, the stakeholders should agree on the criteria beforehand. Several MCDM frameworks can be employed, Soltani et al. (2016) selected the analytical hierarchy process (AHP). The AHP is the most widely deployed decision-making framework, popular for MSW management and energy planning (Yap & Nixon, 2015). Finally, to complete their decision framework, Soltani et al. (2016) use game theory to capture and model the engagement among stakeholders, such as municipalities and cement industrial companies in Metro Vancouver, Canada. Fetanat et al. (2019) conducted a case study for the city of Behbahan, Iran. They proposed a decision-making framework for waste treatment technologies to implement WtE based on the energy justice criteria, alternatives, and integrated multi-criteria decision-making model (IMCDM). According to Fetanat et al. (2019), WtE strategies should be developed considering the energy trilemma context. According to the World Energy Council WEC (2019), the three critical components of the energy trilemma are energy security, energy affordability, and environmental sustainability. Energy justice emerges to balance the components of the trilemma. The challenge of the trilemma is to balance the three elements because progress towards meeting any two of these goals creates problems concerning meeting the third. WtE implementation contributes to the balance of two and possibly all elements of the trilemma by: a) Contributing towards meeting energy security and additional energy access can be achieved, particular in developing countries with energy poverty. b) Reducing GHG emissions by preventing methane formation in landfill sites or extracting methane to generate energy Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 24 c) Energy affordability depends mainly on technology maturity in a country and political and socio-economic aspect. Decision prioritisation could be based on the energy trilemma to achieve energy justice. Fetanat et al. (2019) contend that various alternative technologies for WtE treatment exist; however, these would be influenced by various factors, such as waste content and type, geographical location, availability of expertise and skills. The technology choice would be influenced by environmental considerations, socio-economic aspects, and technology maturity and acceptance. The IMCDM framework developed by Fetanat et al. (2019) is based on a Wang et al. (2018) developed fuzzy decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) method, which could avert conflict among various stakeholders. The model ranks the WtE technologies in order prioritisation (Fetanat et al., 2019). The fuzzy DEMATEL method was employed with the analytic network process (ANP) to weigh the ten energy justice criteria components and the simple additive weighting (SAW) approach, selecting the most suitable technology options. Decision-making frameworks could assist and fast track decision-making processes in developing countries, particularly Africa, where there is minimal progress in WtE implementation projects. 2.4 Positive contributions of implementing waste-to-energy According to Malinauskaite and Jouhara (2019), the three critical areas of WtE in policy are waste management, energy, and climate change. These three policy components are essential in establishing a circular economy (Malinauskaite & Jouhara, 2019). This aligns with Pan et al. (2015), contending that WtE could be the sustainable way to implement the circular economy, simultaneously resolving Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 25 the predicament of energy shortages, waste management challenges, and climate change. Hahladakis, Lacovidou, and Gerassimidou (2020, p. 8) define a circular economy as “a system that can restore, retain and redistribute materials, components and products back into the system in an optimised manner and for as long as it is environmentally, technically, socially and economically feasible”. Based on the above definition, it can be deduced that the circular economy system is aligned, promoting the waste hierarchy in waste management prioritisation. Malinauskaite et al. (2019) contend that in the circular economy environment, waste is circulated to the system as useful raw material, contributing to energy generation while reducing GHG emissions. Waste is no longer observed as ‘waste’ but as a useful resource, resolving the landfill airspace problems. 2.4.1 Catalysing and implementing the circular economy This section maintains that WtE implementation would benefit by contributing to the catalysation and implementing the circular economy. It would contribute to three critical areas of concern in Johannesburg, indicating waste management, energy demand, and climate change. Circular economy supports the reuse, retaining, and redistribution of material within the system in a substantial sustainable period (Hahladakis et al., 2020). According to Pan et al. (2015), circular economy provides a positive platform to accommodate a prosperous economy and sustainable environment. Figure 5 indicates WtE participation and contribution in a circular economy. Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 26 Figure 5: Waste-to-energy participation in a circular economy (Van Caneghem, Van Acker, De Greef, Wauters, & Vandecasteele, 2019) As depicted in Figure 5, the waste generated in the economy is fed back to the system through recycling; second, the remnants are supplied to the WtE plant as a second priority after recycling. The energy (electricity and heat) generated from the WtE plant supplies the economy, generating waste. Landfilling is the last resort according to the waste hierarchy; the limited waste disposed of improves land availability and reduce GHG resulting from landfill sites. WtE will, therefore, contribute to improved energy access by reducing energy deprivation to the citizens of the City, while addressing landfill airspace depletion problems and, finally, reducing GHG and other environmental hazards associated with landfilling. These WtE aspects lead to the circular economy catalysation. Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 27 2.4.2 Proposition 1 WtE implementation would contribute to catalysing the circular economy in the City of Johannesburg. 2.5 Decision-making frameworks and actions to implement waste-to-energy The decision-making frameworks proposed in this study are supported by the waste hierarchy framework and the energy justice-based decision-making frameworks for WtE technologies, such as those described by Fetanat et al. (2019) as they: a) Align with WEC energy trilemma, which attempts to balance three challenges: energy security, energy affordability, and environmental preservation. These three challenges must be weighed and balanced to arrive at an investment decision. b) They are also aligning with the Waste Act of 2008, which prescribes adopting waste hierarchy as a framework for solid waste management. c) Align with the Constitution of South Africa, focusing on the right to a clean environment, emissions reduction, and justifiable economic and social development. In several developed countries, WtE implementation, the main drivers are increasing volumes of waste generated because of rapid urbanisation, climate change mitigation, and energy security. Several countries introduced incentive schemes to support WtE implementation owing to the high capital investment costs in WtE development. These countries adopted the waste hierarchy to Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 28 enforce effective integrated solid waste management systems. The waste hierarchy prioritises prevention, reuse, and recycling before energy recovery. According to Kumar and Samadder (2017), countries embracing and implementing recycling have effective WtE projects. This is supported by Malinauskaite et al. (2019), contending that Europe leading with WtE facilities holding effective recycling. These countries include Denmark, the Netherlands, and Sweden. From these arguments, it could be deduced that following a waste management system according to the waste hierarchy leads to WtE implementation and, therefore, this is a policy and legislation driven action. These countries aligned with the energy trilemma as described by the WEC by considering in their decisions energy security, affordability with incentives and subsidies as well as environmental preservation, deploying WtE as a renewable source and prevention of landfilling. A clear alignment with the MCDM ranks the WtE technologies in order of prioritisation, particularly by adopting the waste hierarchy, which prioritises prevention, reuse, recycles recovery, and disposal. Farooq et al. (2021) developed a decision-making framework for sustainable MSW management systems. The framework includes these inputs: a) Environmental considerations b) Waste composition c) Capital and operational costs d) Technology efficiency and complexity e) Expertise and suitable locality for the WtE plant The framework by Farooq et al.(2021) considers developed and developing worlds, as indicated below in Figure 6. Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 29 Figure 6: General framework for waste-to-energy suitable technology (Farooq et al., 2021) 2.5.1 Energy policy and legislation in South Africa In South Africa, new generation capacity is developed and implemented based on the IRP. The inaugural IRP 2010 was published in 2011 and recently updated 2019 (DMRE, 2019). The IRP is the electricity plan for the country, determining the future path, requiring new capacities, decommissioning, and infrastructure upgrades of the South African ESI (Mqadi, Musango, & Brent, 2018). The IRP is the living document, updated regularly, especially with the fast-changing energy transition. Although the IRP does not explicitly mention WtE, it falls under the category of “other”; therefore, municipalities could pursue this option, requiring no ministerial determination. Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 30 In 2019, the Department of Public Enterprises (DPE) published a roadmap for Eskom in a reformed ESI to divide Eskom into three entities: a) Generation b) Transmission c) Distribution This enables the creation of the independent transmission system operator (ITSO) (Department of Public Enterprises, 2019). The formation of the ITSO would advance the removal of the monopoly of Eskom, sometimes observed as the impediment to implementing renewable energy sources. This was perceived when Eskom refused to endorse the PPAs for REIPPPP round four, delaying the implementation of renewables in South Africa. In 2020, the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE) issued draft amendments to the Electricity Regulations Act on new generation capacity enabling the municipalities in good financial standing to procure electricity directly from IPPs. This would enhance the opportunity for implementing other sources of energy, such as WtE, to curb electricity shortage crises and landfill airspace depletion. 2.5.2 Proposition 2 Adoption and implementation of decision-making frameworks would lead to WtE implementation. 2.6 The consequences of waste-to-energy non- implementation This section identifies the consequences to the City if WtE were not implemented. The study explored three critical service delivery areas of the City: Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 31 a) Solid waste management b) Electricity delivery c) Environmental impact 2.6.1 Solid waste management in Johannesburg The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa mandates municipalities to provide waste management services, such as waste collection, transportation, treatment, and disposal (Covary, 2020; Malope, 2020). The City of Johannesburg provides its waste management services through its MOE Pikitup. The City experiences challenges in MSW management, resulting from people flocking the City from all corners of South Africa and recently from Africa, particularly from SADC neighbouring countries. The rapid increase of the population in the City complicates matters for Pikitup to follow its MSW management mandate. According to Simelane (2017), the rapid expansion of uncontrolled and unplanned urbanisation leads to escalated governance challenges. This fast and unplanned urbanisation, therefore, leads to inferior quality service delivery and solid waste management. According to Kubanza and Simatele (2020), solid waste mismanagement is one of the major causes of environmental degradation problems and can lead to challenges related to poor health and economic and social concerns. According to Quantec, as quoted by Abrahams et al. (2018), the population of Johannesburg was estimated to be 5.4 million in 2017; this is the highest of any city in South Africa. This population growth compounded the social problems in the City, leading to the increase of illegal informal settlements (Lekalakala, 2019). Solid waste management problems, therefore, increased in the City, leading Pikitup to struggle to fulfil its mandate. Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 32 An increase in population translates to a rise in MSW generation (Dlamini, 2019; Qazi et al., 2018; Rasmeni & Madyira, 2019). According to Dlamini (2019), this rapid population and economic activity increase often lead to illegal dumping of MSW with insufficient infrastructure, creating environmental problems in cities. The forecast indicates that at this rate of MSW generation and population growth, the landfill airspace in the City would be depleted by 2023 (Dlamini et al., 2019). They further contend that if WtE energy were implemented in the City, this landfill airspace lifeline would be extended to 2030. 2.6.2 Electricity delivery Electricity provision in the City is mandated to City Power, an MOE wholly owned by the City. City Power is accountable for purchasing, distribution and selling electricity in the areas under the jurisdiction of the City, apart from areas in Soweto and Sandton supplied by the national utility Eskom (City Power, 2018). The City receives the bulk of its electricity supply from Eskom and the rest through its PPA with the Kelvin Power Station (City Power, 2018). According to Culwick (2018), electricity access levels in the City of Johannesburg are at 90%, therefore, leaving 10% of citizens of the City without electricity access. Most of these are from townships and informal settlements on the rise in the City. The problem of non-access is exacerbated because Eskom struggles to meet the demand in the country, often resorting to load shedding since 2007. The City of Johannesburg stressed its desire to reduce reliance on Eskom, attempting to engage with IPPs as an alternative to the Eskom unreliable supply. Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 33 2.6.3 Environmental impact According to Kearns (2019), greenhouse gases (GHG), such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4), are generated in landfills and dumps. The waste decomposes and is released into the atmosphere, causing significant harm to the environment. Kearns (2019) continues that landfilling and dumping are, therefore, unsustainable methods. According to Mohee and Simelane, as quoted by Dlamini (2019), 90% of MSW is disposed of in landfills in Johannesburg. This is supported by Rasmeni and Madyira (2019), indicating several studies confirm that 90% of MSW reaches open dumps and landfill sites. The City generates 1.5 million tonnes of solid waste annually (Rasmeni & Madyira, 2019). This number is expected to continue to increase significantly as the population of the City grows. WtE technology deployment, therefore, can curb the generation of these GHG emissions with reduced MSW creation. The City’s LFGTE project is expected to reduce 60 to 70% of GHG emissions emanating from landfill sites during its life span (Baker & Letsoela, 2016). In 2021 the City of Johannesburg devised a recycling program that includes a separate recycling fee to be levied on residences located in the City's suburban districts to slow the growth in MSW generation and disposal (City of Johannesburg, 2021). However, following the public participation processes the City shelved the proposed levy. Even though not yet implemented the proposed levy on affluent households is an indication that the City is prioritising recycling in alignment with the waste hierarchy. Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 34 2.6.4 Proposition 3 The City would encounter these consequences if WtE is not implemented. Landfill airspace depletion, illegal dumping resulting in induced infectious diseases leading to poor health and environmental degradation and over-reliance on the national grid for electricity would not be curbed, and energy access would not be improved. 2.7 Waste-to-energy commercial viability This research considered alternatives to determine the commercial viability of WtE in the City, including grid electricity tariffs and other renewables, such as solar photovoltaics (PV) and Wind, landfill gate fees, and landfill tax. The revenue streams generated by the WtE plants were analysed as described by Maisiri, Van Dyke, De Kock, and Krueger (2015). These include energy sales, gate fees, metals sales, and carbon credits. Finally, the capital costs of WtE technologies were analysed and incentives adopted by the countries that successfully implemented WtE over the years. 2.7.1 Grid electricity tariffs According to Kelly and Geyer (2018), before a democratic government, Eskom supplied affordable electricity, though most citizens lacked electricity. This cheap electricity legacy prevented other technologies to compete with the coal dominated grid. Figure 7 depicts the historical trend of grid electricity average tariffs. When South Africa embarked on its generation capacity new build programme, the prices increased by 460% from 2007 to 2020 (Figure 7). Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 35 3 Figure 7: Eskom average electricity tariff (nominal)c/kWh (Eskom, 2021,May 11) According to Amsterdam and Thopil (2017), even though in the last decade grid electricity tariffs increased considerably, they were still cheaper compared to WtE (LFGTE) tariffs in 2017. The LFGTE tariffs bid in REIPPPP in 2015 were 94c/kWh compared to the grid electricity average price of 70,10c/kWh in the same year. The REIPPPP tariffs are government-guaranteed if a default by Eskom occurs, catalysing the energy investment from IPPs in South Africa. According to Young (2010), mass-burn incineration has the highest capital, operations, and maintenance (O&M) costs. These elevated capital investments and O&M costs for incineration could cause high tariffs that may not easily compete with other technologies and discourage its development. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 1 9 9 4 1 9 9 5 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6 2 0 1 7 2 0 1 8 2 0 1 9 2 0 2 0 A v e ra g e t a ri ff c /k W h Years Eskom average electricity tariff c/kWh 460% Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 36 2.7.2 Landfill gate fees and landfill tax The landfill gate fees in South Africa are cheap and, therefore, discourage the diversion of waste from landfills (Adeleke, Akinlabi, Jen, & Dunmade, 2021). According to Amsterdam et al. (2017), the range of landfill gate fees in South Africa is R100 to R150/tonne with the highest fees at around R450/tonne, whereas in Europe, the range is 80 to 140 Euro/tonne besides the landfill tax. For the City of Johannesburg, the gate fee is R180/tonne. The gate fees could be crucial in a WtE plant as they can offset costs, contributing to the high tariff. The landfill tax would discourage the developing of new landfill sites, while most of the waste would be redirected as feedstock to the WtE facilities. 2.7.3 Waste-to-energy revenue stream Revenue streams that could be derived from the WtE plant include gate fees, energy sales, carbon credits, and metal sales (Maisiri et al., 2015). All energy generating plants WtE derive most of its revenues from the actual sale of electricity through PPAs. According to Maisiri et al. (2015), the revenues through energy sales could cover 80% of all O&M and capital loan repayments. Gate fees otherwise directed at landfill sites are critical contributors to the revenue streams of the WtE plant. Other contributors are by-products metals of value sold to the markets. 2.7.4 Waste-to-energy subsidies Amsterdam et al. (2017) contend that subsidisation could be an enabler of WtE in South Africa if it is introduced. They also emphasise the lack of subsidies in Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 37 the WtE industry as a hindrance to its implementation. Maisiri et al.(2015) contend that with subsidisation, WtE becomes more attractive to investors. This aligns with the observations of Amsterdam et al. (2017), asserting that in the early stages of WtE development, the government should intervene with subsidies, as this is necessary in the WtE sector. In several developed countries, subsidies played a significant role; without subsidies, the projects do not make a financial standing. 2.7.5 Proposition 4 Capital and O&M costs for WtE by incineration are expensive, leading to high tariffs; for WtE to be commercially viable, decision-makers should consider subsidisation, landfill tax, and high landfill gate fees, discouraging landfilling and supporting WtE deployment. 2.8 Barriers to waste-to-energy implementation According to (Coelho, 2020), WtE opportunities can be two-fold. First, contributing to GHG emission prevention by displacing fossil fuel-based energy generation. Second, contributing to energy provisions, simultaneously diversifying the energy mix. Growing populations and urbanised waste generation continue to increase, providing sufficient quantities for WtE. Despite increased volumes, landfill airspace limitations, environmental and health hazards related to waste disposal, many African countries and cities have not yet used the energy potential of waste. This section attempts to establish the barriers to WtE implementation by incineration from the government’s perspective (local and national), investors (IPPs and banks), and residents. Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 38 Dlamini et al. (2019) contend that despite successful global WtE deployment, challenges to implementation remain, such as operating financial implications, stakeholder perceptions and acceptance, legislations, and institutional frameworks. Coelho (2020) and Pan et al. (2015) assert that the barriers to WtE implementation include: a) Financial risks and barriers b) Technology barriers c) Institutional barriers d) Market failures 2.8.1 Financial barriers Historically, the South African state-owned utility, Eskom, under apartheid laws, was mandated to provide reliable electricity to the country at the cheapest possible tariffs (Kelly & Geyer, 2018). With the electricity crises of 2007 and 2008 resulting in load shedding, South Africa attempted to introduce IPPs to relieve the situation. The problem was that the Eskom tariff was too cheap for IPPs—the reason is that previous investors were uninterested in investing in South African ESI. The City of Johannesburg embarked on its WtE feasibility in 2008 (City of Johannesbug, 2017). During 2008, the Eskom tariffs had risen as Eskom embarked on its massive new build programme. The Eskom tariffs were still way too low to compete with, indicating that any new WtE must be subsidised. The City receives 90% of its electricity through Eskom, for cheaper than WtE. Coelho (2020) contends that WtE technologies capital investment and operations and maintenance regimes are expensive. The required expertise is lacking and could lead to expensive labour. Considering WtE, developers must convince local Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 39 authorities that the transportation costs, landfilling, and carbon emissions penalties exceed the costly tariffs. Dlamini et al. (2019) contend that in addition to a lack of institutional and policy framework, WtE also lacks finance. But to finance renewables, the South African government established a green fund in 2011 that is headquartered at DBSA ((Bhandari, 2014). The case for WtE's finance mechanisms should be supported by the green fund and commercial financing institutions. 2.8.2 Technology barriers According to Coelho (2020), where WtE energy technologies were globally successfully deployed, the main challenge is that the waste contents differ. The technologies deployed elsewhere may not perform at their optimal levels in another region. This means that waste characterisation must ascertain its contents (calorific value and moisture) and establish the technology parameters suitable for this waste. It is perceived that WtE technologies are enormous emitters of GHG, leading to a ‘not in my back-yard’ attitude by the residents threatened by the WtE plants. Waste-to-energy technologies involves thermal conversion technologies incineration, gasification, pyrolysis, and plasma arc gasification or biological treatment (AD or landfill gas extraction). Incineration is the most advanced as it was first deployed just to burn waste without energy recovery and later deployed for WtE recovery (Kumar & Samadder, 2017). The other technologies, such as gasification, pyrolysis, and plasma arc gasification, require a homogenous waste type. These technologies are more expensive than mass-burn incineration but more efficient and emit lesser. Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 40 The biological treatment is based on biodegradable organic waste material, resulting from the waste separation process at source or MRF. The product of this process is biogas, which could be used in a gas engine to produce electricity. Methane is extracted from landfill sites; this is not preferred as this study advocates for waste hierarchy implementation and, therefore, observes waste disposal as the last option. 2.8.3 Institutional barriers According to Sustainable Energy Africa (2017), WtE includes waste management and electricity delivery and, therefore, would involve various municipal entities or departments with their own separate budgets, human resources, skills, and reporting lines. Conflicts may evolve based on the priorities of these entities. While the electrical department is interested in electricity production and meeting the demand, the waste department is interested in improving waste minimisation—the feedstock for energy generation. Sustainable Energy Africa (2017) contends there must be clear roles and accountability regarding feedstock management and supply. This would limit conflicts, as both aim to complement each other sustainably. They approach GHG emission reduction to prevent health hazards while stimulating the economy by creating jobs and generating new revenues streams for the municipality. Government bodies, including NERSA, DMRE, DFFE and the city council, regulate electricity generation, legislating and regulating waste treatment (City of Johannesbug, 2017). The processes of approval, therefore, could be time- consuming because of multiple government bodies involved. According to Sustainable Energy Africa (2017), approval for WtE projects could take three to eight years. Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 41 2.8.4 Environmental barriers According to Liu (2020), WtE encounters opposition from several residents, observing this as an unwanted facility in their localities. This stigma emanates from the perceived negative environmental impact of WtE facilities. Adeleke et al. (2021) support this observation, confirming a consensus that WtE facilities should be far from the neighbourhood because of the visible pollution from the plants, in particular incinerators. This resulted in the ‘not in my backyard’ phenomenon, where residents can enjoy electricity benefits from WtE if it is not in their area of residence. Although WtE has benefits, such as minimising MSW volumes and electricity generation, it contributes to flue gas emission, which could be harmful to the environment if not well handled (Cudjoe & Acquah, 2021). According to Wilson et al. (2013), incineration of MSW, such as fossil fuel combustion, produces carbon dioxide, nitrogen, sulphur oxides, and other gas phases of organic and inorganic air emissions. When selecting WtE technologies typically, AD is preferred, compared to the thermal conversion methods, because of its high efficiency and low emissions. The chart in Figure 8 below by Van Fana et al. (2019) illustrates emissions from incineration and AD in various countries—mostly sampled countries, where incineration has higher net CO2 e emissions. Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 42 Figure 8: The net CO2e emission of incineration and AD process in various countries (Van Fana et al., 2019) Even though AD is preferred over incineration, it is difficult to deploy as the biodegradable material must be separated first. In countries lacking advanced waste management systems, there is no separation at source and, therefore, MSW is mixed, causing selection of incineration. Incineration is preferred to LFGTE as landfilling proved to be more detrimental to the environment. 2.8.5 Proposition 5 Barriers to implementation include: a) Financial b) Technological c) Institutional d) Environmental China Malaysia Russia Japan Czech Republic Germany US UK Finland France Incineration 9.41 91.16 101.52 105.54 122.61 126.12 136.16 173.81 308.33 401.7 AD 39.85 44.76 69.16 70.22 74.73 75.65 78.31 88.25 123.79 148.46 AD + Incineration 27.67 37.79 88.14 90.32 99.63 101.54 107.01 127.53 200.86 251.75 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 N e t C O ₂ e E m is s io n ( k g /t M S W ) The net CO2e emission of incineration and AD process in various countries Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 43 2.9 Conclusion of literature review Waste-to-energy implementation occurs through thermal conversion technologies, incineration, gasification, pyrolysis, and plasma arc gasification or biological conversion (LFGTE and AD). Among these technologies, incineration is the most advanced as it was first deployed to mass-burn waste without energy recovery, later deployed for energy recovery. The biological treatment is based on biodegradable organic waste material, resulting from the waste separation process at source or MRF. The product of this process is biogas, which could be used in a gas engine to produce electricity. Methane is extracted from landfill sites. This is not preferred, as this study advocates for implementing the waste hierarchy and, therefore, observes waste disposal as the last option. WtE technologies were implemented in the 1920s but were not used fully despite being technologically proven and improving. The incineration technology was proven for over a century and succeeded deployed in Europe, Asia, and Americas. Barriers to implementation remain, including: a) Financial b) Technological c) Institutional d) Environmental To overcome such barriers, developing countries and Johannesburg in particular should take lessons from countries implementing WtE for over a century. This can be conducted by adopting theoretical decision-making frameworks, such as energy justice, alternative technologies, and MCDM. This research attempted to prove that WtE implementation benefits outweigh these barriers. Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 44 Waste quantities would increase while disposal space is depleted by rapid urbanisation and population growth. Concerning the City, landfill airspace would be depleted by 2023. If WtE was implemented, it could save 90% of airspace, extending the life cycle of landfills to 2030. The landfill sites in the northern parts of the City are closed, forcing the City to use private landfills and to transport waste to the southern regions of the City for disposal. WtE implementation would address issues about land availability, while attending to energy demand and complement electricity the City receives from Eskom. This would partially address the load shedding challenges, load reductions and capacity exceedance charges. WtE contributes significantly to reducing GHG emissions, mitigating against climate change, environmental degradation, and health hazards. WtE is pivotal in the stimulation of the circular economy phenomenon. The circular economy creates opportunities for environmental preservation and job creation by ensuring that materials perceived as waste are observed as commodities and are reused, redistributed, and reinvested in the economic system for an extended period. WtE is capital intensive, resulting in high tariffs compared to other technologies. For WtE to be commercially viable, decision-makers should consider subsidisation, landfill tax, and high landfill gate fees, discouraging landfilling and supporting WtE deployment. 