Introduction of a waste incineration tax: Effects on the Swedish waste flows

A tax on waste-to-energy incineration of fossil carbon in municipal solid waste from households was introduced in Sweden on July 1, 2006. The tax has led to higher incineration gate fees. One of the main purposes with the tax is to increase the incentive for recycling of materials, including biological treatment. We investigate whether and to what extent this effect can be expected. A spreadsheet model is developed in order to estimate the net marginal cost of alternative waste treatment methods, i.e., the marginal cost of alternative treatment minus avoided cost of incineration. The value of the households’ time needed for source separation is discussed and included. The model includes the nine largest fractions, totalling 85% (weight), of the household waste currently being sent to waste incineration: food waste, newsprint, paper packaging, soft and hard plastic packaging, diapers, yard waste, other paper waste, and non-combustible waste. Our results indicate that the incineration tax will have the largest effect on biological treatment of kitchen and garden waste, which may increase by 9%. The consequences of an incineration tax depend on: (a) the level of the tax, (b) whether the tax is based on an assumed average Swedish fossil carbon content or on the measured carbon content in each incineration plant, (c) institutional factors such as the cooperation between waste incinerators, and (d) technological factors such as the availability of central sorting of waste or techniques for measurement of fossil carbon in exhaust gases, etc. Information turns out to be a key factor in transferring the governing force of the tax to the households as well improving the households’ attitudes towards material recycling.     

Households’ recycling efforts

Households’ recycling effort is often argued to be of an insignificant size. It is also frequently argued that this contribution, if significant, is not a cost to households, since it is voluntary. Thus households’ use of time and energy are frequently disregarded in cost-benefit analyses of stricter recycling targets. In this survey, based on 1162 interviews, we find that sorting at source involves significant extra use of time and energy in the households. On average, each of those asked reported that they use close to half an hour a week for cleaning, sorting and transporting recyclable waste. On average, 185 h is used per tonne of waste. Four out of ten reported that they use warm or hot water to clean the materials. When investigating the motives for sorting waste, we find that many perceive sorting as mandatory, while some in fact find it a pleasant activity in itself. Moral motives for sorting at source are also widespread. A majority would prefer that a company took over the sorting if this were possible, and on average, the respondents are willing to pay US$ 20/year for this service.     

A comprehensive waste collection cost model applied to post-consumer plastic packaging waste

Post-consumer plastic packaging waste (PPW) can be collected for recycling via source separation or post-separation. In source separation, households separate plastics from other waste before collection, whereas in post-separation waste is separated at a treatment centre after collection. There are also two collection schemes, either curb side or via drop-off locations. These different schemes have impact on total costs of collection at the municipal level. It can also influence the facility choices and network design. Therefore, a method which can compare costs of various collection schemes is needed.A comprehensive cost model was developed to compare costs of municipal collection schemes of PPW. The ‘municipal waste collection cost model’ is based on variables including fixed and variable costs per vehicle, personnel cost, container or bag costs as well as on emission costs (using imaginary carbon taxes). The model can be used for decision support when strategic changes to the collection scheme of municipalities are considered. The model takes into account the characteristics of municipalities, including urbanization degree and taxation schemes for household waste management.The model was applied to the Dutch case of post-consumer plastic packaging waste. Results showed that that in general post-separation collection has the lowest costs and curb side collection in urban municipalities without residual waste collection taxing schemes the highest. These results were supported by the conducted sensitivity analysis, which showed that higher source separation responses are negatively related to curb side collection costs. Greenhouse gas emission costs are a significant part of the total costs when collecting post-consumer plastic packaging waste due to the low density to weight ratio of the materials collect. These costs can amount to 15% of the total collection costs.     

