waste-to-energy Archives - Zero Waste Europe

It might not come as a surprise but humans are producing more waste than our Earth can handle. For the majority of people, waste gets thrown in the general rubbish bin, or in separate collection recycling bins and is never seen or thought of again. But waste doesn’t just disappear, it has to go somewhere.

In 2018, on average only 47% of municipal waste was recycled in the EU28 which means 53% of waste was destined for landfill (more about that in the next blog) or incineration. Burning waste is becoming increasingly common practice in Europe – it’s the waste equivalent of ‘cancel culture’ and it avoids having huge piles of rubbish on the Earth’s surface. The problem is that it’s not only the impact on the Earth’s surface we should be worried about.

Carbon Emissions

When counting the emissions resulting from all municipal waste burnt, one tonne of waste releases nearly 1.1 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere (1) contributing to greenhouse gas emissions and runaway climate change. Incineration might appear to remove the visible waste problem in the short term, but it creates an invisible crisis in the long term.

Incinerators produce a variety of pollutants: nitrogen oxide, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, ozone, and carbon dioxide (and that’s on top of the toxic residues they release). According to recent data, nearly 70,000,000 tonnes of all municipal waste was incinerated in 2017 in the EU + UK, which equates to around 77,000,000 tonnes of CO2 released. For some perspective, the total CO2 emissions coming from the whole of France in 2017 were 300,000,000 tonnes. More recently, in 2019 the global production and incineration of plastic alone accounted for more than 850,000,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases. These emissions are therefore definitely not an insignificant source of carbon dioxide coming from Europe.

Notably, air pollution from waste incineration has been shown to disproportionately impact disadvantaged communities including people of colour, further exacerbating the injustices in our society and continuing to place climate impacts on those most vulnerable.

Carbon Costs

And it’s not just the carbon emissions that make incineration problematic. It’s the fact that the process requires carbon to run. Burning waste requires energy, which makes it a carbon intensive process in the first place.

Too often the facilities used to burn waste are not able to contain all the polluting gases used in the process of burning, which adds additional greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, alongside the other toxic pollutants released as a result of the burning.

Industry’s New Toy

The new industry “solution” to waste rolling out across Europe is known as Waste-to-Energy which is essentially incineration plus the potential creation of energy for use in various processes. This new practice is being promoted as a clean alternative to fossil fuels and landfills. Yet, in 2017 over 40,000,000 tonnes of fossil CO2 was emitted from Waste-to-Energy incinerators in the EU28 in 2017.

Waste-to-Energy, just like incineration requires carbon feedstocks to operate, making it reliant on fossil fuels as well as generating them. Clearly Waste-to-Energy is not the industry’s silver bullet afterall.

No Time To Waste

Evidence indicates that more than half of what is currently being incinerated could be recycled or composted, which begs the question: why are we still burning waste?

We urgently need to phase out incineration waste practices across Europe, and harmonize climate policy to include Waste-to-Energy practices in reporting.

While we must of course reduce our waste generation, incentivise zero waste and reusable practices, and increase separate collection recycling rates, we also must change our waste systems towards material recovery and biological treatment of waste to recover as much as possible where reusable alternatives aren’t yet available.

It would be environmentally irresponsible to continue to incinerate waste and release CO2 into the atmosphere. If we stand a chance of maintaining global warming below 1.5 degrees, all sources of greenhouse gases need to be reduced. Find out more about why landfill isn’t a viable option either in our next blog.

Read more about our work on Climate. Energy and Air Pollution here.

Dig into the topic with our policy briefing on the impact of Waste-to-Energy on climate.

Up Next → Waste Management & Methane

(1) Two kinds of carbon are released from the incineration of municipal waste. Biogenic carbon which comes from burning organic waste, and fossil carbon which comes from burning the remaining waste. Normally this biogenic carbon is not counted in incineration emissions as it is assumed that this part will be reabsorbed by living organisms. However, with deforestation happening at such a large scale this is often not the case. This figure therefore refers to both sources of carbon dioxide.

Waste-to-Energy incineration in Europe has been on the go for some time now, and now this latest craze for waste management is catching on, starting to spread far beyond the continent. But it’s contributing to climate change and failing to address the real issue at play: we are generating too much waste. Instead of transitioning towards better resource management practices that preserve resources and minimise waste, the incineration industry are hiding the emissions from their activities so as to continue business-as-usual.

