The EfW carbon tax - a catalyst for positive change

As the climate crisis develops, we must address the volume of waste sent to conventional mass burn Energy from Waste (EfW) plants and ask ourselves why this continues.

With the cost of incinerating waste set to rise drastically, it calls into question EfW’s economic viability and crucially prompts an overdue conversation around alternative, greener and more future-focused waste treatment options.

Political impetus and changing goals

Both the EU and UK are seeking to expand their emissions trading schemes in order to align carbon reduction targets with the global goals of the Paris Agreement. One shared proposal is to bring EfW facilities into scope by putting a price on CO2 emitted from these facilities.

The European Parliament and Council have already reached a provisional agreement to include EfW facilities in the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) by 2030 at the latest, and EU countries will be required to measure, report and verify the emissions from EfW facilities from as soon as 2024.

Closer to home, the UK Climate Change Committee stressed the UK must address EfW emissions urgently and recommended a consultation on the introduction of a carbon tax (either as part of the UK ETS or a separate instrument).

But what’s the cost?

As the recent Tolvik Consulting report, titled "Response to Call for Evidence on Inclusion of EfW in the UK Emissions Trading", estimates that with the fossil content of residual waste between 30% and 60%, and a range of carbon processes between £45 and £85 per tonne, EfW gate fees could increase between £13 and £51 per tonne. Our own analysis of UK waste suggests that most MRW contains around 60% carbon, which means the additional cost per tonne is likely to be at the upper end, at £40-45 per tonne.

Catalyst for change

The impending tax is in fact a welcome and long overdue catalyst for positive change– particularly as technology can already divert Mixed Residual Waste (MRW) from EfW and landfill – as well as unlock the value of waste for the circular economy, reduce disposal costs and lower CO2.

By removing the organic fraction of waste, MRW can become a quality coal replacement product. SRF from this waste stream has greater calorific value than from recyclate because the digestion process gives the waste a higher calorific value and a biogenic carbon fraction. This makes it optimally suited to replace carbon-emitting coal to power cement kilns for cement production.

Conventional mass burn EfW is no longer the only disposal route for MRW. Embracing disruptive technologies means that higher gate fees needn’t present an issue and operators can futureproof their operations and boost their clients’ green credentials. With increasing legislative change on the horizon, seeking alternative routes to waste disposal has never been timelier.