Energy Policy,Vol. 25, No. 6, pp.

587-600, 1997
© 1997 Publishedby ElsevierScienceLtd
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
ELSEVIER 0301-4215/97 $17.00 + 0.00
PII:S0301-4215(97)00050-5

Waste not, want not: the private and

social costs of waste-to-energy
production

Marie Lynn Miranda and Brack Hale

Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Box 90328, Durham NC27708 USA

Communities, and whole countries, are considering implementing the quickly-evolving technologies of
waste-to-energy (WTE) production. Unlike other energy sources, wnste~to-energy plants have two objec-
tives. In addition to generating useful energy, these plants are designed to ensure the safe and effective
disposal of municipal solid waste (MSW). Energy production and solid waste management both involve
complicated and large-scale production processes which generate substantial environmental impacts.
Traditional analysis of the desirability of adopting WTE technology has compared its costs and benefits
either to other forms of energy production or to other forms of solid waste management. Traditional
analysis also tends to focus on private production costs with limited consideration of broader social
environmental impacts. Using data from Germany, Sweden, the UK and the US, this paper bundles
together the energy generation and waste disposal services offered by WTE and estimates the associated
private production and social environmental costs. In so doing, this economic study provides insight into
whether WTE plants can compete on the energy production side with fossil-fuel-fired plants and on the
waste management side with landfill disposal. © 1997 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
Keywords." Waste-to-energy production; Energy production costs; Waste disposal economics

WTE facilities permit levels for particulates, SO 2, HCI, and NO x (Hilts,

W T E technology
During the 1960s and 1970s, communities around the world
began building and operating waste incinerators. These facili-
ties, which for the most part did not co-generate any energy,
were built before the US and Europe enacted the more stringent
air quality legislation that characterizes these countries today.
As a result, many of the facilities emitted high levels of both
criteria and toxic air pollutants. Today's WTE plants are a
far cry from their polluting predecessors. With modern
combustion and pollution control technology, WTE plants
are able to retrieve significant amounts of energy from waste
combustion while minimizing undesirable emissions. In fact,
a recent survey of new WTE facilities in the US revealed that
all the plants were operating well below (20% or more) their
IThe authors, respectively Associate Professor of the Practice and Research
Associate at the Nicholas School of the Environment, gratefully
acknowledge research assistance provided by Stacey Miness as well as
comments on an earlier version of the paper provided by Lars Astrand,
Randall A. Kramer, Anders Lunnan, James N. Miller, Marian Radetzki,
V. Kerry Smith, and Herman Vollebergh. All remaining errors are our
own.
1994). Those permits had been set at or lower than the
federal standards. Some proponents of modern WTE technol-
ogy would go so far as to claim that the plants are 'among
the cleanest combustion-based power plants' (Niessen, 1993).
WTE facilities fall into two general categories: mass-burn
and refuse derived fuel (RDF). Mass burn facilities typically
burn waste without significant pre-processing. R D F proc-
esses convert municipal solid waste into a type of fuel by
removing materials with low heat values (glass, metals, organ-
ics) and then shredding the remaining waste to produce a
fuel with relatively uniform characteristics. The fuel can then
either be burned on site, or transported to a combustion
facility. Currently, mass burn technologies are more com-
mon.
Several different processes are used in the combustion
phase of WTE. In the US, moving grates or rotary kilns are
most common. The moving grate basically consists of a
grate on an incline, along which combustion takes place. As
the waste tumbles through the combustion chamber, uncom-
busted material is exposed (SRI International, 1992 ). Rotary
kilns follow a similar process, but the waste is incinerated in
a rotating chamber. In Europe, fluidized bed boilers are
588 Waste not, want not: M L Miranda and B Hale

more common (Rhyner et al., 1995). This process, which

Table 1 WTE in selected countries"
requires a uniform fuel, combusts pre-processed waste on a
Country Number of % of total MSW
bed of hot sand and ash. Constant air flow from beneath the
incineration plants incinerated with
bed keeps the waste moving. This provides for more complete energy recovery
combustion. These combustion conditions also minimize
Denmark 65 60
NOx formation (Murphy, 1995). Adding limestone lowers France 170 35
sulfur dioxide and other acid deposition precursors. Heat is Germany 49 29
recovered both through the walls of the combustion chamber Italy 18 4
Japan 1900 75
(either through a refractory or a waterwall design) as well as Netherlands 12 40
from the gases produced during combustion (the flue gas) Spain 22 4
(Murphy, 1995). Sweden 22 50
Switzerland not available 70
After heat recovery, the flue gases pass through air pollu- United Kingdom 30 3
tion control technology - most commonly electrostatic pre- United States 168 16
cipitators. This technology precipitates out much of the Sources: Petts (1994), Porteous (1993), Johnke (1992), CSI Resource
particulate matter by passing the flue gases through a series Systems(1995).
aData are for early 1990s.
of positively and negatively charged plates. Another com-
mon technology for the removal of particulate matter is a
fabric (baghouse) filter. By forcing the flue gas through an
alkaline substance such as lime, semi-wet and dry scrubbers areas with high population densities, high water tables, and
help neutralize some of the acidic potential of the flue gas relatively scarce (and thus expensive) land (Charles and Kiser,
from SO 2 and HC1. In Europe, wet scrubbers are more popular. 1995a). Japan hosts more municipal waste combustion plants
In this system, the flue gases pass through a liquid aerosol than any other country and in the US, 60% of WTE plants
that reacts with the pollutants in the flue gas. Although very are located in just six states (Florida, New York, Pennsylvania,
effective, this technique is expensive and creates wastewater Massachusetts, Virginia and Connecticut) (Carlin, 1994). In
requiring further treatment (Porteous, 1993). The combina- addition, the Netherlands, Denmark and Japan, whose land
tion of fabric filters and dry scrubbers can remove 99% of constraints make siting a landfill especially difficult, inciner-
the HC1, 95% of the SO2, and 90% of the mercury from flue ate 40-75% of their municipal waste, almost completely with
gases (SRI International, 1992). In order to remove nitrogen energy recovery (Petts, 1994).
oxides, an additional system is required. Selective Catalytic This paper takes a more detailed look at WTE in four
Reduction (SCR) adds ammonia to the flue gas to react with countries: two where WTE is a commonly used strategy,
nitrogen oxides. While this process can remove 70% of the Germany and Sweden, and two where WTE is used less
NO Xemissions, it requires additional energy (Rhyner et al., frequently, the UK and the US. The current status of WTE
1995). in each of the countries, as well as their current and potential
After combustion, the WTE process produces ash. Bot- energy production, is summarized in Table 2. Among these
tom ash results from the actual combustion process, whereas four countries, WTE is most frequently used in Sweden. In
fly ash is the residual from the air pollution controls. In a 1991, Sweden incinerated 50% of its solid waste, an increase
typical WTE plant, the resulting ash represents 10% of the from around 33% since 1975 (CSI Resource Systems Inc.,
original MSW volume, and 24% of its original weight (SRI 1995a). Sweden is unique among the four countries in that it
International, 1992a, 1992b, 1992c). European and Asian produces the majority of its electricity, approximately 93%o
countries typically recycle WTE plant ash into such products in 1994, from non-fossil fuels, mostly hydro (42"/'0)and nuclear
as road aggregate, fill material, cement substitute, and land- (51%o) (NUTEK, 1995). The majority of the energy from
fill cover (Barnes, 1995; Goodwin, 1993). Sweden and Sweden's twenty-one WTE plants (1992), is generated in the
Germany, for example, recycle most WTE ash, while the form of steam for district heating. In 1991, WTE constituted
Netherlands reprocesses over 90% of its ash. The US, on the 15% of Sweden's district heating need. Incinerating all of
Sweden's municipal waste could supply up to 30% of the
other hand, recycles under 2% of the nine million tons of ash
produced annually (Barnes, 1995). Combined bottom and district heating need. A few plants produce electricity in
fly ash typically consists of 8-12% ferrous metals and 0.5- addition to steam. These include the GRAAB plant in Grte-
1.5% non-ferrous metals (Barnes, 1995). Reprocessing the borg and the Hrgdalen plant in Stockholm. The Swedish
ash for use as ash aggregate or landfill cover can recover government is currently planning to phase out its significant
these high-grade metals for recycling. Goodwin (1993) reliance on nuclear energy. While Sweden hopes to meet part
of this need through conservation measures, the possibility
estimates that the ash can be reprocessed for an estimated
for increased use of WTE certainly exists.
$32 ton -1. If the ash is not reprocessed, it is typically land-
Since 1980, the majority of incineration plants in Germany
filled in a monofill - a landfill that receives only WTE ash.
have included energy recovery. Waste incineration increased
from approximately 6.3 million tonnes of waste in 1980
The prevalence o f W T E (Reichel and Schirmer, 1989) to 9.3 million tonnes in 1991,
WTE facilities operate throughout Europe, Japan and the with facilities to handle another 6 million tonnes on the
US (Table 1). WTE plants seem especially well-suited to drawing board (Johnke, 1992). Although that only translates