System dynamics model for analyzing effects of eco-design policy on packaging waste management system

EU's long-term objective is to become a recycling and resource effective society, where waste is utilized as a resource and waste generation is prevented. A system dynamics model was developed to analyze the policy mechanisms that promote packaging material efficiency in products through increased recycling rates. The model includes economic incentives such as packaging and landfill taxes combined with market mechanisms, behavioral aspects and ecological considerations in terms of material efficiency (the packaging material per product unit, recycled fraction in products). The paper presents the results of application of various policy instruments for increasing packaging material efficiency and recovery rate and reducing landfilled fraction. The results show that a packaging tax is an effective policy instrument for increasing the material efficiency. It ensures the decrease of the total consumption of materials and subsequent waste generation. The tax helps to counteract a rebound effect, which, as identified by the analysis, can be caused by reduced material costs due to eco-design. The model is applied to the case of Latvia. Yet, the elements and structure of the model developed are similar to waste management systems in many countries. By changing numeric values of certain parameters, the model can be applied to analyze policy mechanisms in other countries.     

Environmental evaluation of plastic waste management scenarios

The management of the plastic fraction is one of the most debated issues in the discussion on integrated municipal solid waste systems. Both material and energy recovery can be performed on such a waste stream, and different separate collection schemes can be implemented. The aim of the paper is to contribute to the debate, based on the analysis of different plastic waste recovery routes. Five scenarios were defined and modelled with a life cycle assessment approach using the EASEWASTE model. In the baseline scenario (P0) the plastic is treated as residual waste and routed partly to incineration with energy recovery and partly to mechanical biological treatment. A range of potential improvements in plastic management is introduced in the other four scenarios (P1–P4). P1 includes a source separation of clean plastic fractions for material recycling, whereas P2 a source separation of mixed plastic fraction for mechanical upgrading and separation into specific polymer types, with the residual plastic fraction being down-cycled and used for “wood items”. In P3 a mixed plastic fraction is source separated together with metals in a “dry bin”. In P4 plastic is mechanically separated from residual waste prior to incineration.A sensitivity analysis on the marginal energy was carried out. Scenarios were modelled as a first step assuming that marginal electricity and heat were based on coal and on a mix of fuels and then, in the sensitivity analysis, the marginal energy was based on natural gas.The study confirmed the difficulty to clearly identify an optimal strategy for plastic waste management. In fact none of the examined scenarios emerged univocally as the best option for all impact categories. When moving from the P0 treatment strategy to the other scenarios, substantial improvements can be obtained for “Global Warming”. For the other impact categories, results are affected by the assumption about the substituted marginal energy. Nevertheless, irrespective of the assumptions on marginal energy, scenario P4, which implies the highest quantities of specific polymer types sent to recycling, resulted the best option in most impact categories.     

Life cycle assessment of waste paper management: The importance of technology data and system boundaries in assessing recycling and incineration

The significance of technical data, as well as the significance of system boundary choices, when modelling the environmental impact from recycling and incineration of waste paper has been studied by a life cycle assessment focusing on global warming potentials. The consequence of choosing a specific set of data for the reprocessing technology, the virgin paper manufacturing technology and the incineration technology, as well as the importance of the recycling rate was studied. Furthermore, the system was expanded to include forestry and to include fossil fuel energy substitution from saved biomass, in order to study the importance of the system boundary choices. For recycling, the choice of virgin paper manufacturing data is most important, but the results show that also the impacts from the reprocessing technologies fluctuate greatly. For the overall results the choice of the technology data is of importance when comparing recycling including virgin paper substitution with incineration including energy substitution. Combining an environmentally high or low performing recycling technology with an environmentally high or low performing incineration technology can give quite different results. The modelling showed that recycling of paper, from a life cycle point of view, is environmentally equal or better than incineration with energy recovery only when the recycling technology is at a high environmental performance level. However, the modelling also showed that expanding the system to include substitution of fossil fuel energy by production of energy from the saved biomass associated with recycling will give a completely different result. In this case recycling is always more beneficial than incineration, thus increased recycling is desirable. Expanding the system to include forestry was shown to have a minor effect on the results. As assessments are often performed with a set choice of data and a set recycling rate, it is questionable how useful the results from this kind of LCA are for a policy maker. The high significance of the system boundary choices stresses the importance of scientific discussion on how to best address system analysis of recycling, for paper and other recyclable materials.     

