OPINION: Burning waste is eco-friendly, despite what activists say

Energy from waste gets a bad rap.

Environmental activists have argued that using waste to power homes and industries is just borrowing from Peter to pay Paul in that it generates greenhouse gas.

But the reality is that energy from waste (EfW) has come a long way and could become a valuable and environmentally friendly fuel source for the UK if only we had the support and infrastructure to deliver it nationwide.

Here’s why I believe that burning waste isn’t the unfavourable environmental compromise some claim it to be and why it may even be a better bet than recycling plastic.

What is energy from waste (EfW)?

Energy from waste is the combustion, gasification, pyrolysis, or anaerobic digestion of non-recyclable rubbish to produce heat, fuel or electricity.

Around 50% of waste that can’t be recycled is biogenic, making it a low-carbon alternative to fossil fuels.

Burning waste is the most common method of producing EfW. Without the need for any pre-treatment, waste is burned in a furnace at 1000ºC, creating steam that powers turbines. Metals from the burned waste are picked out to be recycled and ashes are taken to be used in cement or aggregate.

EfW is the final step in the waste hierarchy (according to Defra, the waste hierarchy is: prevention, preparing for re-use, recycling, other recovery and disposal). EfW falls under “other recovery”.

Modern EfW is very different to how it’s often portrayed by those who struggle to see the benefits through the smoke. Emissions are filtered and monitored, with a failsafe in place in case they reach dangerous levels.

Burning waste does, of course, generate CO2 emissions (250-600kg of CO2 per tonne of waste processed), but many studies have concluded that it’s far greener than the methane emissions from rubbish rotting in landfill and a more eco-friendly alternative to burning fossil fuels.

MORE: Food waste is valuable and we should’ve been recycling it years ago

I would go a step further and say that EfW is an especially good use for a lot of plastic waste. Recycling plastic is very hard because there are so many different polymers that require complex methods to extract them and you can only recycle plastic with traditional methods a limited number of times.

It’s not easy to recycle bits of film and odd bits of pipe. There are some markets for it, but they’re so fussy about what they take. As a business, you get little value from it.

At the end of the day, plastic is made of oil. New plastic recycling methods like chemical recycling attempt to extract useful polymers from plastic, but they’re often used in the creation of fuels anyway, so in my view, EfW effectively cuts out the middleman (as well as reducing the need to rely on Putin or anyone else for fuel).

But with recycling trumping EfW in the waste hierarchy and the pushback from local authorities and residents on building new facilities (people don’t want to live near a chimney stack pumping out emissions they don’t understand), it’s about time we shone a light on the environmental benefits of EfW compared to recycling plastic.

Recycling plastic burns energy too

A lot of people overlook the fact that recycling actually consumes a lot of energy. The recycling process for plastic is particularly complex and involves heavy machinery, transport and labour – all often powered by fossil fuels.

Recycling consumes less energy than creating products from scratch, but the argument that EfW is problematic because of the burning process ignores the fossil fuels involved in breaking down plastic polymers.

And with recycling rates taking a hit in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland (all three missed the 50% recycling target for household waste in 2020), we simply have to leverage EfW to prevent it from ending up in landfill.

EfW isn’t a carbon-zero solution, although some studies say you could argue it is, considering the massive landfill methane and fossil fuel offset – and plenty is being done to improve emissions.

Highly regulated industry

EfW is incredibly well-managed and monitored 24/7. The industry is overseen directly by the Environment Agency, which controls emissions and any fly ashes that could come through the system. And they’re pretty strict.

The South London Waste Partnership recently penalised Viridor, which operates the Beddington Energy Recovery Facility, after dropping to 99.96% emissions compliance in May and 99.93% in June following 12 months of registering 100%.

While these strict regulations are a testament to the viability of EfW, I can’t help but feel these punishments, and especially the headlines that follow, unnecessarily demonise the industry when they’re generally operating to incredibly high standards.

It suggests EfW facilities are more dangerous than they are and won’t do much to rouse public opinion. This attitude doesn’t appear to be shared by our neighbours in Europe, which are welcoming new EfW facilities with open arms.

EfW is working in other countries

Sweden is the world leader in EfW. The country recycles 42% of its waste and sends the rest to EfW (only 1% goes to landfill, versus 23% in the UK). In fact, Sweden imports waste from other countries (the exporting countries pay Sweden for the privilege) to fuel their EfW plants because they don’t generate enough rubbish domestically.

EfW facilities are commonplace across Scandinavia, Europe, Japan, China… They’ve been doing it for years, and they’re used to it.

Any concerns about burning waste often stem from a particular country’s standards for regulation, something the UK doesn’t need to worry about given the Beddington situation.

So why aren’t we burning more waste in the UK?

The UK’s infrastructure for energy from waste

Waste to energy has actually been around for a long time in England. The world’s first municipal waste incinerator was built in 1874 in Nottingham. It was simply a method for getting rid of waste. Back then, EfW didn’t occur to people because energy production wasn’t known to be a massive problem for the environment and it was all fairly cheap.

Today, the UK has woken up to the value of EfW. There are 53 fully operational EfWs in the UK processing around 300,000 tonnes per plant. A report from waste consultancy Tolvik claims the UK is only six facilities away from becoming a “sensible market”.

Great news, but the government really should have been thinking about this 20 years ago. Authorities won’t build the EfWs we need, they expect the private sector to do it. Building out this infrastructure is no mean feat. It’s currently very expensive to run, there’s a lot of maintenance and regular shutdowns. And while facilities have increased by a third since 2017, the number of new facilities being greenlit has dropped.

Without a solid EfW infrastructure in the UK, transporting the nation’s waste to the few processing plants available is incredibly costly in terms of time and fuel consumption, which is ultimately defeating the object.

But perhaps backing from some of the world’s biggest businesses will help ignite the boost EfW needs in the UK.

A no-brainer for global brands

Companies like American Airlines and Subaru are leading the way in commercial EfW, committing to zero-landfill targets by burning their non-recyclable waste. Amazon is also sending products that it cannot resell or recycle to EfW plants.

It’s not the cheapest way for big companies to manage their waste, but for large corporations with reputations to protect (it wouldn’t take long before Amazon logos became a bit too prominent on landfill sites) it’s really the best option.

The expense is mostly down to the lack of facilities, requiring waste to be hauled across the country to the nearest site. So could these huge corporations start investing in EfW to slash their waste output (and expenses) while providing affordable power for their operations at the same time?

Do all plastics belong in the recycling stage of the waste hierarchy?

For many waste types, favouring recycling over EfW makes complete sense.

But I would argue that it’s time to rethink the value we place on recycling plastic over generating EfW, which is simpler, has the potential to be more cost-effective and prevents so much more waste from going to landfill.

Last year, Boris Johnson caused a stir when he said that recycling doesn’t work. But despite the rather blunt wording, he wasn’t entirely wrong. We’re not going to recycle our way out of our waste and energy problems.

I don’t think people fully understand the benefit of EfW, but I suspect it’ll catch on once it’s made clear that it can halve energy costs, get rid of waste efficiently and clean up pollution.

Burning waste is a clean method of energy generation that desperately needs more funding, support and awareness in the UK. I’m hopeful the nation will dump their preconceptions in the furnace where they belong.

SunSkips recycles as much of the waste we manage across our sites in Cambridge, Stowmarket, Ipswich and Haverhill as possible, sending a lot of what’s left over to EfW facilities in England and Europe.