Table 2 Waste Generation and WTE Energy Yield ~
Germany
Annual MSW generation 32
(Mtonnes)
% MSW incinerated in WTE Plants 29
Total energycurrentlyproduced 0.6% of energydemand 15% of district heating
Potential energyyield of MSW 2% of energyneeda 30% of district heating needa
Sources: Johnke (1992), CSI Resource Systems (1992), Porteous (1993), Petts (1994), Curlee et al (1994); Franklin Associates (1994); SRI International
(1992).
aData are from 1991 for Germany.Sweden and the UK; from 1992 for the US.
bDoes not include 400,000 tonnes of recycled materials.
CExtrapolatedbased on electricityproduction at SELCHPplant.
~Extrapolatedbased on energyproduced fromcurrent incineration.
into 0.6% of total energy consumption in Germany, WTE
does provide 4-9% of total energy consumption for Berlin,
Hamburg and M u n i c h - all major urban areas. Should WTE
continue to expand, it could potentially supply 2°/'0 of the
country's energy demand. Indeed, the German WTE sector
is expected to keep growing, due to current German waste
management regulations under the TA-Siedlungsabfall.
In the US only 1.8% of solid waste was incinerated with
energy recovery in 1980 (Curlee et al., 1994). By 1992, it had
grown to 16% (Franklin Associates, 1994). Currently, WTE
production meets 0.4% of the US' energy demand. If WTE
continues to grow rapidly, one study predicts that it could
account for as much as 1.7% of the US' energy production
by 2010 (Curlee et al., 1994).
The U K has a rather limited history with WTE. In 1993,
only 2.3% of Britain's waste was being incinerated in a WTE
plant (Petts, 1994). Through a 1989 law that provides subsidies
for renewable energy sources, seventeen new WTE projects
have been funded (McLeod, 1993). However, siting problems
are threatening to derail these projects.
Previous studies estimating private production and social
environmental costs o f fossil fuel and W T E processes
A wide variety of authors have attempted to quantify the
private and social costs of fossil fuel energy production. In
a 1995 study, Krupnick and Burtraw compare the results of
several studies on the external costs of electricity produc-
tion. In so doing, they also summarize the private costs of
electricity production for contextual purposes. Their study
focuses primarily on the US and Germany, but also includes
analyses of plants in the UK. A British study by Chessire
(1993) looked at the policy issues behind the external costs of
electricity production. His study does not attempt to estimate
these external costs, but rather the steps that have been taken
to mitigate environmental externalities. In analysing some of
the newer fossil fuel technologies, he provides generating
costs for coal-fired power plants in the UK. A German study
by Friedrich and ¥oss (1993) attempts to improve upon an
earlier study on the external costs of electricity production
by Hohmeyer (1989)/90). Focusing on German suppliers of
electricity, the authors establish certain categories of external
costs for various types of fuel, including coal. To put these
costs in perspective, they also estimate the internal costs of
electricity production.
Waste not, want not: M L Miranda and B Hale 589
Sweden United Kingdom United States
2.8b 30 184.2
50 3 16
0.1% of total electricitycapacityc 0.4% of energydemand
3.6-5%of UK energyneeds 3% electricityneed
Three studies provide estimates of WTE production costs
for the US, Germany and Sweden: SRI International
(1992a)SRI International (1992); Millock (1993) and Johnke
(1992). We supplement the estimates for the US with additional
data from individual plants in an attempt to take into account
the regional variability within the US. Two British studies
(Holmes, 1992; Porteous, 1993) provide estimates for hypotheti-
cal WTE plants.
Studies of the externalities of energy production, particularly
from fossil fuels, proliferated in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
Studies by Ottinger et aL (1990); Bernow and Marron (1990);
Krupnick and Burtraw (1995) and Chernick and Caverhill
(1989) all attempted to estimate the environmental externali-
ties associated with producing electricity in the US. Pearce et
al. (1992) undertook a similar exercise in the UK. Hohmeyer
(1989)/90) and Friedrich and Voss (1993) estimated these costs
for Germany. A study on external costs in Sweden by Starfelt
(1994) concentrates mainly on nuclear power, although it sug-
gests that the taxes levied on coal power plants are based on
the level of associated external costs.
Studies detailing the external costs of WTE air emissions
are fairly limited. A study by the Bonneville Power Administra-
tion (ECO Northwest, 1986) attempts to estimate the external
costs associated with air emissions from WTE facilities.
However, it bases its estimate on 1986 WTE plants - rather
unrepresentative of the technology currently in place. As a
result, it produces a cost range that spans 44 cents kWh -t.
Josselyn (1993) examined the external costs of five different
waste management scenarios, and as a means of comparison,
the costs of fossil fuel produced electricity.
Landfill production costs were available in several different
studies: Franklin Associates (1994) for the US, Petts (1994) for
the UK, and Millock (1993) for Sweden. As no individual
estimate was found for Germany, we extrapolate an estimate
based on information provided in Petts. Landfill external costs
were also not readily available in the literature, and thus we
base our costs on information provided in Josselyn (1993), SRI
International (1992) and Franklin Associates (1994).
Objective 1: W T E as an e n e r g y s o u r c e
WTE plants have two simultaneous objectives: to produce
energy and to manage municipal solid waste. To begin our
analysis of the relative competitiveness of WTE facilities, we
590 Waste not, want not: M L Miranda and B Hale