The UK Landfill Tax: an analysis of its contribution to sustainable waste management

The UK Government in October 1996 introduced a Landfill Tax to ensure that landfill waste disposal is properly priced so as to reflect its environmental cost and to help promote a more sustainable approach to waste management in which less waste is produced, reused or recycled. The UK Customs and Excise have recently reviewed the tax and the report indicates that there has been a modest reduction in waste going to landfill by industry but not households. It is submitted that for there to be a significant move towards a more sustainable approach to waste management to meet the targets set in the National Strategy the tax should be higher and the money raised by the tax should be invested to make alternatives to landfill cheaper and more readily available. It is also submitted that the Tax Credit Scheme, introduced as a means of enabling some of the tax to be invested to promote better waste management, is inadequately funded and the money is inappropriately focused. Following an examination of the projects and contributions made under the Scheme it is found that most of the contributions are not made towards projects which will fulfil the UK Government's perceived purposes. It is further submitted that there needs to be a more rational approach to waste management and legislation in Philadelphia forms a good case study of such an approach     

Costs and benefits of packaging waste recycling systems

This Special Issue provides several different perspectives on the complex issue of packaging waste recycling. It comprises a diverse and rich set of contributions with insights from very different disciplines that range from economics to engineering. All types of “costs and benefits” are addressed in this collection of articles. In addition to the economic and strictly financial impacts of selective collection and sorting of packaging waste, several authors discuss other types of impacts, such as the environmental and social ones. The reader will find articles that address recycling systems as a whole, pieces that focus on specific impacts and detailed discussions of particular material streams or waste management strategies. The Special Issue represents an indispensable resource for academics, policy-makers and practitioners with interests in recycling and packaging waste management.     

Bioethanol from waste: Life cycle estimation of the greenhouse gas saving potential

This paper considers two alternative feedstocks for bioethanol production, both derived from household waste—Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) and Biodegradable Municipal Waste (BMW). Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) has been carried out to estimate the GHG emissions from bioethanol using these two feedstocks. An integrated waste management system has been considered, taking into account recycling of materials and production of bioethanol in a combined gasification/bio-catalytic process. For the functional unit defined as the ‘total amount of waste treated in the integrated waste management system’, the best option is to produce bioethanol from RDF—this saves up to 196 kg CO₂ equiv. per tonne of MSW, compared to the current waste management practice in the UK.However, if the functional unit is defined as ‘MJ of fuel equiv.’ and bioethanol is compared with petrol on an equivalent energy basis, the results show that bioethanol from RDF offers no saving of GHG emissions compared to petrol. For example, for a typical biogenic carbon content in RDF of around 60%, the life cycle GHG emissions from bioethanol are 87 g CO₂ equiv./MJ while for petrol they are 85 g CO₂ equiv./MJ. On the other hand, bioethanol from BMW offers a significant GHG saving potential over petrol. For a biogenic carbon content of 95%, the life cycle GHG emissions from bioethanol are 6.1 g CO₂ equiv./MJ which represents a saving of 92.5% compared to petrol. In comparison, bioethanol from UK wheat saves 28% of GHG while that from Brazilian sugar cane – the best performing bioethanol with respect to GHG emissions – saves 70%. If the biogenic carbon of the BMW feedstock exceeds 97%, the bioethanol system becomes a carbon sequester. For instance, if waste paper with the biogenic carbon content of almost 100% and a calorific value of 18 MJ/kg is converted into bioethanol, a saving of 107% compared to petrol could be achieved. Compared to paper recycling, converting waste paper into bioethanol saves 460 kg CO₂ equiv./t waste paper or eight times more than recycling.     

Medical waste management in Korea

The management of medical waste is of great importance due to its potential environmental hazards and public health risks. In the past medical waste was often mixed with municipal solid waste and disposed of in residential waste landfills or improper treatment facilities (e.g. inadequately controlled incinerators) in Korea. In recent years, many efforts have been made by environmental regulatory agencies and waste generators to better manage the waste from healthcare facilities. This paper presents an overview of the current management practices of medical waste in Korea. Information regarding generation, composition, segregation, transportation, and disposal of medical wastes is provided and discussed. Medical waste incineration is identified as the most preferred disposal method and will be the only available treatment option in late 2005. Faced with increased regulations over toxic air emissions (e.g. dioxins and furans), all existing small incineration facilities that do not have air pollution control devices will cease operation in the next few years. Large-scale medical waste incinerators would be responsible for the treatment of medical waste generated by most healthcare facilities in Korea. It is important to point out that there is a great potential to emit air toxic pollutants from such incinerators if improperly operated and managed, because medical waste typically contains a variety of plastic materials such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Waste minimization and recycling, control of toxic air emissions at medical waste incinerators, and alternative treatment methods to incineration are regarded to be the major challenges in the future.     

The potential contribution of sustainable waste management to energy use and greenhouse gas emission reduction in the Netherlands

Future limitations on the availability of selected resources stress the need for increased material efficiency. In addition, in a climate-constrained world the impact of resource use on greenhouse gas emissions should be minimized. Waste management is key to achieve sustainable resource management. Ways to use resources more efficiently include prevention of waste, reuse of products and materials, and recycling of materials, while incineration and anaerobic digestion may recover part of the embodied energy of materials. This study used iWaste, a simulation model, to investigate the extent to which savings in energy consumption and CO₂ emissions can be achieved in the Netherlands through recycling of waste streams versus waste incineration, and to assess the extent to which this potential is reflected in the LAP2 (currently initiated policy). Three waste streams (i.e. household waste, bulky household waste, and construction and demolition waste) and three scenarios compare current policy to scenarios that focus on high-quality recycling (Recycling+) or incineration with increased efficiency (Incineration+). The results show that aiming for more and high-quality recycling can result in emission reductions of 2.3 MtCO₂ annually in the Netherlands compared to the reference situation in 2008. The main contributors to this reduction potential are found in optimizing the recycling of plastics (PET, PE and PP), textiles, paper, and organic waste. A scenario assuming a higher energy conversion efficiency of the incinerator treating the residual waste stream, achieves an emission reduction equivalent to only one third (0.7 MtCO₂/year) of the reduction achieved in the Recycling+ scenario. Furthermore, the results of the study show that currently initiated policy only partially realizes the full potential identified. A focus on highest quality use of recovered materials is essential to realize the full potential energy and CO₂ emission reduction identified for the Netherlands. Detailed economic and technical analyses of high quality recycling are recommended to further evaluate viable integrated waste management policies.     

A waste management planning based on substance flow analysis

The paper describes the results of a municipal solid waste management planning based on an extensive utilization of material and substance flow analysis, combined with the results of specific life cycle assessment studies. The mass flow rates of wastes and their main chemical elements were quantified with a view to providing scientific support to the decision-making process and to ensure that the technical inputs to this process are transparent and rigorous. The role of each waste management option (recycling chains, biological and thermal treatments), as well as that of different levels of household source separation and collection (SSC), was quantitatively determined. The plant requirements were consequently evaluated, by assessing the benefits afforded by the application of high quality SSC, biological treatment of the wet organic fraction, and thermal treatment of unsorted residual waste. Landfill volumes and greenhouse gas emissions are minimized, toxic organic materials are mineralized, heavy metals are concentrated in a small fraction of the total former solid waste volume, and the accumulation of atmophilic metals in the air pollution control residues allows new recycling schemes to be designed for metals. The results also highlight that the sustainability of very high levels of SSC is reduced by the large quantities of sorting and recycling residues, amounts of toxic substances in the recycled products, as well as logistic and economic difficulties of obtaining very high interception levels. The combination of material and substance flow analysis with an environmental assessment method such as life cycle assessment appears an attractive tool-box for comparing alternative waste management technologies and scenarios, and then to support waste management decisions on both strategic and operating levels.     

Cost-efficiency in packaging waste management: The case of Belgium

In order to exploit economies of scale Belgian municipalities regularly cooperate in the provision of waste related services. In particular for the collection and separation of household packaging waste, municipalities appear to seek technical and cost efficiency gains by cooperating via municipal waste joint ventures. Although most Belgian municipal waste joint ventures can present excellent recycling and recovery rates for household packaging waste, their performance in terms of cost-efficiency has never been assessed. Using a unique dataset comprising of the costs for all 35 Belgian municipal waste joint ventures in 2010, this paper present the first assessment of the cost efficiency of household packaging waste collection in Belgium. As we are not sure on the relative importance of the separate cost efficiency scores for the three selectively collected household packaging waste fractions when determining the overall cost efficiency, this paper draws on the Benefit-of-the-Doubt approach. Our results indicate that, despite the substantial cooperation between municipalities, still considerable differences in cost efficiency for household packaging waste collection exist.     