2.9.1 Proposition 1 WtE implementation would contribute to catalysing the circular economy in the City of Johannesburg. Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 45 2.9.2 Proposition 2 Adoption and implementation of decision-making frameworks would lead to WtE implementation. 2.9.3 Proposition 3 The City would encounter these consequences if WtE is not implemented; landfill airspace depletion, illegal dumping resulting in induced infectious diseases leading to poor health and environmental degradation and over-reliance on the national grid for electricity would not be curbed, and energy access would not be improved. 2.9.4 Proposition 4 Capital and O&M costs for WtE by incineration are expensive, leading to high tariffs. For WtE to be commercially viable, decision-makers should consider subsidisation, landfill tax, and high landfill gate fees, discouraging landfilling while supporting WtE deployment. 2.9.5 Proposition 5 Barriers to implementation include: a) Financial b) Technological c) Institutional d) Environmental Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 46 CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This chapter outlines the methodology followed in this study, describing the approach where the study's research questions were addressed and how the data were analysed. The areas covered include the research approach, the research design, the data collection method, population and sample, the research instrument, the data collection procedure, data analysis and interpretation, limitations of the study, and ethical considerations. 3.1 Research approach This case study followed a qualitative research approach. This research approach was informed by Creswell (2009), remarking that qualitative research bases are to explore a social or human problem. This research asserts that waste collection, handling and disposal challenges are societal problems and cause human issues, such as health hazards and environmental pollution. WtE would address energy poverty issues should it be implemented. The study also considered the quantitative approach described by Creswell (2009) to explore the connection among variables to test objective theories. The quantitative approach was inappropriate for this study as WtE implementation in Johannesburg by thermal conversion lacks, meaning a limited research base for the quantitative approach. This aligns with Gill et al. (2008), contending that qualitative studies are preferable to quantitative studies, lacking insight and understating of a specific subject. According to Alharahsheh and Pius (2020), for a researcher to attain valuable insights and observations from a particular social perspective, based on experience, the interpretivism paradigm should be deployed. This differs from the Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 47 positivist paradigm, which, according to Creswell (2009), is more aligned and relevant for quantitative studies than qualitative; it is based more on theory verification and of a reductionist approach testing various distinct variables of a particular hypothesis. An interpretive approach was preferred as it pursues subjective interpretations of a social context from the participants' viewpoint involved in this qualitative case study. The positivist paradigm provides more statistical-based belief and generalisation (Alharahsheh & Pius, 2020). The intention of the qualitative study is not to generalise outside boundaries of the study area (Creswell, 2009). This case study, therefore, integrated the subjective versions of various expert participants based on the interpretive paradigm approach. This approach was preferred as it provided first-hand information based on the field experiences and viewpoints from various experts in energy development and waste management. Observations were obtained from policy experts and officials or departments directly mandated and responsible for WtE implementation related projects. 3.2 Research design According to Creswell (2009), five approaches exist in qualitative research, including case study, ethnography, phenomenology, narrative research, and grounded theory. The research design employed was a qualitative case study. It is a more suitable design in this study, as WtE implementation by thermal conversion has not advanced in Africa. According to Makarichi et al. (2019), there is only one operational plant in Ethiopia; there is none in Johannesburg. According to Opoku, Ayarkwa, and Agyekum (2019), the semi-structured open- ended questions provide the lacking information, while contributing to the Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 48 formulation of future research questions upon which the study area would be built. This agrees with Gill, Stewart, Treasure, and Chadwick (2008), contending that qualitative interviews are suitable, where the study phenomenon has limited insights. Creswell (2009) remarks that the nature of qualitative research is exploratory and, therefore, means there is little written on the subject or population and it should establish an understanding based on interactions. The qualitative case study of the City of Johannesburg was suitable to establish such understanding concerning WtE implementation by thermal conversion. Disadvantages of qualitative case study open-ended interviews are that they entail collecting massive data based on personal views, perceptions, and experiences of various participants. Collecting such data is time-consuming, as the findings cannot be easily presented in graphic formats. The findings are more word descriptive as opposed to the statistical or numerical nature of quantitative data. A general challenge and perception exist for a qualitative case study to justify rigour (Baskarada, 2014). It is also challenging to replicate. 