first consider them simply as 'small power plants' (Niessen, fifth as efficient as the figure for hot water production
1993). Later, we will supplement this analysis by considering (2720 kWh), and should be kept in mind when interpreting
the solid waste management aspects of WTE facilities. If the final results.
WTE plants are to compete successfully with traditional
fossil fuel plants, they must offer high-quality energy products Baseline private production costs for fossil fuel energy
at comparable prices From a social standpoint, WTE must production
also be evaluated on the basis of the associated environmental
The private cost of producing electricity includes both the
impacts relative to fossil fuel production.
original capital outlay and operation and maintenance charges.
WTE plants can provide energy in several different forms:
The capital charge includes the costs associated with plant
hot water, steam or electricity. Hot water, generally used in
construction and the operation and maintenance costs include
district heating systems, is the simplest and most efficient
personnel, repair, maintenance, and other related costs. These
energy product to produce. The WTE plant in Uppsala,
private production costs vary among countries and among
Sweden which generates 90% of its energy in the form of hot
regions within countries as well.
water yields approximately 2720 kWh tonne -l 2 of waste
To provide baseline estimates of private production costs
incinerated (/~strand, 1990). Electricity, which loses efficiency
for fossil fuel-fired energy facilities in the US, Germany and
in both steam production to power turbines and the work of
the UK, we take advantage of the work already completed
the turbines, is the most inefficient energy product. Steam
by Krupnick and Burtraw (1995); Chessire (1993) and Frie-
production, generally used in either district heating or industrial
drich and Voss (1993). Each of these estimates is for electric-
processes, falls somewhere in the middle. Which form of
ity produced from coal. While unrepresentative, these figures
energy is produced or in what combination depends on local
are still probably reasonable for comparison purposes as
variables and markets.
WTE generally replaces the most polluting technology -
In Sweden, where district heating is common, WTE plants
which is coal. Because Sweden depends most heavily on
primarily produce hot water and to a lesser extent, steam.
nuclear and hydro power, rather than fossil fuels, calculating
Only a few, such as the GRAAB plant in G6teborg and the
Swedish private production costs for fossil fuel-fired energy
H6gdalen plant in Stockholm also produce electricity. It
facilities is more difficult. We use estimates from the Krup-
should be noted, that in both of these cases, the amount of
nick and Burtraw study, as it is meant to be a means of
electricity produced is small in comparison to their heat
comparison, not only for the US, but also for the European
production. WTE plants in Germany, which also has extensive
Community.
district heating networks, produce both steam and electric-
In calculating private production costs, currencies were
ity. However, electricity production in Germany appears to
converted to US dollars. When necessary, each figure was
be somewhat more common than in Sweden. For example,
also converted to cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity.
the two WTE facilities in Munich produced about 6.5 GWh
Table 3 summarizes the estimated private production costs
of electricity in 1992, compared with a heat production of
for fossil fuel energy production. Private production costs
4.2 GWh. In the US, there is a noticeable trend toward
for the UK, Sweden and the US fall in a similar range
electricity and away from steam production (Berenyi and
(4.2-6.4 cents kWh-J). This is of course expected for the
Gould, 1993). This can be partly attributed to the lack of
latter two as they draw from the same study. Estimated
district heating infrastructure in most cities. However, some
costs for Germany, however, are substantially higher (8.3-
newer facilities are seeking appropriate markets to take
9.6 cents kWh-l), due at least in part to the requirement
advantage of higher energy yields from hot water and steam.
that utilities use expensive domestic coal. All of these
For example, the BCH plant in Fayetteville, North Carolina
estimates compare reasonably well with the actual prices
sells steam (through a negotiated agreement) to a local chemi-
for electricity in each country, once the other infrastructure
cal company, and also sells electricity to the regional grid
costs (cost of transmission, distribution, etc) are taken
(Murphy, 1995). The UK also appears to favor electricity
into account.
production in its WTE plants.
In this study, we assume a figure of 578 kwh of electric-
ity produced per tonne of waste incinerated. We choose to Private production costs for W T E energy production
calculate our costs based on the assumption that WTE plants Similar to fossil fuel private production costs, WTE private
produce electricity alone, as this provides the simplest, and production costs include the capital cost of the WTE facil-
most conservative means of cross-country comparison. This ity, the facility's operating costs, the facility's maintenance
may result in a significant overestimate of WTE production costs, and the debt service. To calculate private production
costs - particularly in Sweden and Germany- making WTE costs for WTE energy production, we rely on Johnke (1992);
appear less competitive than it otherwise might, were hot Millock (1993); Porteous (1993); Holmes (1992); SRI
water and steam production options taken into considera- International (1992); Hilts (1994); NREL (1995a) NREL
tion. This figure for electricity production (578 kWh) is one (1995b); Randall (1994); Franklin Associates (1994) and Sul-
livan et al. (1993).
As the data is from a wide variety of sources, all with
2Throughoutthis study, tonne refersto a metricton, or 1000kilograms; different methods of cost calculation, substantial manipula-
ton refers to an English ton, or 2000 pounds. tion was required in order to make the data comparable.
 Waste not, want not: M L Miranda and B Hale 591

Table 3 Estimating private production costs for coal-fired power plants

Country Study used Assumption Manipulation Estimated cost
(cents kWh -1)

Germany Friedrich and Voss (1993) • Converted to 1991 Pf using 8.3-9.6

CPI
• Converted to US cents using
1991 exchange rate
Sweden Krupnick and Burtraw (1995) • private cost estimate valid for • Converted from mills kWh -1 5.4-6.4
Sweden to cents kWh -1
United Kingdom Chessire (1993) • data approximate 1991 costs • Converted from p kWh -] to 4.2-5.6
cents kWh -1 using 1991
exchange rate
United States Krupnick and Burtraw (1995) • Converted from mills kWh -1 5.4-6.4
to cents kWh -~

These adjustments are detailed in Table 4. In general, the
capital charge (the amount paid on the capital cost per year),
and the operation and maintenance costs were summed for
the year. This yearly cost was divided by the annual tonnage
processed by the facility. Finally, the tonnage cost was divided
by an average amount of energy produced per ton (or tonne).
Comparing fossil fuel and WTE private production costs
A comparison of fossil fuel and WTE private production
costs, as laid out in Tables 3 and 4, demonstrates clearly that
WTE costs significantly more per kilowatt hour of electric-
ity produced. In fact, private production costs for WTE are
anywhere from two to five times more than the same estimates
for fossil fuel-based production. Even if WTE plants also
produce steam (thereby substantially improving energy
efficiency), they likely would still cost more based simply on
private production costs.
Social environmental costs for fossil fuel energy production
From a social perspective, we should care about the social
environmental (external) costs of energy production, as well
as the private production (internal) costs. Acid rain, for
example, results from sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide emis-
sions and can cause serious damage to ecosystems near and
far. The costs of these damages are not included in the
private production costs of fossil fuel-fired energy plants.
With fossil fuels, the most significant potential externality
costs are associated with the emissions of particulates, sulfur
dioxide, nitrous oxides, carbon dioxide and dioxins (USOTA,
1994; Rigo, 1995). Some damages (such as acid rain result-
ing from SO2 and NO x emissions) have been relatively well-
documented, while others (such as global warming resulting
from CO2 emissions) are still hotly debated as to the extent
of the impact. In addition, substantial debate exists over
how best to assess the cost of these impacts. Researchers
vary widely in their estimates of the value of various
environmental services, as well as how to value human health
impacts. Unsurprisingly, estimates cover a wide range.
In Table 5, we synthesize the results of various studies in
order to calculate a range of estimates of the external costs
of fossil fuel production in cents per kilowatt hour produced.
Again, Sweden's limited dependence on fossil fuels makes it
especially difficult to estimate associated external costs. Based
on Starfelt's (1994) claim that the taxes levied on coal-fired
power plants in Sweden are based on the level of associated
costs, we use current (1995) Swedish taxes - energy, carbon,
and sulfur- on coal power generation to estimate these costs
(NUTEK, 1995). For the other three countries, we are able
to estimate external costs directly.
Externality costs in Sweden and the low estimate for
Germany fall within the same general range (0.24-0.46).
Substantially higher are the costs for the US, the UK and the
upper estimate for Germany (6.1-7.8). External costs span a
wide range due to uncertainty over environmental impacts,

Table 4 Estimating WTE private production costs

Country Studies used Assumptions Manipulations Estimated cost
(cents kWh -1)
All 1) one ton yields 525 kWh
electricity. 2) one tonne yields
578 kWh electricity
Germany Johnke (1992) 1) data in 1991 DM. 2) treatment 1) costs converted to 1991 US $ 17.2-31.4
costs equals private production
costs
Sweden Millock (1993) 1) costs converted to 1991 US $ 9.3-10.7
United Kingdom Porteous (1993);Holmes (1992) 1) data from 1991. 1) costs converted to 1991 US $ 13.5-15.7
United States SRI International ( 1992);Hilts 1) WTE plants are 80% 1) capital charge estimated if not 11.3-22.6
(1994); NREL (1995); Randall operational (US ave'rage is 85%). provided.a2) average O & M cost
( 1994);Franklin Associates 2) Interest rate was assumed at used (SRI), if none given
(1994); Sullivan et al (1993) 15% over 20 years, if not given
~Capital charge=(capital cost)*interest rate/[ 1-(1 +interest rate) -("umb'rof y~m)] (Rhyner et al, 1995).
592 Waste not, want not: M L Miranda and B Hale

