The BBC Energy from Waste investigation: a little off the mark?

A BBC investigation recently claimed that EfW emits the same amount of greenhouse gas for each unit of energy produced as coal power and with the last UK coal fuelled power plant having closed last month, the article labelled EfW “the UK’s dirtiest form of power”.

This may be factually correct if you consider EfW purely as a form of power generation, but we also know that its primary purpose is the safe treatment of mixed, hard to recycle and unrecyclable residual waste, and as such should not be compared in such a direct way as the article suggests.

EfW is no stranger to bad press. Over the years we have seen headlines damning the use of this technology for blighting the local landscape, for reducing house prices, for polluting local schools, and for restricting the expansion of recycling. Each time we have had to counter the media coverage with hard and fast facts about the role that technology plays in our transition away from landfill, a more polluting and more impactful emitter of greenhouse gases, and its role in underpinning affordable sustainable waste management with heightened capture of metals at these plants, and their exemplary record of emissions controls and performance, etc.

But still, we have to face all this negative press about EfW technologies and increasing political discourse about the role it plays in a future sustainable resource management system, in particular its lack of circularity. The BBC investigation certainly sparked a lively debate amongst those of us in the waste and resources sector, especially those of us in the industry who have championed the use of EfW as a necessary and sustainable technology for the UK’s transition out of landfill, one with a finite lifetime even with the upturn in interest in carbon capture and storage infrastructure being attached to a number of the current EfW portfolio to improve their overall carbon footprint  – so what do I think about all of this?

I have long viewed EfW as a “transition technology”, reducing the materials being sent to landfill and providing electricity as an additional benefit, and since joining SUEZ this interpretation has been further strengthened by our approach to EfW (for maximising landfill reduction) and the effort we are putting into other options for managing resources (namely reuse, repair and recycling). EfW will be a critical part of the UK’s resource management agenda for at least the next 20 years or so as we expand our recycling services and sites to accommodate changing waste composition and meet changing legislation and targets. But these sites aren’t simply standing still with ongoing maintenance activities – no, we are looking to upgrade sites, adopt some to make them suitable for carbon capture, and redesign others so they are enabled to produce new products that changing markets will demand, like aviation fuels. So the media frenzy can’t be a binary conversation about EfW being bad, or being the worst form of energy generation, there is a real need for a more nuanced debate and discussion.

To those of us in the know, it is obvious that EfW has an important role to play as the UK transitions to a greener, more circular economy, and that this will take time to become a reality, so we will need facilities that can cope with badly designed packaging and non-recyclable products. We need time to develop the legislation that will drive change, we will need industry to change their habits, shifting away from the ‘take-make-waste’ model of our economy where precious resources are discarded once finished with, and instead adopt circular principles where sharing, leasing, reusing, repairing and refurbishing becomes the norm. As we learnt in the 1990s and the early 2000s, building an effective recycling habit takes time and effort so let's not kid ourselves that EfW sites should be closed tomorrow or any time soon, unless of course they are at the end of their natural lifetime and are ready to be upgraded/replaced!

The stark reality is that until all packaging is designed to be recycled (or better still refilled and repaired), is segregated correctly by people and businesses, and isn’t contaminated or littered, EfW is the safest and most reliable option for disposing of the materials that are failing to be recycled (the vast amounts of research into EfW has confirmed this, which is why it remains so prevalent around mainland Europe). It’s also important to remember that EfW facilities are among the most heavily monitored and regulated facilities in Europe - emissions limits for each facility are set and monitored by the Environment Agency as part of the permitting process, and are often easily viewed by the general public on their websites or even on displays outside of the site. We aren’t hiding their performance, we are immensely proud of what these sites do and their robustness in dealing with what arrives at their door!

So, despite all of this, why are we still debating the role of EfW? Simply put, the lack of policy clarity over the last 5 years or so has enabled a debate to develop around the long-term viability of energy recovery in the UK. Without significant reforms to the sector, including EPR, Simpler Recycling and ETS, recycling rates in the UK will continue to stagnate and the need for EfW will simply increase. It will also take time for the full impact of this new legislation to be realised (food waste collections will take a number of years to reach all households as procurement projects come to market, whilst flexible plastics are still a few years away from being mandated as part of the kerbside collection). As such, I firmly believe that EfW is a key technology for dealing with our non-recyclable waste in the interim period, whether that be 10, 20, or 30 years, as determined by the rate of policy intervention, the response of the public and the speed of market action.

As a sector we are ready and primed to achieve net-zero emissions by 2040, we just need the right policy landscape to help us. The noises coming from the new Labour Government are positive, but will EfW’s future be any clearer in 2025? Will there be a moratorium on new sites, will panning restrictions make new facilities harder to develop and will the cost of carbon capture make some sites unviable, only time will tell.

EfW should be recognised for what it is, a timely solution that delivers cost-effective and environmentally sound waste management plus low-carbon energy generation, along with high-value jobs across all regions of the UK. I’m not suggesting that EfW is the solution to all our problems, I would never be that person, but it shouldn’t be vilified for all the reasons I’ve already discussed.

It's too easy to lay the blame for carbon emissions at the EfW site when it has little control over the materials arriving on the weighbridge. Society needs EfW for now and probably for the rest of my working career, so let's be honest and get society to work with the resources sector on designing a system that better meets all our needs, rather than casting blame on one part of the complex chain!

At SUEZ we’re investing in carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) technology to safely and effectively manage the emissions created by the EfW process, whilst we are working actively to pull plastics and food waste out of our EfWs by capturing these materials at the kerbside. We are also expanding our repair and reuse networks and working with partners to support the development of refill solutions. Progress is being made on these projects and I’m confident that with appropriate Government backing, we’ll be in a great position to showcase what these technologies and systems can do in reducing carbon emissions going forward. This is why the conferences around EfW are so critical for our sector, allowing us to debate progress, discuss collaborations and design new solutions, so I welcome seeing you all at an event sometime soon.

I welcome further debate on the subject as we arrive at this critical juncture for the evolution of the waste and resources sector in the UK, as I have no doubt that EfW will continue to be a contentious topic that keeps dividing opinion and inspires interesting discussion. I wouldn’t want it any other way, after all, I work in communications and external affairs, so media coverage of the sector is welcome. But let's hope we can help shape the narrative a little better next time and we start to expand the discussion to the real failings of our current waste management system.

As with all my ‘blogs’ they are mine and mine alone. If you would like to get in touch or comment on them then please do so, as I am more than open to some good ‘old-fashioned’ debate and dialogue. Please email me on adam.read@suez.com or follow me on social media.