Evaluating waste incineration

as treatment and energy

recovery method from an
environmental point of view
Profu
 Aim and scope

Map the research field of systems analysis of waste management

Describe the environmental performance of incineration with

energy recovery in systems analysis studies

Identify key factors that largely determines/affects the outcome

from the studies

Based on a set of key factors, discuss and draw conclusions on the

environmental benefits and drawbacks from using waste
incineration in Europe

Profu
Summary of the Profu-study “Evaluating waste incineration as treatment and energy recovery method from an environmental point of view” conducted on behalf of CEWEP (Confederation of European
Waste-to-Energy Plants) during the spring 2004
 Methodology

Mapping through research networks etc (around 70 relevant studies)

Brief examination (31 case studies)

Detailed examination (12 case studies)

Identification of key factors (12 case studies + 9 “key factor studies”)

Scenario analysis

Profu
Summary of the Profu-study “Evaluating waste incineration as treatment and energy recovery method from an environmental point of view” conducted on behalf of CEWEP (Confederation of European
Waste-to-Energy Plants) during the spring 2004
 Main results

Landfilling is the main treatment option in Europe. It is also clearly the

worst environmental option according to the system studies.

Material recycling, waste incineration and biological treatment are

complementary options that all need to be expanded in order to replace
landfilling.

To reach the best environmental results for material recycling and

biological treatment of organic combustible material, waste incineration
is necessary for treating residues arising during pre-treatment and
processing at the material recycling facilities and the biological treatment
plants.

Due to different local conditions and opportunities for development, the

distribution of waste being treated by material recycling, waste
incineration and biological treatment must be allowed to vary.

Regional differences will lead to different distributions being optimal for

different regions in Europe.

Profu
Summary of the Profu-study “Evaluating waste incineration as treatment and energy recovery method from an environmental point of view” conducted on behalf of CEWEP (Confederation of European
Waste-to-Energy Plants) during the spring 2004
 Brief examination (31 case studies)

27 case studies for

regional/national conditions
in 10 different countries (see
1 distribution on the map)
5
4 case studies for Europe
(EU-12/EU-15)
3
3
4
2 1 3

4
1

Profu
Summary of the Profu-study “Evaluating waste incineration as treatment and energy recovery method from an environmental point of view” conducted on behalf of CEWEP (Confederation of European
Waste-to-Energy Plants) during the spring 2004
 Results from the brief examination (31 case studies)

Material recycling and biological treatment are normally compared

with incineration for separate fractions. Very few studies examine
how all parts of the mixed waste should be treated if incineration is
replaced.

For well source-separated and clean material fractions, material

recycling generally leads to lower environmental impacts than
incineration.

For organic waste, the choice between incineration, composting and

anaerobic digestion is not obvious.

Landfilling is the worst option in almost all studies.

Profu
Summary of the Profu-study “Evaluating waste incineration as treatment and energy recovery method from an environmental point of view” conducted on behalf of CEWEP (Confederation of European
Waste-to-Energy Plants) during the spring 2004
 Detailed examination (12 case studies)

11 case studies for

regional/national conditions
in 7 different countries (see
distribution on the map)

2 1 case study for Europe

(EU-15)
1

2
1 1 2

Profu
Summary of the Profu-study “Evaluating waste incineration as treatment and energy recovery method from an environmental point of view” conducted on behalf of CEWEP (Confederation of European
Waste-to-Energy Plants) during the spring 2004
 Results from the detailed examination of the 12 case studies
Table 3.5: Incineration versus composting

Eutrophication

Photooxidants
Acidification

Toxicity
GWP
Ref. Waste fractions Alternatives

5 Food waste Composting

23 Easily bio-degradable Composting

25 Food waste Composting base

Composting Natural gas 1

Composting GWP, 20 yr 2

Composting GWP, 500 yr

1 In the base scenario, biomass is the alternative fuel for district heating. Here, natural gas is the alternative.
2 In the base scenario, GWP factors for 100 years are used

Incineration is the best alternative (lowest environmental impact).

Incineration is not best alternative.

Profu
The difference between incineration and the alternative is small
Summary of the Profu-study “Evaluating waste incineration as treatment and energy recovery method from an environmental point of view” conducted on behalf of CEWEP (Confederation of European
Waste-to-Energy Plants) during the spring 2004
 Results from the detailed examination of the 12 case studies

Incineration versus Incineration versus Incineration versus Incineration versus Incineration versus Incineration versus Incineration versus
recycling of clean and recycling of clean and anaerobic digestion composting landfilling of plastic landfilling of paper landfilling of
well separated plastic well separated paper and cardboard mixed waste
and cardboard
GWP Acid. Eutr. Phot. Tox. GWP Acid. Eutr. Phot. Tox. GWP Acid. Eutr. Phot. Tox. GWP Acid. Eutr. Phot. Tox. GWP Acid. Eutr. Phot. Tox. GWP Acid. Eutr. Phot. Tox. GWP Acid. Eutr. Phot. Tox.

Profu
Ideal conditions are assumed for most of the material recycling in the Incineration is the best alternative (lowest environmental impact).
studies. This means that the fractions are clean and completely Incineration is not best alternative.
separate and used for replacing virgin production of the same material. The difference between incineration and the alternative is small.