Table 5 Estimating external costs for fossil fuel plants

Country Studies used Assumptions Manipulations External costs
(cents kWh -l)
Germany Hohmeyer (1989/90); • Data was converted into 1 9 9 1 0.24-7.8
Friedrich and Voss (1993) US $
Sweden Starfelt (1994); NUTEK • Taxes levied on power plants 0.3-0.46
(1995) provide reasonable estimate of
external costs
United Kingdom Pearce (1992) as reproduced • Values span the various types • Weighted costs based on 6.1-7.0
in Friedrich (1995) of coal national fossil fuel usage
United States Ottinger et al (1990); • Estimates for NSPS are most • Weighted costs based on 2.6--4.5
Chernick and Caverhill (1990) appropriate national fossil fuel usage

and also because the estimates include older plants with lit-
tle or no pollution control devices (and thus large external
costs) and newer plants equipped with the latest control
technologies (with many of the external costs having been
'internalized'). In Germany, we would expect lower external
costs based on more stringent air quality regulations. In
addition to its own strict air quality standards, Sweden also
uses relatively few fossil fuel sources. While Swedish taxes, in
general, are among the highest of any nation, those levied on
coal-fired power plants do not appear to approximate estimated
external costs from other countries (taxes on plants using
coal to produce heat are much higher). Thus, using taxes
levied on coal-fired power plants as a proxy for external costs
in Sweden may represent a substantial underestimate.
Social environmental costs for W T E energy production
As with fossil fuel combustion, WTE plants also generate
environmental externalities` Proponents of the technology tend
to focus on its ability to protect human health by killing pathogens
and other bacteria that fester in garbage (Charles and Kiser,
1995). Those more sceptical of the technology, emphasize
potential human health and ecological risks as well as aesthetic
impacts, Like fossil fuels, WTE plants emit particulates, nitrogen
oxides and dioxins. In addition, however, WTE plants emit
heavy metals including lead and mercury and other air toxics
- the focus of public concern about the expansion of such
facilities. Recent technological and regulatory changes, however,
have reduced the air toxics emitted by WTE plants For example,
German legislation limits dioxin emissions from WTE plants
to 0.1 ng toxic equivalent (TE) per cubic meter (Schmitt-
Tegge, 1991), and new guidelines in the US, where municipal
waste combustors account for 3.1% of total dioxin emissions,
should reduce emissions by 75% (Rigo, 1995).
We rely on Josselyn (1993) to estimate externality costs
associated with WTE facilities. Josselyn's marginal damage
cost functions include mortality effects, morbidity effects,
materials effects, crop destruction, visibility impacts and
global warming contributions from criteria air pollutants
(PM, SO2, NOx, CO, CO2) and acid gases (HC1, HF1). Dam-
ages are limited to mortality effects and morbidity effects for
inorganic pollutants (metals such as Pb and Hg) and organic
pollutants (air toxics such as benzo-a-pyrene and PCBs).
This study estimates costs based on the average WTE facili-
ties at the time of the study, many of which, due to tighten-
ing standards, are either shutting down or being retrofitted.
Pollutant levels were recalculated for the criteria air pollut-
ants, as well as lead and mercury, to better reflect prevailing
technology and revised emission standards in each country.
A 1992 NREL study provides emissions per ton based on the
1991 US New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for a
WTE plant (SRI International, 1992).3 For the pollutants
3Revised standards were released in December 1995. However, as compli-
ance will take some time, we will use the 1991 standards. Noteworthy in the
new standards are limits set for mercury, cadmium and lead (USEPA,
1995).

Table 6 Estimating external costs for WTE plants

Country Study Assumptions External costs
(cents kWh -l )
All Josselyn (1993) • Algorithm for calculating US external costs is applicable to other countries
• One ton yields 525 kWh
• One tonne yields 578 kWh
• European mercury levels 95% less than the US (Darcey, 1993)
• Lead levels are for modern US plants
Germany • WTE follows 17. BImSchV emission standards 0.9-2.4
Sweden • Swedish plants follow Swedish EPA limits which do not provide for NOx or SO ~ 1.1-2.6
• Estimates of NO x based on most recent permits
• Estimates of SO 2 based on German standard
United Kingdom • WTE plants follow HM Inspector'ate of Pollution standards 4.0-5.4
United States • WTE plants follow the 1991 NSPS 1.7-3.2
aSome plants do have levels set for these pollutants.

not covered under the 1991 NSPS (lead, mercury and carbon
dioxide), the study did provide mean emissions from recently
constructed WTE plants. These figures were then adjusted
for each country based on their emission standards. The
corresponding legislation is listed in Table 6, along with
other assumptions and the estimates. Germany, Sweden,
and the US have relatively comparable levels of WTE external
costs. The UK, on the other hand, exhibits higher costs due
primarily to its high levels of permitted sulfur dioxide and
nitrous oxides emissions.
Comparing fossil fuels and WTE
The cost estimates presented in Tables 3-6 are summarized
in Figure 1. Clearly, private production costs for WTE are
significantly higher than for fossil fuel-fired power plants.
Externality costs, on the other hand, are lower for WTE
plants. WTE plants, however, do emit more air toxics. While
the quantifiable risk of air toxics emissions from WTE plants
are low, these pollutants tend to elevate public concern because
of the associated risk qualities and because of greater
uncertainty surrounding the impacts of these pollutants.
This may mean we should build more variability into the
externality estimate of the WTE plants. The debate over air
toxics notwithstanding, WTE generated energy is not cost-
competitive withfossil fuel generatedenergy even after account-
ing for both private production and social external costs.
The fact remains, however, that despite these differential
energy prices, WTE plants continue to operate with even
more plants in the planning and development stage. Because
our estimates represent average values across a wide variety
of plants, local differences in costs may account for the
decision to build a WTE plant. Alternatively, state or national
governments may be subsidizing the construction and opera-
tion of WTE facilities. In the US, for example, the 1978
Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) sought to
35
30
25
~o
e~
10
High High High High
Coal-low Coal-low
WTE-low WTE-Iow
Germany Sweden
Figure 1 Comparison of total costs for coal-fired and WTE production, high and low
Waste not, want not." M L Miranda and B Hale 593
promote the production of energy from renewable sources.
PURPA requires utilities to purchase electricity from facili-
ties generating electricity from renewable sources at special
prices. In 1990, WTE facilities received an average price of
5.59 cents kWh -~ with a range of 1.49-12.70 cents kWh -1)
(Curlee et al., 1994). The UK introduced the Non-Fossil-
Fuels-Obligation (NFFO) as part of the Electricity Act of
1989. The NFFO encourages the development of renewable
energy sources; and is funded by a levy on fossil fuels (Office
of Electricity Regulation, 1996). In Germany, the
TA-Siedlungsabfall requires that waste that cannot be recycled
or reused must be treated before being landfilled, thus
encouraging the use of WTE technologies.
Many countries have policies in place which directly or
indirectly encourage or subsidize WTE facilities. In consider-
ing how WTE facilities might overcome known energy price
differentials and whether government subsidies represent
rational policy, however, it is critical to consider the second
(and more important) objective of WTE: the safe and effec-
tive management of municipal solid waste.
Waste management approaches
In order to evaluate the desirability of WTE as a waste
management strategy, it is important to understand the context
in which waste policy decisions are made - both in terms of
total waste generated and government-stated preferences for
how that waste is handled.
Waste generation
Waste generation has generally increased worldwide over the
past several decades - including for the four case study
countries in this paper. The total amount of waste generated
in Germany rose 32% from 1975 to 1990 (see Table 7). Over
[ ] External cost
[ ] Productioncost
High High High High
Coal-low Coal-low
WTE-low WTE-low
United Kingdom United States
594 Waste not, want not: M L Miranda and B Hale

Table 7 Waste generation trends Table 8 Waste treatment in the case study countries

Country MSW generation (million tonnes) Country % Landlilled % Incinerated"