Effects of planned expansion of waste incineration in the Swedish district heating systems

Recent targets for reduced amounts of waste to landfills in Sweden will result in a large increase in waste incineration with recovery of energy, used primarily for district heating. The aim of this study is to investigate what changes in the usage of other fuels and technologies for district heat production would be caused by this increase. A questionnaire was sent out to the largest district heating companies, and simulations in an energy systems model were carried out. The analysis shows that increased waste incineration reduces the demand for other fuels, especially biomass, for district heat production. The effects include reductions in operating hours as well as the avoidance or postponement of investments in new plants for district heat production. Increased waste incineration will also lead to a greater use of district heating in Sweden.     

Towards greening a university campus: The case of the University of Maribor, Slovenia

The environmental performance of the University of Maribor (Engineering Campus) has been assessed on a life cycle basis. The following activities have been considered in the study: the use and operation of lecture theatres (construction and maintenance, heating, lighting and water consumption) and day-to-day consumption of sundries (paper and plastic bottles). The results indicate that the heating and construction of buildings are the ‘hot spots’ in the system, for most environmental impacts. Different waste management options for the plastic and paper, including recycling, incineration and landfill, have also been compared for environmental impacts and economic costs. The option combining 70% recycling, 29% incineration and 1% landfill has been found to be most economically and environmentally sustainable.     

Municipal solid waste generation in Kathmandu, Nepal

Waste stream characteristics must be understood to tackle waste management problems in Kathmandu Metropolitan City (KMC), Nepal. Three-stage stratified cluster sampling was used to evaluate solid waste data collected from 336 households in KMC. This information was combined with data collected regarding waste from restaurants, hotels, schools and streets. The study found that 497.3 g capita(-1) day(-1) of solid waste was generated from households and 48.5, 113.3 and 26.1 kg facility(-1) day(-1) of waste was generated from restaurants, hotels and schools, respectively. Street litter measured 69.3 metric tons day(-1). The average municipal solid waste generation rate was 523.8 metric tons day(-1) or 0.66 kg capita(-1) day(-1) as compared to the 320 metric tons day(-1) reported by the city. The coefficient of correlation between the number of people and the amount of waste produced was 0.94. Key household waste constituents included 71% organic wastes, 12% plastics, 7.5% paper and paper products, 5% dirt and construction debris and 1% hazardous wastes. Although the waste composition varied depending on the source, the composition analysis of waste from restaurants, hotels, schools and streets showed a high percentage of organic wastes. These numbers suggest a greater potential for recovery of organic wastes via composting and there is an opportunity for recycling. Because there is no previous inquiry of this scale in reporting comprehensive municipal solid waste generation in Nepal, this study can be treated as a baseline for other Nepalese municipalities.     

Life cycle indicators for monitoring the environmental performance of European waste management

As widely recognised by EU legislation, Life Cycle Thinking (LCT) is a viable approach to support sound waste management choices. In this context, the Institute for Environment and Sustainability (IES) of the European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC) has lead the development of macro-level, life cycle based waste management indicators to quantify and monitor the potential environmental impacts, benefits, and improvements associated with the management of a number of selected waste streams generated and treated in Europe.The waste management indicators developed make use of a combination of macro statistical waste management data combined with emissions/resource life cycle data for the different elements of the waste treatment chain. Indicators were initially calculated for the entire European Union (EU-27) and for Germany, covering several waste streams and a broad range of environmental impact categories.An indicator developed for a given waste stream captures the potential environmental impact associated with the generation and management of that waste stream. The entire waste management chain is considered, i.e. from generation to final treatment/disposal. Therefore, system boundaries for the selected waste streams include also the treatment or recycling of secondary waste (e.g. bottom ash from the incineration of household waste), and secondary products (e.g. recovered paper), as well as energy recovery.The experiences from the development of these life cycle based waste management indicators suggest that more detailed and quality-assured waste statistics are needed, especially covering the many different treatment operations and options. Also, it would be beneficial if waste statistics had a higher disaggregation level of waste categories, as well as more detailed information about waste composition. A further development of the indicators should include an increased number of waste streams, as well as calculation of the results for all Member States.     

