How to solve the reduction of CO2 emissions in waste-to-energy plants by improving the waste process

The waste-to-energy plants have achieved very high environmental efficiency standards compared to those built in the 90s of the last century, but, at the same time, the stringent European regulations on the reduction of CO2 emissions require continuous efficiency of the plants.

Technical interventions have been studied to install systems for capture and storage of CO2 that would be dispersed in the environment, effective and entirely positive modifications from an environmental point of view.

The problem that arises, however, is that of appearing, as it would seem, a hasty solution that would have significant economic repercussions on the cost of energy production.

According to the studies conducted by the EU on sustainable finance, the flow of waste entering the waste-to-energy plants, defined, non-recyclable or residual, it would seem composed of an excessive amount of recyclable materials, such as plastic and organic, subtracting precious raw materials that should re-enter the production chain.

Furthermore the presence of noble materials , which should not be burned, increases the CO2 emission for no reason, having to spend money for its capture.

How to solve the problem?

The waste streams defined as residuals should actually be composed of materials that are no longer recyclable and, to do this, it is necessary that the disposal of waste take place through improvement of separate waste collection and through an efficient and widespread mechanical recycling system.

This combination helps to capture all those materials that have an industrial value and that, therefore, can be sent for recycling, reducing the transfer of non-waste materials to the waste-to-energy plants. correct.

To demonstrate this we can cite the examples of some countries where a tax on waste-to-energy plants has been applied, calculated on the quantity of CO2 emitted. The lowering of emissions has passed from the installation of incoming waste sorting lines in order to intercept everything that, although present in the stream destined for incineration, could be recycled.

For example, the Stockholm sorting plant Exergi in Sweden saves 33,000 tons of CO2 per year by selecting the is equivalent to approximately 75% of the plastic contained in incoming waste.

What is holding back this solution?

First of all, the delivery of municipal waste to waste-to-energy plants is often seen as a political shortcut to the construction of new plants mechanical recycling and waste-to-energy, which are often disliked by the population.

Where politics is not a social mission, it tries to accommodate the NIMVY phenomenon (not in the my territory), which prefers to send waste away from its area rather than making it autonomous and efficient.

This however, many times, involves risky contracts regarding incoming flows to waste-to-energy plants, such as "minimum tonnage guarantees", the "put or pay" clauses or "banding mechanisms" , which can generate penalties for customers who deliver waste if the flow were to decrease.

These penalties, usually substantial, prevent the creation of a concept of circularity of local waste, preventing any operation of management and treatment of the same, with losses of economic competitiveness and environmental compared to other municipalities.

Automatic translation. We apologize for any inaccuracies. Original article in Italian.