1975 1985
Germany 20.40 22.50
Sweden 2.40 2.65
United Kingdom 16.00 16.4a
United States 140.00 148.80
Sources: World Resources Institute 1988-1989, CSI Resource Systems
(1995), Porteous(1993), US EPA (1995).
a 1983 data.
the same time period, waste generation in Sweden increased
29%. In the U K and the US, it increased 25%o and 31%,
respectively.
Communities use a variety of approaches to manage waste,
including landfills, recycling programs, compost programs,
incineration, and WTE recovery facilities. Landfills have
been the traditional and dominant means of waste disposal.
In the US, for example, in 1992, 62%0of the waste generated
was landfilled, 17% was recycled, 4% was composted, 1%
was incinerated, and 16% was combusted in a WTE facility
(Figure 2) (Franklin Associates, 1994). Despite controversies
over the safety and management of landfills - controversies
which admittedly are based partly on fact and partly on fic-
t i o n - the four case study countries landfilled anywhere from
45% (Sweden) to 70% (UK) of their waste (Brisson, 1993).
Table 8 summarizes this information.
Legislative context
All four countries have enacted legislation in the past 10-15
years establishing guidelines for the safe and effective construc-
tion, management, closure and monitoring of landfills. In
addition, each piece of legislation outlines a waste manage-
ment hierarchy, which describes the preferred methods of
treatment for municipal solid waste. Waste reduction - the
most prized and most difficult goal - stands at the top of
these hierarchies.
Voicing a desire to reduce the amount of waste produced,
the Swedish parliament passed the Waste Bill in 1990. This
legislation sought an increase in the amount of materials
Energy recovery
16% Incineration
Cor
4
1991 Germany (1991) 66.3 30.5
Sweden (1991) 45 50
27.0 United Kingdom(1991) 70 12.5
3.1 United States (1992) 62 17
20.0
184.0 alncludes incineration and WTE. Sources: Brisson (1993); Franklin
Associates (1994).
recovered from municipal waste, and decreed that the final
treatment of the waste must be done in an environmentally
sound fashion (CSI Resource Systems Inc., 1995b). After
1994, no waste was to be delivered to a landfill without first
having undergone either separation or treatment. The legisla-
tion recommends banning some hazardous materials (eg,
mercury and cadmium) from the waste stream. It also requires
municipalities to develop specific waste management plans.
In Germany, a brand new piece of legislation came into
force in the fall of 1996. The Closed Substance Cycle and
Waste Management Act (Kreislaufwirtschafts- und Abfallge-
setz) was passed in July 1994 (Oslo Roundtable, 1995). The
act updates and moves beyond the 1986 Act on Avoidance
and Disposal of Waste. This new act clearly defines the legal
responsibility of producers not only for the waste they produce,
but also to avoid producing waste altogether. It defines a
waste management hierarchy at the top of which sits waste
avoidance. Where waste cannot be avoided, waste recovery is
prescribed. With a slight change from previous acts, energy
recovery4 (such as WTE) is given equal footing as materials
recovery (eg, recycling). However, the government can issue
mandates with regard to how specific materials should be
recovered. In the absence of such a mandate, the most
environmentally sound method of recovery should be chosen.
Finally, communities should pursue disposal when waste
cannot be recovered or when this is the most environmentally
sound option. In determining the latter, the producer must
consider: emissions, conservation of natural resources, use/
production of energy, and any increase in the presence of
hazardous materials due to the recovery process. If disposal
is chosen, it must be accomplished in such a way that human
health is not at risk, that animals and plants are not harmed,
and that soil, water and air are all protected from pollution.
Unlike Sweden and Germany, the U K has historically left
waste management in the hands of local authorities. As a
result, landfilling has been by far the preferred option. However,
this appears to be changing somewhat. The 1990 Environmental

Recycling
17% 4Interestingly enough, the act differentiates between energy recovery
(energetische Verwertung)and thermaltreatmentof waste.Energyrecovery
can only be pursued under specificconditions, including:
• the waste has a minimum caloric value of 11,000 kJ kg-l;
• the plant's firingefficiency must be 75% or higher;
drill • the heat produced must either be used by the producer or provided
62% to a third party;
• any wastes produced by the recovery process must be able to be
disposed of without further treatment.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd. 1994.
However,wasteundergoingthermaltreatmentfor the purposesof disposal
Figure 2 US Waste management methods (I 992) (in particular domesticwaste) is excluded from these requirements.

Protection Act focuses on pollution prevention. It tightens
standards on landfills, a move which will likely increase the
cost of landfill disposal substantially. The Act also requires
waste regulation authorities to develop waste disposal plans.
The 1995 government strategy for waste management, 'Mak-
ing Waste Work' lays out the standard hierarchy (reduction,
reuse, recovery, disposal). It also provides several 'primary
targets' for waste management for the year 2005, including a
reduction in the amount of waste going to landfills by 60%,
and an increase in the amount of material being recovered
by 40%. Further, the report states that environmental costs
and benefits should be taken into account when making
waste management decisions.
The US has a mixture of the two approaches. It set a
national standard through the 1976 Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) - revised in 1980 and 1984. At
the same time, it provides the states with leeway in their
waste management choices. In 1991, the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA) introduced new Subtitle D standards for
MSW landfills, requiring liners, collection of leachate, and
monitoring of groundwater - a move which will raise land-
fill costs across the board. With regard to WTE facilities, the
1984 amendments require them to take into account current
and future recycling requirements of their communities (Car-
lin, 1994). In addition, the federal government has been
pushing a waste management hierarchy that puts source
reduction at the top, followed by recycling, and finally WTE
and landfilling (USEPA, 1995). Many states have moved
beyond the basic federal standards for waste management.
As of 1994, forty-one of the fifty states had comprehensive
waste reduction/recycling laws. Many states have also
undertaken bans to keep certain materials out of landfills.
Forty-two states now ban car batteries and twenty states ban
yard wastes from landfills (Steuteville, 1995).
Objective 2: WTE as a waste management
strategy
Earlier in the paper we concluded that even after incorporat-
ing differentials in externality costs, producing energy via a
WTE facility is more expensive than via a fossil fuel plant.
Of course, a WTE facility does more than just produce
energy: it reduces the weight of waste requiring disposal by
75% (SRI International, 1992). As such, it is important to
compare the private 'production' costs associated with manag-
ing waste by land filling vs by combusting it for energy recovery,
as well as the social environmental costs associated with
each method.
Private production costs for landfills
The costs associated with landfilling waste arise from a variety
of factors. As with fossil fuel and WTE plants, there is both
a capital cost for landfill construction as well as operation
and maintenance costs. Additionally, after a landfill closes, it
must be monitored for leachate and landfill gas, both of
which must be treated in some manner. Post-closure activi-
Waste not, want not." M L Miranda and B Hale 595
$50
$45
$40
$35
$30
$25
$20
$15
$10
$5
$0
Northeast Southeast Pacific Central Mountain
Figure 3 Average US landfill tipping fees by region, 1992
ties usually continue for at least thirty years (SRI International,
1992).
As shown earlier in Table 8, landfilling has been the most
common method of waste management in three of our four
study countries. In Sweden, it runs a close second. This has
typically been due to the fact that landfill disposal fees have
been low and landfills generally easy to site. This, however, is
changing. With increasing regulations, landfills are becom-
ing more and more expensive to build. In the UK, the land-
fill tipping fee 5 is predicted to rise from £5 to £30 per tonne
($8 to $48) in 1993, to £10 to £45 per tonne ($16-$72) by the
year 2000 (Petts, 1994). In Sweden, the average landfill disposal
costs already equal the average WTE cost (All That Remains,
1993). Furthermore, certain areas are having trouble finding
suitable sites for landfills. Areas with high water tables or
high population densities are short of space. In the northeastern
region of the US, a region with high population densities
and strong environmental legislation, landfill tipping fees
are 60% above the national average - see Figure 3 (Franklin
Associates, 1994). Regions that have the available space are
more frequently finding that local citizens do not want a
landfill sited near them.
Assuming that landfill operators have a good sense of the
costs of running such a facility - certainly a reasonable
assumption - the per tonne tipping fee charged at the land-
fill should provide a good estimate of the private production
costs associated with processing a tonne of MSW through
landfill disposal. High land acquisition costs, strict regula-
tions on construction guidelines, post-closure monitoring
costs, etc, should all be reflected in a higher landfill tipping
fee. Similarly, economies of scale associated with a large
landfill or energy benefits generated by burning off trapped
methane gas 6 should drive down the per tonne tipping fee.
Using data from Millock (1993); Petts (1994) and Franklin
Associates (1994), we developed estimates of tipping fees in
Sweden, the U K and the US. The German estimate was
calculated based on a ratio of German to British tipping
fees, as provided in Petts.
Table 9 shows the range of tipping fees for the four case
study countries. The ranges provided typically represent the
cost differences between old and new technologies. For the
5Landfillstypicallycharge a certain amount per tonne of wastedisposed
of at the facility- called a landfill tipping fee.
6Approximately6% of operating landfills in the US burn the methane
gas they trap to produce energy (SRI International, 1992a, 1992b,
1992c). The energycan either be used for on-site needs or sold.
596 Waste not, want not: M L Miranda and B Hale

Table 9 Private production costs for landfill and WTE waste Table 10 Landfill air emissions (Ibs. per ton MSW landfilled)
management approaches
Pollutant Emission from Emission from Weighted
Country Landfill tipping fees Private production cost landfill with landfill with no average
(per tonne) of WTE a (per tonne) methane recovery methane recovery emission
Germany $ 48.39 $ 99.45-182.32 NO x 0.109 b 0c 0.01744
Sweden $15.38- 23.08 $ 53.85-61.54 CO 0.015 b 0.031 c 0.02844
United Kingdom $ 8.06-48.39 $ 80.40-90.91 CO 2 437 b 317.1c 336.284
United States $14.33- 54.01 $ 65.40-130.79 Methane 14.42 b 123c 105.6272
Benzene 0.05 a 0.101 a 0.09284
aCalculated from Table 4. Chloroform 7.00E-03 a 0.015 a 0.01372
TCE 0.013 a 0.026 a 0.02392

