Magazine Feature : Circles of Fire: Waste to Energy’s Role in the Circular Economy

When it comes to the concept of the circular economy, the question that often springs to mind is – how circular is it possible to be? The answer, at least for the foreseeable future, seems to be that there will always be materials which can no longer be usefully recovered in any way. The question then becomes – what to do with those materials? That question constitutes one of the key debates at the heart of the EU’s recently adopted Circular Economy Package.

There are two main options for treating residual waste - landfill and incineration at energy recovery facilities. While still widely used, in Europe at least, the use of waste to energy is on the rise and landfill is falling out of favour.

However, some argue that waste to energy sucks non-renewable materials that could have been recovered away from recycling, particularly given the current low commodity prices. Others point out that with proper pre-treatment more material could go to recycling, and there would still be a lot of unrecyclable waste.

In the run up to the EU Commission’s decision on the Circular Economy package arguments were made both for and against landfill bans for certain waste streams, untreated waste, or even the banning all residual waste from landfill.

“CEWEP has always advocated to reduce landfill as much as and as soon as possible,” Dr. Ella Stengler, managing director of CEWEP tells WMW. “But if you look at the facts, at how many Member States rely on landfill it’s not doable right away. The cap which is set at 10% of municipal waste which is allowed to be landfilled by 2030. It could have been more ambitious, but I also see the reality that these member states cannot change their whole waste system that quickly. But it’s definitely a step in the right direction.”

According Stengler diverting municipal waste from landfills could save around 92 million tonnes of CO2 emissions in EU-28 by 2030, approximately 8% of what the EU still has to cut to achieve its 2030 greenhouse gas emission targets.

However, in the wake of the package being adopted, predictably, not everyone was happy. "The proposal to address 'waste to energy' in the context of the Energy Union is alarming. Our economy needs prevention by smart designs, more reuse and more recycling – sustainable innovation, not more incineration,” comments Croatian MEP and Green environment spokesperson Davor Skrlec.

While he is in agreement with Stengler over the proposed 10% tolerance for landfill, he says that this “further weakens the waste recycling targets”.

To Ban or Not to Ban

On the other side of the argument, Zero Waste Europe argue that landfill bans disincentivise moving materials further up the waste hierarchy into recycling or even reuse. In a recent policy paper published by the organisation it claims that experience shows that landfill bans, if strictly applied, do little on their own to advance towards a zero waste circular economy. It can simply shift waste from one form of ‘leakage’ to another.

“Unless all treatment options which “break the loop” are considered, the consequence of banning or phasing out one of them will result in a transfer of waste to another,” asserted Joan-Marc Simon, Zero Waste Europe’s executive director. “This will create unnecessary tensions which in no way help to move towards a circular economy.”

Zero Waste Europe went as far as to say that the incineration of wastes should be subject to a tax equal to that of landfill.

Stengler disagrees: “I think it’s more effective to set targets with regard to landfill diversion. With taxes it’s more difficult. It’s not the prerogative of the Commission, it’s up to the Member States, but if the taxes differ there could be an unlevel playing field and distort the market. There are all sorts of risks and disadvantages – and it makes it more expensive. I’m not a fan of taxes. I think legal instruments and regulation are more effective when it comes to waste.”

While CEWEP welcomes the confirmation of the Commissions plan to cut landfill to a maximum of 10%, as well as increase the quality of secondary raw materials and introduce harmonised calculation methods for recycling, it says that it would have liked to see a more ambitious approach.

That’s a view echoed by the European Suppliers of Waste to Energy Technology (ESWET). The organisation says that “we must make sure that we bury nothing containing recoverable energy” and that it had hoped for more ambition to minimise landfilling of untreated municipal waste, but did concede that it is a step in the right direction.

Greenhouse gas emissions are another area that has been controversial in the landfill versus incineration debate. A recent report conducted by environmental consultancy, Eunomia, on behalf of Zero Waste Europe was critical of the way in which GHG emissions from waste to energy plants are counted.

According to the report while the EU’s drive to reduce landfill has resulted in a cut in methane emissions, it has been offset by an increase in emissions from waste to energy plants. It claimed that this has been “driven by a misperception” that getting biodegradable waste out of landfill is the holy grail of emissions reduction in waste management.

Unsurprisingly CEWEP does not agree and says that it is a “dangerous message ahead of COP21 - particularly from a global perspective”, while pointing to evidence from the Öko-Institut to that supports its arguement.

Residual waste contains energy and materials. In many cases, unrecyclable products contain metals as well energy carriers such as wood, plastic or textiles. The combustion process frees not only the energy, but also significant quantities of metals that would otherwise have been unrecyclable. ESWET says that it is “delighted” that this material will now be counted towards EU municipal waste recycling targets.

Stengler too is keen to highlight the benefit of this: “The metal recycling from bottom ash will be explicitly considered as recycling and will count towards recycling targets, which is positive because it gives the incentive to do more. And of course recovery of the remaining aggregates is also high on the agenda.”

According to ESWET, in Germany 460,000 tonnes of ferrous metals and 58,000 tonnes of non-ferrous metals were recycled from waste to energy plants in 2013. The same year, in Belgium, 40% of metal packaging recycled was extracted from waste to energy plants’ bottom ash. In the Netherlands, in 2014, over 112,000 tonnes of ferrous metals and 25,000 tonnes of non-ferrous metals were also recovered.

The organisation also highlights the scope for recovering more valuable metals from flue gas treatment filters. “Those are only a few examples of the contribution of waste to energy towards closing the loop for some of the most valuable materials to be part of the Circular Economy,” it says.

According to Stengler another key aspect that should be taken into account when considering the role of waste to energy in a circular economy, is that of sanitation. Since its earliest days the primary purpose incinerating waste has been to keep the environment clean.

“The task of waste to energy is sanitary, it always has been. Of course we want to produce as much energy as possible, but it is a very important task to keep the environment clean and that means to ensure that we have non-toxic cycles,” she says.

According to CEWEP, by diverting waste from landfilling, the ground and water will not be exposed to pollution due to leachate and loss of land will be avoided. It also prevents the from being blown by the wind from (legal and illegal) landfills into the seas or rivers.

One part of the package that all sides seem in agreement on is the need to reduce waste and recycle more materials. The role of waste to energy within a circular economy is rather more controversial. ‘Purists’ argue that if the economy is circular there should be no ‘waste’ only resource.

In reality, if that resource is in a form that cannot be materially recycled or reused in any feasible way, the choice is a simple one between landfill and energy recovery. That being the case, at least for the foreseeable future, it seems that to achieve the landfill diversion targets of the Circular Economy package will require waste to energy.

“Waste to energy is part of the circular economy,” concludes Stenglar. “As well as its sanitary task to keep pollutants out of the cycle, it generates secure and affordable energy from waste not suitable for recycling and helps to reduce dependency on fossil fuels.”