Waste incineration not an answer to energy crisis, says Zero Waste Europe
20 Oct 2022 --- Waste incineration is an unrealistic solution to the ongoing energy crisis, according to a report by Zero Waste Europe (ZWE). The organization dismisses recent claims by waste management associations that incineration could replace fossil fuel reliance and help end dependency on Russian gas amid the war in Ukraine.
The report, commissioned to Equamonitor, found that energy generated by waste incineration would only displace around 1.1% of gas used by the EU.
The study used calculations of data from 2020 in which various scenarios, ranging from maximum “unrealistic” scenarios where all energy produced by incineration is used to replace Russian gas to “realistic” scenarios where a mix of replacement fuels is used.
Its findings show that even in the “unrealistic” scenario, only around 3.7% of energy could be replaced. However, incineration industry associations say their technology could be vital to achieving energy independence in the EU as more facilities are being built.
Janek Vähk, ZWE’s climate, energy, and air pollution program coordinator, tells PackagingInsights: “I think the waste-to-energy (WTE) industry is simply trying to turn the crisis in its favor by overselling the energy and climate benefits of waste incineration.”
ZWE contends that incineration could never be a significant element of European energy independence.Time constraints
Recently, the incineration association FEAD, based in Belgium, released a statement saying that diversification of energy sources is now more important than ever and that “electricity and heat produced from waste through incineration and anaerobic digestion is generated from a local, reliable and secure source.”
“The waste management sector is not yet at its full capacity of producing and saving energy,” says the association.
However, FEAD also conceded that new facility planning and construction would likely take around seven years. Even if this time period could be reduced, ZWE says, “construction alone is likely to extend to a period that may or not endure beyond the period of the ongoing conflict and market turmoil.”
If geopolitical conflict extends beyond seven years, Vähk says there is still no way incineration could become a meaningful recourse for foreign energy dependence.
“The study showed that even if every bit of energy (electricity and heat) generated by WTE were to displace gas, it would only equate to 3.7% of the total demand for gas.”
“The best strategy would be to avoid burning materials such as plastic,” he says.
Political tensions
ZWE asserts that energy output is not an important aspect of incineration. “In fact, it is insignificant compared to other energy sources,” says Vähk.
“Moreover, industry-led studies have sometimes artificially magnified the displacement benefits of incineration by assuming that the energy generated at WTE plants avoids the most carbon-intensive conventional power generation technologies – fossil fuel sources – instead of the average electricity and heat mix that also contains renewable energy.”
Industry says incineration can reduce landfilling and produce needed energy supplies.
Vähk says industry pressure for incineration expansion “is already creating some tension within the EU as there are several countries and regions that have significant WTE overcapacities.”
“They depend on imports of waste from other countries. For example, Sweden imports half of the waste incinerated, and clearly, the operators of those facilities are interested in continuing business as usual,” he says.
“Waste incineration is already the most greenhouse gas intensive source of energy in some countries. We are now seeing plans for WTE plants being pushed in many countries. If we start building more facilities to face the current crisis, there is a real risk that Europe will have long-term lock-in (20+ years) in this very carbon-intensive technology.”
Plastic incineration
WTE technology is a contentious issue for packaging waste management, with many major FMCGs using incinerators to destroy plastic – that would otherwise be landfilled – in cooperation with cement companies, who use the resulting energy for their own purposes.
While this appears to be a legitimate circular economy method, critics say even state-of-the-art facilities pollute local environments and pose a threat to human health.
Last year, British politicians called for an immediate halt to the rebuilding of a £600 million (US$795 million) waste incinerator facility in London.
“For us, it's clear. We have no time to waste. There is an urgent need to decarbonize energy and waste. It makes no sense to allow short-term perturbations, however large, to derail plans to decarbonize energy,” concludes Vähk.
By Louis Gore-Langton