TCE: 1,1,1-trichloroethane. ffrom Josselyn (1993); bfrom SRI Inter-

US, they also provide some insight regarding intra-country national (1992); Cfrom Franklin Associates (1994).
variability. It is also important to realize that these ranges
are average values, and as such, tipping fees at any individual
facility may be substantially higher or lower than the bounds study, 6% of American landfills practice methane energy
on the range. For example, Union County, New Jersey paid recovery. Because the landfills practicing energy recovery
$138 per ton for landfill disposal before the construction of tend to be larger, we assume that more than 6% of waste
a WTE facility, a far cry above the average tipping fee for the landfilled goes to a facility practicing methane energy recovery
northeastern US of $49 (O'Connor, 1994). and adjust upward by 10%. As a result, we weight our emis-
sions estimates assuming 84% of the landfills do not practice
Private production costs for W T E facilities methane energy recovery, and 16% do.
Similarly the tipping fee at a WTE facility should provide the As material in the landfill degrades, it also produces a
best estimate of per tonne private production costs. liquid - the leachate. In the past, no measures were taken to
Unfortunately, tipping fees were not available for all the case prevent the leachate, which may contain toxic materials,
study countries. Instead, we converted our private produc- from seeping into local groundwater. However, legislative
tion costs from earlier in the paper from cost per kilowatt changes in each country required landfills to collect and
hour to cost per tonne. Our private production costs estimates treat the leachate. Again, data on the number of lined vs
correspond well with known tipping fees at WTE facilities in unlined landfills in each country were unavailable. Therefore,
the US and the UK. Based solely on private production we base our estimate on the same assumption that Josselyn
costs, Table 9 demonstrates that landfilling is a cheaper waste made in her study, that 70% of landfill capacity is lined and
management option on average. 30% unlined. We will assume this to be true across all countrie~
Although this may not accurately represent the situation in
External costs for landfills all countries, the resulting cost is relatively low; and the
Like fossil fuel combustion plants and WTE facilities, land- overall results should not be affected significantly by this
fills generate social environmental costs~ These externalities assumption. We rely on a study by SRI International (1992)
include both air emissions and water pollution from leach- which provides a range of leachate value from solid waste
ate. Although they do not emit gases from smokestacks, landfills, as shown in Table 11. We assume that the lined
landfills do produce gas; and this gas does have an external landfills capture some leachate in the liner, and allow some
cost. To prevent a dangerous build-up of this gas, landfills to escape. In contrast, unlined landfills allow the escape of
now generally collect the gas and release it safely into the all of the leachate.
atmosphere. (However, it should be noted that no collection Total social environmental costs for landfilling waste are
system is able to capture 100%oof the gas produced.) The gas calculated based on the air emissions data and leachate delivery
produced in a landfill consists mainly of methane which is a shown in Tables 10 and 11. These figures are multiplied by
potent greenhouse gas with a warming potential twenty-five the relevant marginal damage cost functions from Josselyn's
times that of carbon dioxide (Franklin Associates, 1994). To study. The one exception to this is the calculation for methane.
reduce the damage done by methane, some landfills have
begun the practice of flaring the gas before releasing it,
Table 11 Leachate composition from MSW landfills (Ibs per ton
which essentially converts the methane to carbon dioxide.
MSW landfilled)
Recognizing the energy production potential of this gas,
some of these landfills use it to produce electricity. Pollutant Captured by liner Escaped leachate
Unfortunately, data on landfill emissions were not avail- (low) (high) (low) (high)
able for each of the countries. Therefore, we base our emis- As 2.43E-06 8.02E-04 4.86E-07 9.53E-04
sions estimate on data from only one of these countries, the Cd 2.43E-07 7.02E-05 4.86E-08 8.34E-05
US. Air quality impacts were calculated using emissions Cr 1.51E-05 8.02E-04 2.92E-06 9.53E-04
Cu 1.94E-06 7.02E-04 4.86E-07 8.34E-04
data from studies by Franklin Associates, by SRI International Ni 9.96E-06 1.03E-03 1.94E-06 1.22E-03
and Josselyn, and are listed in Table 10. As landfills differ in Pb 3.89E-06 5.10E-04 7.29E-07 6.08E-04
their treatment of landfill gas, we adjust these data to account Hg 9.72E-08 2.50E-05 2.43E-08 2.96E-05
for different practices. Based on information in the SRI Sources: Josselyn (1993), SRI International (1992).
 Waste not, want not." M L Miranda and B Hale 597

Table 12 Landfill external costs Table 13 Leachate Composition for an Ash monofill (Ibs per ton
MSW)
Externality Cost range (per tonne MSW landfilled)
Pollutant (low) (high)
Air Emissions $ 2.42-13.16
Leachate $ 0.00-0.98 As ND 3.89E-06
Total $ 2.42--14.14 Cd ND 2.43E-07
Cr ND 4.86E-07
Cu ND ND
Ni ND ND
Since Josselyn does not use an individual estimate for methane, Pb ND 4.86E-07
Hg ND ND
we apply a marginal damage cost which was used in a recent
study by Pearce and Brisson (1995) instead. Summing the Source: SRI International (1992). ND: not detected.
impacts from air emissions and leachate, we arrive at a total
estimated social environmental cost (Table 12). It is evident
that a majority of a landfill's environmental impact arises (1992) which looked at leachate from ash monofills. The
from its air emissions. leachate values, as summarized in Table 13, ranged from
extremely low to not detectable. Using these results and
External costs of W T E Josselyn's marginal damage cost equations, we calculated
external costs for ash monofills of less than 1 cent tonne-
The external costs of WTE air emissions were covered
1. This correlates well with the results listed in Goodwin
earlier. In addition, WTE facilities must manage the toxic
(1993) (see footnote 6).
materials present in the ash residue. This ash is typically
disposed of in a monofill. 7 Our analysis of the external
Comparing external costs for landfills and W T E
costs associated with WTE ash revealed that there are no
significant external costs associated with ash monofills. We Table 14 compares the estimated social environmental costs
based our analysis on a study completed by SRI International for landfilling and WTE facilities. Since the landfill estimates
are all based on the same data, there is no inter-country
variation. The WTE estimates are converted to per tonne
7The characteristics of a monofill are different from those of a typical estimates from the values in Table 6. In Germany, Sweden
MSW landfill. Due to the ash's low organic content, there is no odor as and the US, the external costs for the two waste management
associated with a MSW landfill, nor is there a food source for vermin,
options have overlapping ranges, indicating similar external
which are potential disease vectors. Incinerator ash does indeed contain
high levels of heavy metals and other toxic materials, however leaching costs. In the UK, WTE presents much greater external costs
of these materials has not generally been shown to be a problem. Heavy than landfills. This is once again due to the less stringent
metals leach typically under acidic conditions. By storing the ash in a
monofill, acidic conditions are avoided, as the ash itself is typically
British air emission standards.
basic. In his book on incinerator ash, Goodwin discusses the results of
seven different field tests of ash monofill leachate (1993). He states that Comparing landfills and W T E
the 'actual field results prove that ash exhibits environmentally benign
characteristics.' The studies show that levels of heavy metals in the lea- Figure 4 presents a comparison of the summed private produc-
chate approximate the USEP?Csprimary drinking water standards Further, tion and the social environmental costs that have been
the results of another study presented in Goodwin indicate that the presented in Tables 9 and 14. It is obvious that landfilling is
levels of heavy metals continue to drop with time, so that within a
period of four years, most metals are not even above detection limits. a less expensive option when only the waste management

$200
$180
$160 • High estimate
• Low estimate
$140

$120

$100

$80

$0 -
LF WTE LF WTE LF WTE LF WTE
Germany Sweden United Kingdom United States

Figure 4 Comparison of private production and social environmental for landfills and WTE. $ per tonne
598 Waste not, want not: M L Miranda and B Hale

Table 14 External costs for landfill and WTE i i Landfill [] WTE

$200 (low estimate) (low estimate)
Country Landfill (cost per tonne) WTE (cost per tonne) U [] Landfill. [] WTE .