3.3 Data collection methods Barrett and Twycross (2018) identify the three main qualitative data collection methods as focus groups, observations, and interviews. The interviews are further divided into semi-structured, open-ended, and structured questions (Barrett & Twycross, 2018). The data collection of this study was based on semi- structured interviews with open-ended questions with officials from the City of Johannesburg, national and provincial government officials. Private sector participants, such as lenders, DFIs, consulting firms and IPPs, were also engaged. Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 49 Barrett et al. (2018) contend that a well-designed semi-structured interview encourages participants’ flexibility by allowing their perspective and personal experience, while ensuring that all required critical data are captured. This study, therefore, allowed for this flexibility and participation; therefore, ensuring participants reflect beyond the pre-planned questions, enabling the discussion to explore additional areas of research based on the participant’s encounters. The semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions were conducted with identified experts. The experts were identified based on their experience in electricity, waste and environmental management, policy, project finance, IPPs and WtE. The critical criteria were at least 10 years’ experience in the field, and the average work experience was 20 years for all participants combined. According to Creswell (2009), the disadvantages of interviews indicate the participants’ perceptions, which may be filtered, and the interviewer could create bias. Finally, the observations of participants may be inaccurate owing to the inability of some to articulate. 3.4 Population and sample This section outlines the population and sample of the study; it includes the positions, roles, experience, and departments. 3.4.1 Population The population of this study was based on the management and leadership participants with responsibility and influence on waste management, energy provisions, climate change and related policy and the legislation at municipal, Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 50 provincial, and national levels, the private sector, and investors. The City of Johannesburg was selected as the case for the study. The selection was based on that the City has, for several years, since 2008, pursued an alternative waste treatment technology programme (AWTT) where WtE plays a pivotal role; the project has not yet been implemented fully. The City is the most populous in South Africa and still growing at a rapid rate, creating problems of waste management, energy poverty and environmental degradation. Johannesburg’s 2021 population is estimated at 5 926 668 (World Population Review, 2020). According to Stats SA (2021), 42,9% are employed as of quarter four of 2020. The City has a total staff complement of 32 316, including MOEs (City of Johannesburg, 2020). The Environment and Infrastructure Services Department (EISD), which has an oversight mandate over City Power and Pikitup, with 97 employees as of 2019 (City of Johannesbug, 2019). There are 20 senior management positions; seven are section heads reporting to the departmental chair. The EISD handles WtE implementation as it is the custodian of waste, energy, and environmental management. Experts from the department were sampled for the City of Johannesburg. 3.4.2 Sample and sampling method City officials at director levels were sampled and interviewed as participants. Provincial and national department officials at director levels were also identified and interviewed. Finally, the private sector participants responsible for the development and operations of WtE plants were also sampled and interviewed; this included lenders, DFIs, consulting firms and IPPs. Thermal conversion of waste-to-energy by incineration in Johannesburg 51 The sampling method employed in this study was purposive sampling. Campbell et al. (2020) state that purposive sampling, as used in a qualitative study, may select a sample to establish understanding; therefore, in purposive sampling, participants are chosen with expectations they would contribute useful information. Creswell (2009, p. 199) contends that “In qualitative data collection, purposeful sampling is used so that individuals are selected because they have experienced the central phenomenon”. In this study, therefore, the purposive sample was based on the participants with expert knowledge on issues on waste management, energy, and environment. They provided an in-depth insight and understanding upon which future study interest would be developed. There are several studies that has suggested that to reach data saturation, qualitative research need a minimum sample size of at least 12 (Vasileiou, Barnett, Thorpe, & Young, 2018). Therefore, based on this, for this study a sample of 12 was deemed appropriate. The sample used in this study is