Evaluates energy recovery from infectious medical waste in Thailand, indicating its viability for environmental sustainability.
This study evaluates the energy, economic, environmental, and logistics feasibility (3E+1L model) of an integrated infectious medical waste-to-energy (IMWtE) system with a combined heat and power (CHP) configuration under a super waste center (SWC) framework. The assessment is based on operational data from hospitals in Chiang Mai, Thailand, with a treatment capacity of 24,000 kg/day. The waste is processed using dual T-2000 steam sterilization units in combination with a drying system utilizing recovered heat, with a net thermal capacity of 1,761 kW, producing RDF-3 at 592.09 kg/h with a low heating value of 26.29 MJ/kg. The RDF-3 is subsequently combusted in an incineration system integrated with an organic Rankine cycle (ORC), producing a gross electrical output of 274.05 kW e . The system delivers a net CHP electrical output of 156.62 kW e , with an overall efficiency of 44.35%. Economic analysis indicates a total capital investment of approximately 3.17 million USD and a levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of 0.0202 USD/kWh over a 20-year project lifetime. The system also demonstrates strong financial performance, with a payback period (PB) of 2.10 years, a net present value (NPV) of 25.17 million USD, and an internal rate of return (IRR) of 47.58%. Environmental and logistics performance, evaluated through life cycle assessment (LCA), yields a single-score impact of 5.35 × 10 -3 Pt per functional unit of 1 kWh. By integrating economic and environmental indicators, the combined energy–economic–environmental–logistics burden is quantified at 1.08 × 10 -4 (USD·Pt)/kWh. Overall, the results demonstrate that the proposed IMWtE–CHP–SWC system is a technically feasible and sustainable solution for centralized infectious medical waste management, while simultaneously supporting energy recovery and environmental protection in Thailand.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chaiyat et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: