Mark Döing 
From time to time, I receive emails inviting ecoprog to join a Waste-to-Energy (WtE) project in countries and regions in which, so far, no WtE plant is operational. Very often, the authors of these emails claim that they have good personal relationships with decision makers, such as the mayor of a city or a member of the government. They do not know so much about WtE, but while researching the issue online, they come across our company’s website as this is one area ecoprog is working in. “Come to us,” they say. “We have a lack of energy, but a lot of waste”.
First of all, I have to say, these people usually misunderstand what ecoprog does. Our company is about market consulting; we do not build or operate waste facilities.
Second, much more interestingly, I usually find how attractive the term “Waste-to-Energy” can be – without a deeper knowledge about this business. It is the idea of taking something that is widely available (for free!) and, abracadabra, make something worthy (that is, energy) out of it. It is a little bit like the stories of turning plumb to gold by the powers of alchemy that have been popular in medieval times in Europe.
The truth, of course, is very different. Waste is a very poor energy source. In Europe, municipal waste has an average calorific value of 9-11 megajoule per kilogram. In India, this calorific is normally well below 6 megajoule per kilogram as municipal waste is usually soggier due to a higher share of organic content. Just for comparison: Hard coal usually has a calorific value of 29-33 megajoule per kilogram.
On the other hand, combusting waste in a power plant is difficult. There are a lot of impurities in waste that lead to problems in the plant. People throw many things in their waste that they should not, such as batteries or flashlights. Believe it or not, I once heard an WtE engineer discussing how they could remove a bathtub out of the boiler of a WtE plant. Of course, pre-treatment of the waste such as shredding, or sorting, can solve such issues to a certain extent. But this, of course, needs additional effort and therefore money. In addition, burning waste produces harmful substances, such as dioxins, furanes or heavy metals. These materials must be removed, for instance, by a proper flue gas cleaning.
Waste combustion can really be ecologically useful. Fed with non-recyclable waste, it can avoid landfilling, in which many of these substances would escape into the soil or air without any barrier. It can reduce climate change as it avoids methane from landfilling (which enhances the greenhouse effect 25 times as much as CO2 does) and, with the energy produced, can replace fossil fuels.
But, if poorly implemented, waste incineration will damage people’s health.
As a result, waste combustion requires certain effort. This effort must cover continuous plant operation, energy generation as well as comply with ecological standards. And this effort is much higher than, for instance, operating a power plant using coal or natural gas.
All together this means: WtE requires a comparatively large amount of money for the generation of a comparatively small amount of energy. In other words – it does not pay off!
In all large WtE markets across the world, WtE plants (a majority of them, at least) do not live off the energy business. They live off the waste business. They are part of the waste sector. Their main purpose is the disposal of waste. The production of energy is just an additional source of income. In Europe, for instance, a WtE plant usually receives at least INR 5,500 per ton of waste they combust. This pays for about two-third of the costs of a WtE plant. The energy business, which means the sale of heat or electricity, usually amounts for one third or less of the revenues.
In many countries with an emerging waste sector, so far, paying gate fees is difficult. One reason for this is that municipalities themselves do not receive waste fees from private households, as is the case in more advanced waste economies.
In some Asian countries, among them India, feed-in tariffs sometimes replace gate fees in some WtE projects. In this case, the money comes from the state, or sometimes national, government that finance WtE projects via the power sector.
Unfortunately, these feed-in tariffs are usually not sufficient to replace gate fees. More than that, feed-in tariffs promote the use of the most suitable waste for combustion – which is not necessarily the waste that is most important to dispose.
In an interview on this site, Mr Ramesh Chivukula, Director & Chief Operating Officer at CNIM Martin Pvt. Ltd. made clear how important tipping fees is to enable WtE projects. This view must be supported.
The operator of waste infrastructure provides an important service towards the community: the proper disposal of waste. This is his main task – and this is what he needs to be paid for.
Mark Döing
General Manager at ecoprog
ecoprog is a Germany-based consultancy specialising in the fields of environmental and energy technology.
