I read some article in that they mention after segrigation of wastes, they generate power by burning the wastes. Like burning of solid waste-steam-mechanical energy to electicity-battery to store electricity. But it may leads to air polllution. We have to consider that too. Like other renewable enrgy, I felt waste also one of the continuous obtaining source for any project, but nobody consider it. This link may be useful to you http://www.ecopedia.com/how-to/using-garbage-to-create-electricity/.....Good luck,

but sir prblem is that in developing countries there is no saggrigation done between bio- degradable and non bio degradable waste so how we can use these waste as enegry sourse..?

Effective recovery biogas from Waste Storage Centers implies the existence of a dedicated equipment for capture and recovery.

On a site in operation, the network capture must be run daily to meet almost "real-time" constraints on the site: Increase the waste mass, changing the quantity and quality of biogas, disturbances various (rain or drought, settlement of the waste mass, etc..). Optimal management of biogas on site waste storage implies in particular the following:

- Real-time monitoring of the quality and quantity of biogas, in order to have a lower heat output sufficient for all generators station biogas. This is usually done by a control system in real-time, acting on the overall throughput of biogas (high flow implies a lower CH4 content, lower rate implies a higher content of CH4). The excess biogas is burned flares.

- Systematic adjustments several times a month, depressions (flows) to the wells to maintain sufficiently high levels of CH4.

Capture and recovery biogas from Waste Storage Centers is considered an important contribution to sustainable development:

- Lower risk site (fire, explosion)

- Contribution to the reduction of greenhouse gases (methane burning cream)

- Energy recovery, considered renewable energy.

Solid waste is a serious issue not only for less-developed countries but for rich ones too. Indeed, it could be argued that the problem is worse in the 'north' because developed states consume, and waste, so much more. The average European, for example, uses 16 tonnes of stuff yearly and no less than 6 tonnes of this becomes rubbish. US figures are even worse as http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/06/daily-chart-3 makes clear. Most scandalously, half of all food produced, in rich and poor countries, is lost or discarded. Compare these sad statistics to nature where the concept of waste simply doesn't exist.

Where countries can afford their cost, incinerators (and cement kilns) often convert MSW to energy. But environmentalists generally oppose incineration because of the resulting air pollution - stack filtering has improved considerably, however - because what they burn, principally plastics and paper, can be recycled and because residue ash can be classified as toxic waste requiring high quality and costly special landfilling.

After the three Rs, Reduce, Reuse & Recycle, properly located, high-standard, well-built and managed landfills are, in my view, the best realistic strategy to tackle our rubbish problem. If these receive organic waste and especially if operated as 'bioreactors' in which leachates are returned to landfill cells to promote further decomposition, they will produce biogas which can generate electricity.

This is the case with a local landfill in Portugal. Whether it is "cost effective", especially on a short term basis, is another matter. I will enquire if you wish. As Essaid Bilal, who clearly knows far more about the subject than I do points out, considerable infrastructure is required. In Europe I believe the primary motivation for tapping landfill gas is not energy production or safety - some gases are inflammable and explosive - but climate change. About half of landfill gas is methane which is ~20 times more powerful than CO2 and landfills are major offenders.

Finally, you may be interested in the International Energy Agency's "Turning a Liability into an Asset: Landfill Methane Utilisation Potential in India":

http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/India_methane.pdf

This depends on many issues including:

a) The composition of the urban wastes (Especially the organic fraction and whether the recyclables are separated)

b) The land area and cost (if the area is big enough with low price, landfilling will be a strong candidate)

c) The daily waste amount

d) The presence of CO2 allowances

e) The presence of source separation

The main technological alternatives are:

a) Landfilling (where landfill gas will be generated and collected)

b) Anaerobic Digestion

c) Incineration

d) Gasification (or plasma gasification)

Each of these alternatives has its pros and cons, and sometimes a hybrid solution turns out to be the best. For example, the waste can be first classified to separate the recyclables from inorganic and organic fraction. The organic fraction is routed to an anaerobic digestion plant to generate biogas.The inorganic fraction (e.g. cardboard, plastic) can be directed to an incinerator to produce energy, while the ash produced is directed to a small landfill.

The formulation of such hybrid solution even depends on the factors mentioned above.