Environmental assessment of different management options for individual waste fractions by means of life-cycle assessment modelling

Several alternatives exist for handling of individual waste fractions, including recycling, incineration and landfilling. From an environmental point of view, the latter is commonly considered as the least desirable option. Many studies based on life-cycle assessment (LCA) highlight the environmental benefits offered by incineration and especially by recycling. However, the landfilling option is often approached unjustly in these studies, maybe disregarding the remarkable technological improvements that landfills have undergone in the last decades in many parts of the world.This study, by means of LCA-modelling, aims at comparing the environmental performance of three major management options (landfilling, recycling and incineration or composting) for a number of individual waste fractions. The landfilling option is here approached comprehensively, accounting for all technical and environmental factors involved, including energy generation from landfill gas and storage of biogenic carbon. Leachate and gas emissions associated to each individual waste fraction have been estimated by means of a mathematical modelling. This approach towards landfilling emissions allows for a more precise quantification of the landfill impacts when comparing management options for selected waste fractions.Results from the life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA) show that the environmental performance estimated for landfilling with energy recovery of the fractions “organics” and “recyclable paper” is comparable with composting (for “organics”) and incineration (for “recyclable paper”). This however requires high degree of control over gas and leachate emissions, high gas collection efficiency and extensive gas utilization at the landfill. For the other waste fractions, recycling and incineration are favourable, although specific emissions of a variety of toxic compounds (VOCs, PAHs, NO_x, heavy metals, etc.) may significantly worsen their environmental performance.     

Life cycle assessment of waste paper management: The importance of technology data and system boundaries in assessing recycling and incineration

The significance of technical data, as well as the significance of system boundary choices, when modelling the environmental impact from recycling and incineration of waste paper has been studied by a life cycle assessment focusing on global warming potentials. The consequence of choosing a specific set of data for the reprocessing technology, the virgin paper manufacturing technology and the incineration technology, as well as the importance of the recycling rate was studied. Furthermore, the system was expanded to include forestry and to include fossil fuel energy substitution from saved biomass, in order to study the importance of the system boundary choices. For recycling, the choice of virgin paper manufacturing data is most important, but the results show that also the impacts from the reprocessing technologies fluctuate greatly. For the overall results the choice of the technology data is of importance when comparing recycling including virgin paper substitution with incineration including energy substitution. Combining an environmentally high or low performing recycling technology with an environmentally high or low performing incineration technology can give quite different results. The modelling showed that recycling of paper, from a life cycle point of view, is environmentally equal or better than incineration with energy recovery only when the recycling technology is at a high environmental performance level. However, the modelling also showed that expanding the system to include substitution of fossil fuel energy by production of energy from the saved biomass associated with recycling will give a completely different result. In this case recycling is always more beneficial than incineration, thus increased recycling is desirable. Expanding the system to include forestry was shown to have a minor effect on the results. As assessments are often performed with a set choice of data and a set recycling rate, it is questionable how useful the results from this kind of LCA are for a policy maker. The high significance of the system boundary choices stresses the importance of scientific discussion on how to best address system analysis of recycling, for paper and other recyclable materials.     

Solid waste management in urban areas: Development and application of a decision support system

A decision support system (DSS) developed to assist the planner in decisions concerning the overall management of solid waste at a municipal scale is described. The DSS allows to plan the optimal number of landfills and treatment plants, and to determine the optimal quantities and the characteristics of the refuse that has to be sent to treatment plants, to landfills and to recycling. The application of the DSS is based on the solution of a constrained non-linear optimization problem. Various classes of constraints have been introduced in the problem formulation, taking into account the regulations about the minimum requirements for recycling, incineration process requirements, sanitary landfill conservation, and mass balance. The cost function to be minimized includes recycling, transportation and maintenance costs. The DSS has been tested on the municipality of Genova, Italy, and the results obtained are presented.