Brussels, 21 October 2024 – A recent BBC analysis is heavily critical of Waste-to-Energy (WtE) practices in the UK, raising well-known questions. ESWET is convinced that by omitting critical data and overlooking the challenges of waste management and WtE’s clear benefits, the BBC fails to present a comprehensive, nuanced and realistic view of the sector.

In its analysis published on 15 October, the BBC claims that “burning household rubbish…is now the dirtiest way the UK generates power” based on the amount of greenhouse gases (GHGs) released in the process. However, this approach overshadows the main purpose of WtE, which is not to produce energy but to treat non-recyclable waste. Landfills, the alternative option for treating this residual waste, emit significantly more GHG emissions in the form of methane, a more potent greenhouse gas than the CO₂ emitted by WtE plants.

The BBC also argues that almost half of the plastic waste produced by UK households is being incinerated, decrying WtE’s impact on the climate. However, the analysis ignores the WtE sector’s call for a sharp reduction in plastic production and use. WtE operators even go as far as rejecting plastic streams in their input, fully aware that plastic waste increases their incinerators’ carbon footprint.

Non-recyclable plastic waste can only be treated in two ways: either in landfills or through WtE. This waste will simply not disappear on its own, highlighting the need for a different approach: plastic waste production must be reduced via systemic societal changes that very few actors are ready to contemplate. In the absence of this, WtE is left to deal with the plastic waste problem.

Contrary to what the BBC concluded, WtE is part of the solution and fosters the waste management chain. Waste incineration is an ally of recycling efforts, offering a reliable outlet for waste that has been rejected from recycling. WtE plays a crucial role in pollution prevention by treating residual waste and destroying harmful pollutants. To achieve this, WtE operators must adhere to strict environmental regulations.

Instead, the BBC report seems to state a preference for the landfilling of plastic waste over incineration.  If this waste were to end up in landfills, in reality, it would lead to harmful consequences such as leachates that contaminate soil, water, groundwater and air, gravely impacting human health, climate, and the environment.

A recent UK government research found that landfills in England were leaking toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), also known as ‘forever chemicals’ at levels up to 260 times higher than those considered safe for consumption. PFAS may be responsible for a wide range of health issues, from liver and thyroid disease, to cancer, infertility and obesity. A report by the British Medical Journal found that 80% of the UK population lives within two kilometres of a landfill.

The UK national broadcaster’s analysis additionally frames WtE as a power-producing sector, and criticises it based on the emissions per kWh of energy that it produces. The study, however, omits that WtE’s primary role is waste management, not energy generation. Any comparison with coal or other energy sectors is based on a wrong assumption – WtE’s purpose is not to be a primary source of power, but to safely deal with residual waste that can’t be recycled or composted. Energy recovery is a useful byproduct of waste incineration, but the real benefit lies in preventing waste from piling up in landfills.

Although the BBC mentions that WtE helps to avoid methane emissions through landfill diversion, WtE plays a much bigger role than acknowledged in the article. When biogenic waste – and not just food waste – ends up in landfills, it decomposes and releases methane, a GHG 84 times more potent than CO₂ over a 20-year period. Diverting waste from landfills to WtE reduces GHG emissions by about 600 kg CO₂ equivalent per tonne​ over a 100-year timeframe (the reduction is even much higher when considered over a 20-year timeframe.) Of course, if we consider the integration of carbon capture in WtE plants, the CO₂ savings in the process can even lead to net negative emissions in the sector.

The BBC also completely overlooks how WtE excels at material and energy recovery. Modern plants can retrieve valuable metals and minerals from the ashes of waste incineration, thus contributing to the circular economy. WtE plants can also recover heat, with the International Energy Agency considering WtE a renewable energy resource for this role. By supplying heat to district heating systems (covering homes, hospitals, museums, etc.) and nearby industries, WtE displaces heat that would otherwise be produced from fossil fuels. This way, WtE plants support local energy grids and reduce reliance on fossil energy sources. The BBC completely ignored the heat recovery potential of WtE plants and the significant contribution to district and industrial heating that it brings.

At ESWET, we are convinced that dismissing WtE in its entirety misses the point: only a holistic approach to waste management – where society also plays its role in avoiding waste generation in the first place – can lead to a significant reduction in waste-related environmental and climate impact.

The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe recently recognised WtE’s benefits. In a 2022 report, the UN body defined WtE as “the most sustainable solution for non-recyclable waste as it recovers energy and materials while providing an alternative to highly polluting landfills and waste exports.”

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change explicitly acknowledged the role of WtE in reducing GHG emissions in their 2022 report: “When WtE technologies are equipped with proper air pollution reduction facilities, they can contribute to clean electricity production and reduction of GHG emissions.” ESWET members supply state-of-the-art technology to make emission reduction possible in Waste-to-Energy in the EU, the UK and globally.