Germany $ 2.42- 14.14 $ 5.17-13.73 $150

Sweden $ 2.42- 14.14 $ 6.19-14.75
United Kingdom $ 2.42- 14.14 $ 22.94-31,50 $100
United States $ 2.42- 14.14 $10.08-18.64
r..) $50
o

so
options are taken into consideration. This should come as Germany Sweden United United
Kingdom States
no surprise, since landfilling, as we have already pointed out,
is the more common waste management strategy. However, Figure 5 Total private production and social environmental
landfill tipping fees are expected to rise in the future. costs of managing one tonne of waste and generating equivalent
Furthermore, uncertainties about the value of external impacts, energy production
especially about the impact of methane on global climate, as
well as the human health impacts from air toxics from incinera- Table 15 Total private production and social environmental costs
tion, could also affect the actual costs of each option. Finally, of managing one tonne of waste and generating equivalent energy
production
WTE offers more than just an alternative waste manage-
ment strategy. The next section of the paper bundles the Country Landfill (1 tonne)+ fossil WTE (1 tonne)
fuels (578 kWh)
waste management side with the energy production side for
a more complete analysis of WTE. Germany $105.94- 1 6 3 . 1 0 $104.58-195.22
Sweden $ 50.71- 76.87 $ 59.95-76,60
United Kingdom $ 70.02- 1 3 5 . 3 6 $103.28-122.25
Bringing the two objectives together United States $ 62.99- 131.15 $ 75.39-149.27

WTE facilities maintain two distinct objectives - producing

energy and managing waste. As such, in order to fairly evalu-
ate the competitiveness of the technology, both objectives
must be considered simultaneously. To do this, we estimate
the private production and externality costs for combusting
one tonne of MSW in a WTE facility. We compare those
costs to the private production and externality costs of land-
filling one tonne of MSW and generating 578 kWh s of electric-
ity in a fossil fuel-fired power plant.
Based on the sum of the private production and social
environmental costs, WTE becomes a competitive alterna-
tive in those communities where the fossil fuel/landfill combina-
tion is operating at the high end of the cost range, and the
WTE facility is operating at the low end of the cost range
(see Figure 5 and Table 15). The former is likely to be true in
densely populated areas, where land values and/or water
tables are high, and where electricity is being produced in a
relatively 'dirty' facility (eg, an older plant burning high-
sulfur coal). The latter is likely to hold in communities where
state-of-the-art WTE technology is installed and where
opportunities exist for marketing the higher efficiency energy
products, like steam and hot water, in addition to electricity.
Caveat on waste management hierarchies
A WTE facility represents only a component of the overall
solid waste management strategy. As such, it is important to
evaluate WTE in terms of its contributions to the goals and
objectives laid out in a community's or country's solid waste
management hierarchy. In all four case study countries except
Germany, materials recovery is given priority over waste
incineration. In Germany, it sometimes has equal footing.
SOn average, WTE facilities generate 578 kWh of electricity for every
tonne of waste they process
These two goals, materials recovery and energy recovery
may both complement and conflict with one another. Remov-
ing non-combustibles such as glass and metals through
recycling and organic wastes through composting prior to
combustion, increases the caloric content of the remaining
waste, and decreases the toxicity of WTE air emissions. The
metals can also clog the system, increasing operation and
maintenance costs (Kiser, 1993). Thus, pre-sorting waste
(producing refuse-derived-fuel) to remove non-combustibles
and organics dovetails nicely with recycling programs and
enhances the combustion process as well.
The story is more complicated, however, for materials like
paper and plastics. With high caloric content and established
recycling markets, different interest groups may battle over
whether these materials should be recycled or incinerated.
However, there is a limit to the number of times paper fibers
can be recycled. At the very least, WTE represents a final
disposal for worn out fibers. In addition, plastics recycling
can be a very expensive venture. Some plastics, due to their
use in food or medicinal packaging are not necessarily suit-
able for recycling. In these instances, WTE may represent a
more appropriate management option. These issues will likely
be resolved differently depending on local economic vari-
ables and community attitudes. Germany's Kreislaufwirt-
schaftsgesetz has mandated very strict recycling quotas. At
the same time, Germany maintains a healthy WTE industry.
Similarly, a study in the US of 66 communities with WTE
facilities revealed that these communities also typically have
higher than average recycling rates, indicating good compat-
ibility between WTE and recycling (Kiser, 1993).
More significant conflicts may exist between WTE produc-
tion technologies and community source reduction goals.
WTE plants exhibit significant economies of scale, typically