Summary of the Profu-study “Evaluating waste incineration as treatment and energy recovery method from an environmental point of view” conducted on behalf of CEWEP (Confederation of European
Waste-to-Energy Plants) during the spring 2004
 Results from the detailed examination of the 12 case studies – All impact categories

Incineration versus Incineration versus Incineration versus Incineration versus Incineration versus Incineration versus Incineration versus
recycling of plastics recycling of paper anaerobic digestion composting landfilling of plastic landfilling of paper landfilling of
and cardboard and cardboard mixed waste
100 %
100
90 92

80
80
70
68
60 64 64

50 53

40

30
31
26 27
20 24
20
18
10 12
2 8
6 5
0

Incineration is the best alternative (lowest environmental impact).
Incineration is not best alternative.
The difference between incineration and the alternative is small
NB! This slide shows the distribution of green, yellow and red in each
comparison between incineration and an alternative treatment in slide
9. The slide is a simplification of slide 9 since all impact categories
are weighed the same. For full information, look at slide 9.

Profu
Summary of the Profu-study “Evaluating waste incineration as treatment and energy recovery method from an environmental point of view” conducted on behalf of CEWEP (Confederation of European
Waste-to-Energy Plants) during the spring 2004
 Results from the detailed examination of the 12 case studies – All impact categories

Incineration versus
Incineration versus Incineration versus
recycling of plastic, paper
biological treatment landfilling
and cardboard
100 %

90

80 87

70

67
60

50

40 44
40
30
28
20

10 16
12
5 1
0
Incineration is the best alternative (lowest environmental impact). NB! This slide is a simplification of slide 10. The results for
Incineration is not best alternative. incineration in comparison with recycling, biological treatment and
landfilling in slide 10 have been added together. For full information,
The difference between incineration and the alternative is small look at slide 9.

Profu
Summary of the Profu-study “Evaluating waste incineration as treatment and energy recovery method from an environmental point of view” conducted on behalf of CEWEP (Confederation of European
Waste-to-Energy Plants) during the spring 2004
 Results from the detailed examination of the 12 case studies – GWP results only

Incineration versus
Incineration versus Incineration versus
recycling of plastic, paper
biological treatment landfilling
and cardboard
100 %

90

80

70
71
60 67

50

40 46

30
31 33
20
23
10 17
12
0

Incineration is the best alternative (lowest environmental impact).
Incineration is not best alternative.
The difference between incineration and the alternative is small
NB! This slide is a simplification of the GWP results in slide 9.
The distribution of green, yellow and red in each GWP-comparison in
slide 9 have been summarized in three categories. For full
information, look at slide 9.

Profu
Summary of the Profu-study “Evaluating waste incineration as treatment and energy recovery method from an environmental point of view” conducted on behalf of CEWEP (Confederation of European
Waste-to-Energy Plants) during the spring 2004
 Scenario analysis

We used five key factors to discuss the environmental performance

of incineration in Europe today and in two scenarios for 2030.

Key factors: The time perspective

Energy recovery at incineration
Alternative electricity and heat generation
Material recycling efficiency
Biological treatment efficiency

Scenarios 2030: 1. Greenhouse gases of large importance

2. Greenhouse gases of less importance

Profu
Summary of the Profu-study “Evaluating waste incineration as treatment and energy recovery method from an environmental point of view” conducted on behalf of CEWEP (Confederation of European
Waste-to-Energy Plants) during the spring 2004
 Energy recovery at incineration

BREF/BAT
1 MWh el = 2,63 MWh equ.
1 MWh heat = 1,1 MWh equ

4,0 4,0
[MWh/ton] Electricity [MWh equ/ton] Electricity
Heat Heat
3,5 3,5

3,0 3,0

2,5 2,5

2,0 2,0

1,5 1,5

1,0 1,0

0,5 0,5

0,0 0
k y
en stria and way mar rage nce an Ital
y s in in al y k s n l
ny itain uga taly nce ary
d l r a and pa rita tug gar d en and stria mar way age nd pai a I g
e u r n e r m l S r n l r er rla S erm t Br t a
Sw A e o
De Av F er er
at
B o
Hu
e er Au n
No Av the or Fr Hun
itz N G th re
P Sw itz De G re a P
Sw Ne G Sw Ne G

Profu
Summary of the Profu-study “Evaluating waste incineration as treatment and energy recovery method from an environmental point of view” conducted on behalf of CEWEP (Confederation of European
Waste-to-Energy Plants) during the spring 2004
 Conclusions in scenario 1

Material recycling is the best environmental option for well source-

separated, “clean” materials.

For the biodegradable part of waste that cannot be treated with a

high material recycling efficiency, waste incineration and anaerobic
digestion are the preferable alternatives from a GWP perspective.

For the waste that cannot be treated by either material recycling or

anaerobic digestion with a high efficiency, waste incineration is the
preferable alternative from a GWP perspective.

To efficiently reduce the GHG-emissions, a combination of material

recycling, anaerobic digestion and incineration is the best strategy.

Profu
Summary of the Profu-study “Evaluating waste incineration as treatment and energy recovery method from an environmental point of view” conducted on behalf of CEWEP (Confederation of European
Waste-to-Energy Plants) during the spring 2004
 Conclusions in scenario 2

Material recycling is the best environmental option for well source-

separated, “clean” materials. In comparison with scenario 1, less
waste fractions would be treated through material recycling due to
less technology development.

Waste incineration would generally be preferred over biological

treatment from a GWP perspective.

For the waste that cannot be treated by either material recycling or

biologically with a high efficiency, waste incineration is the
preferable alternative from a GWP perspective.

To efficiently reduce the GHG-emissions, a combination of material

recycling, anaerobic digestion and incineration is the best strategy.

Profu
Summary of the Profu-study “Evaluating waste incineration as treatment and energy recovery method from an environmental point of view” conducted on behalf of CEWEP (Confederation of European
Waste-to-Energy Plants) during the spring 2004