Our recent case study with ToxicoWatch looked specifically at the ‘state of the art’ Waste-to-Energy (WTE) incineration plant, Reststoffen Energie Centrale (REC), in Harlingen, in the Netherlands showcasing just some of the emissions associated with Waste-to-Energy incineration specifically regarding temperatures.

Temperature & Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)

There are several stages within the incineration process where dangerous emissions can be released, in particular the process can result in the creation of persistent organic pollutants (POPs). These POPs can be created during thermal treatment in the post-combustion zone of the plant, if temperatures are not appropriately controlled.

Currently, Waste-to-Energy incineration plants are guided by a set of environmental standards such as Best Available Techniques for Waste Incineration and the EU Directive on Industrial Emissions. This includes guidance on what temperatures need to be reached in order to minimise the creation of POPs. According to these policies, the temperature in the post-combustion zone of a Waste-to-Energy plant has to be maintained to a temperature of at least 850°C for two seconds, and/or in the presence of halogenated content of organic substances over 1% of the total waste content, a higher temperature of 1100°C should be reached.

However, ToxicoWatch’s research showed that in practice, the realities of controlling effective temperatures in the post-combustion-zone to minimise the creation of POPs are at best challenging, and at worst, ignored.

Challenges to controlling temperature to avoid the creation of POPs

In order to ensure that appropriate temperatures are reached to avoid creating POPs during the Waste-to-Energy incineration process, measurements must be taken. However the REC plant revealed several key issues when measuring temperature.

Halogen Content Measurement Inconsistencies: Halogens are a specific group of chemicals that make up part of our daily household waste. To measure them effectively a chemical analysis of waste should be done on the waste feedstocks, but there is currently no legal requirement for how often this analysis should be conducted and on which halogens it should focus – a clear loophole in the legislation. In the case of the REC incinerator, only two samples were analysed on a tiny proportion of the total waste incinerated – raising questions about the extent to which these laws are implemented in good faith.

Lack of transparency in monitoring temperatures: Notably, the study also revealed some interesting transparency challenges when looking for temperature data. Despite being required by the Directive on Industrial Emissions to verify temperatures in the post-combustion zone within 6 months of the first plant operation, the REC management did not provide any evidence that this was actually done. Similarly, investigations should have been carried out under both normal and licensed worst-case conditions, but were not.

Specifically, a journalist who visited the REC plant reported that temperatures were far lower than those required by law – and when questioned, the province justified the results by saying the thermometer was too dirty to read correctly! Without transparency in the measurement process, questions can be raised as to whether these legal requirements are being met in practice.

Discrepancies in determining the extent of the post-combustion zone: Unfortunately, there is not only improper measurement of temperatures in the post-combustion zone, but there is also improper determination of what actually constitutes the post-combustion zone. Determining the starting point of the post-combustion chamber appeared to cause problems. The REC plant initially indicated a height of 18m as the key measurement location, but results were then taken at 14m. Clearly, these discrepancies in post-combustion-zone measurement also play a part in ineffective control of temperatures during Waste-to-Energy incineration.

Misplacement of thermometers: As such, measurement thermometers are often misplaced despite requirements in the Directive on Industrial Emissions that notes measurements should be done near the inner wall of the combustion chamber, which for the REC plant would be at a height of between 18m – 24m. Yet, the REC incinerator placed thermometers at 35,5m at the top of the roof and then used an equation to estimate the temperature at 14m (where they considered the post-combustion-zone to be). This inaccurate method to determine the starting point of the post-combustion zone could be the result of lacking clear guidelines in Dutch legislation but it could also be a problem with enforcement.

For further limitations regarding inconsistency in measurement, homogeneity in oxygen levels and the calorific value of waste, see our full case study.

So, what next?

This case study raises serious concerns about the control and implementation of best practice guidance for Waste-to-Energy incineration. If ‘state of the art’ incinerators are unable to effectively enforce current EU legislation in a way that minimises POPs, then we have a big problem.

These findings reveal serious shortcomings and legal loopholes in the control of temperatures in waste incineration – with knock on impacts for the climate, and future of resource management.

More stringent enforcement of the Directive on Industrial Emissions is necessary in the short-term to prevent the formation of unintentional persistent organic pollutants and to ensure that waste incinerators apply the best available techniques environmental practices. Yet ultimately, Waste-to-Energy does not fix our planets’ waste problem, and it further exacerbates climate change in ways we cannot afford.

Europe now has the opportunity to support more sustainable alternatives and invest in reducing waste in the first place rather than submitting to industry’s attempts to hide their emissions to maintain business-as-usual, it’s time to act.