favoring large plants over small ones, and require a stable
waste feedstock. This in turn requires either a large catch-
ment area (and the ensuing equity concerns) or a small
population generating substantial amounts of waste - run-
ning counter to stated national goals of waste reduction.
WTE may represent an interim opportunity to reduce the
amount of waste a community landfills, while taking advantage
of the resources still within the waste - mainly its caloric
content. Once communities are able to achieve waste reduc-
tion, the WTE plants may utilize other sources of fuel in the
combustion process. Already, in Sweden, WTE plants burn
not only waste, but also wood chips, coal and certain industrial
wastes in times of high energy need. Considering the tighter
emission standards associated with WTE facilities, this may
provide a better alternative than a typical coal-fired combus-
tion plant.
Conclusions
The task of evaluating the private production and social
environmental costs of waste-to-energy facilities is a dif-
ficult one. In order to evaluate critically the energy produc-
tion and waste management objectives of waste-to-energy
technologies, our analysis draws from the work of over thirty
authors. Such analysis, which essentially bundles together
the jointly produced products of energy production and
waste management, provides a clearer picture of the relative
competitiveness of waste-to-energy technologies.
In evaluating the externality impacts of fossil fuel-fired
plants, landfills, and waste-to-energy plants, we were able to
obtain reasonably good information on air and water qual-
ity impacts, but were unable to assess aesthetic externalities
associated with siting such facilities. Presumably, people would
be less than enthusiastic about living near any of these sorts
of facilities, but they may assign higher disamenity values to
some over others. If so, we were unable to capture such dif-
ferences in our analysis. We do know that large WTE plants,
which take advantage of economies of scale, also require a
larger catchment area. Thus, residents directly affected by
the WTE plant may feel disproportionately burdened by the
externalities - even more so, if the WTE plant receives waste
from other communities to which nearby residents feel no
loyalty. Decision-makers would be wise to address such equity
concerns directly in determining whether a WTE plant is the
right answer for a particular community.
In addition, much of the controversy surrounding waste
combustion involves public concern regarding air toxics.
This concern may result from a belief by the public that
estimates of quantitative risk are flawed, that qualitative
attributes of the risk (like equitability or voluntariness) are
important and not being considered sufficiently well, and/or
that uncertainty over potential interactive effects among
chemicals should lead policy-makers to err on the side of
extreme caution. All of these concerns are important, and
again, are not captured well in this analysis.
These two important omissions notwithstanding, produc-
ing energy from waste does not price-compete well with
Waste not, want not: M L Miranda and B Hale 599
producing energy from fossil fuels. However, communities
do not choose WTE based on their energy needs. WTE
plants are typically built based on a community's waste
management needs. The question then becomes; do the waste
management benefits gained from a WTE plant override the
extra expense in producing energy to make the idea a viable
option? The answer will depend on several factors. In general,
WTE plants may represent a reasonable alternative, if several
of the following conditions hold:
(1) Landfill private production costs are high. This typi-
cally holds where land is expensive, and/or where the
area is densely populated.
(2) Landfill externality costs are high. This typically holds
where water tables are high and/or where landfill manag-
ers are not recovering the energy available from methane
emissions.
(3) Fossil fuel production and externality costs are high.
This typically holds where older plants are burning dirtier
fuels like coal.
(4) WTE private production costs are low. This typically
holds in state-of-the-art facilities that are large enough
to take advantage of the resulting economies of scale.
(5) WTE production processes are able to maximize energy
efficiency. This typically holds in plants that can market
either hot water or steam, in addition to electricity and
where some pre-sorting has increased the per tonne
caloric value of the waste.
(6) WTE externality costs are low. This typically holds where
processes are in place to reuse ash, where state-of-the-
art air pollution control technology has been installed
and where pre-sorting minimizes the potential for air
toxics release.
With an increasing supply of waste and increasing demand
for energy, the markets for WTE energy products in our four
case study countries are likely to grow. However, just as this
paper analysed WTE within the broader context of energy
production and waste management, communities must evalu-
ate WTE within the context of local political, economic and
environmental contexts. Goals and objectives regarding solid
waste management, environmental impacts, production and
consumption patterns, and the composition of energy produc-
tion will all affect the suitability of waste-to-energy produc-
tion technology.
References
All That Remains (1993) The Economist 29 May pp 2-18
]~strand, L (1990). Municipal waste incineration - an environmentally
benign energy source for district heating. ASHRAE Transactions, II,
907-910.
Barnes, J (1995). Processfor resolvingash issues. Solid Waste Technolo-
gies. Sept~Oct, 00, 24-30.
Berenyi, E, & Gould, R (1993). Municipal waste combustion in 1993.
Waste Age. Nov, 00, 51-56.
Bernow, S and Marron, D (1990) Valuation °fEnvir°nmentalExternali"
ties for Energy Planning and Operations. May 1990 Update (Boston,
MA: Tellus Institute, May 18)
Brisson, I (1993). Packagingwaste and the environment:economicsand
policy. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 8, 183-292.
600 Waste not, want not: M L Miranda and B Hale
Carlin, J (1994). The impact of flow control and tax reform on owner-
ship and growth in the US Waste-to-energy industry. Monthly Energy
Review. Sept, 00, xvii-xxvii.
Charles, M, & Kiser, J (1995). Waste to energy: 126 plants and still
growing. MSW Management Elements, 00, 76-81.
Charles, M, & Kiser, J (1995). Waste-to-energy: benefits beyond waste
disposal. Solid Waste Technologies. Industry Sourcebook, 00, 12-14.
Chernick, P and CaverhiU, E (1989) The Valuationof Externalitiesfrom
Energy Production, Delivery, and Use: Fall 1989 Update A Report to
the Boston Gas Co, Dee 29
Chessire, J (1993). Environmental impacts of electricity generation:
some public policy dimensions, IEE Proceedings-A. Jan, 140(1),
47-52.
CSI Resource Systems, Inc (1995) Environmental Legislation And The
Regulation Of Waste Management In Sweden NREL/TP-430-7976.
May
CSI Resource Systems, Inc (1995) Integrated Solid Waste Management
In GermanyNREL/TP-430-7978. July
Curlee, T, Schexnayder, S, Vogt, D, Wolfe, A, Kelsay, M and Feldman,
D (1994) Waste-to-Energyin the UnitedStates: A SocialandEconomic
Assessment Quorum Books (Westport, CT)
Darcey, S (1993). NREL identifies means of reducing mercury emis-
sions. World Wastes. Sept, 00, 10-11.
ECO Northwest et al (1986) 'Estimatingenvironmentalcosts and benefits
for five generating resources' Commissioned by Bonneville Power
Administration. March
Franklin Associates, Ltd (1994) The Role Of RecyclingIn ISWM To The
Year 2000 Keep America Beautiful, Inc. Sept
Friedrich, R, & Voss, A (1993). External costs of electricity generation.
Energy Policy. Feb, 00, 114-122.
Friedrich, R, (0000) 'Externe kosten der electrizitfitserzeugung' (External
costs of electricity production) Atomwirtschaft 40(2), 83-88
Goodwin, R, PhD (1993) Combustion AshlResidue Management: An
Engineering Perspective (Park Ridge, New Jersey: Noyes)
Hilts, M (1994). WTE: Building a record of dependable waste disposal
and environmental safety. Solid Waste Technologies. Sourcebook, 00,
12-16.
Hohmeyer, O (1989) Soziale Kosten des Energieverbrauchs(Social costs
of energy use). (Berlin: Springer Verlag)
Holmes, J (1992) 'The marketing challenge facing incineration in the
UK' WarmerBulletinno 34. Aug and p 19. no 34. Aug, p 19
Kiser, J (1993). Recycling and WTE: working well together. Solid Waste
and Power Sourcebook, 00, 12-20.
Johnke, B (1992). Waste incineration - an important element of the
integrated waste management system in Germany. Waste Manage-
ment and Research, 10, 303-315.
Josselyn, E (1993) The EnvironmentalExternal Costs of Post-Consumer
Recycling and WTE Combustion of Municipal Solid Waste Master's
Thesis, Colorado School of Mines, Aug 23
Krupnick, A and Burtraw, D (1995) 'The social costs of electricity: do
the numbers add up?' Sixty-fifth Annual Conference of the Southern
Economic Association. New Orleans, LA Nov 18-20, Nov 18-20
McLeod, R (1993). Slow progress for power from renewables. Petroleum
Review. May, 00, 217
Millock, K (1993). Packaging waste management in Sweden: a product
charge. Resources, Conservationand Recycling, 10, 349-375.
Murphy, M (1995). Using fluidized bed boilers for burning refuse-
driven fuel. Solid Waste Technologies. Sept/Oct, 00, 32-40.
Niessen, W (1993). Municipal waste combustors: environmentallysound
power plants. Solid Waste and Power Jan~Feb,00, 12-16.
NREL (1995) Integrated Solid Waste Management of Springfield, MA
NREL/TP-430-8137. November
NREL (1995) Integrated Solid WasteManagement of Minneapolis, MN
NREL/TP-430-20473. November
NUTEK (1995) Energy in Sweden
O'Connor, J (1994). Building a truly integrated waste management
system. Solid Waste Technologies. JullAug, 00, $2-S 10.
Office of electricity regulation (1996) FossilFuel Levy Reduced R34/96.
16 July
Oslo Roundtable (1995) 'The environment policy concept of the closed
substance cycleand Waste Management Act (1995):a German Presenta-
tion' Oslo Roundtable Conference on Sustainable Production and
Consumption. Feb http:llwww.statkart.nolmdlhtmlltysk.htm
Ottinger, R et al (1990) EnvironmentalCosts of Electricity Pace University
Center for EnvironmentalLegal Studies (New York: Oceana Publica-
tions)
Pearce, D, Bann, C and Georgiou, S (1992) The Social Costs of Fuel
Cycles CSERGE. London
Pearce, D W, Brisson, I (1995) 'The economics of waste management'
Waste Treatment and Disposal lssues in Environmental Science and
TechnologyVol 3, pp 131-152. Royal Society of Chemistry. Cambridge,
UK
Petts, J (1994) 'Incinerationas a waste management option' WasteIncinera-
tion and the Environment. Issues in EnvironmentalScience and Technol-
ogy Vol 2, pp 1-25. Royal Society of Chemistry. Cambridge, UK
Porteous, A (1993). Developments in and environmental impacts of
electricity generation from MSW and landfill gas combustion, lEE
Proceedings-A, 140(1), 86-93.
Randall, D (1994) An Evaluation of the Cost of Incinerating Wastes
Containing PVC ASME-CRTD Vol 31
Reichel, H, & Schirmer, U (1989). Waste incineration plants in the FRG.
Werkstoffe und Korrosion. Mar, 00, 135-141.
Rhyner, C, Schwartz, L, Wenger, R and Kohrell, M (1995) WasteManage-
ment and Resource Recovery Boca Raton, Florida. CRC Press
Rigo, H (1995). Sources of dioxin in the environment. Solid Waste
Technologies. Jan/Feb, 00, 36--39.
Schmitt-Tegge, J (1991). Stellenwert der mfillverbrennung (value of
waste incineration). VGB Kraftwerktechnik, 71(8), 772-775.
SRI International (1992) 'Data summary of MSW management alterna-
tives' Vol I. Report Text. NREL/TP-431-4988A. Oct
Starfelt, N (1994), External Costs of Electricity Generation in Sweden
Uranium and Nuclear Energy." Proceedings of the International
Symposium held by the Uranium Institute Vol 19, pp 152-159
Steuteville, R (1995). The state of garbage in America. Biocycle. May,
00, 30--41.
Sullivan, P, Hallenbeck, W and Brenniman, G (1993) Municipal Solid
Waste Combustion University of Illinois at Chicago. Aug
US Congress (1994) Office of Technology Assessment Studies of the
Environmental Costs of Electricity OTA-ETI-134, U.S. Government
Printing Office. Washington DC. Sept
United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency (1995) 'Characterization
of municipal solid waste in the United States: Update' http:llwww.epa.govl
docslOSWRCRAlnon-hwlmuncpYMSWrpt951msw95.txt.html
World Resources Institute and the International Institute for Environ-
ment and Development. (1988) WorldResources 1988-89 (New York:
Basic Books), p 314