This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.


Commentary: Don’t look to the energy sector to solve our waste problem

WRITTEN BYRoger Ballentine / Green Strategies, 

plastic waste

Whether waste-to-energy is “renewable” is debatable. It’s also irrelevant, writes Roger Ballentine, president of Green Strategies, Inc.

Roger Ballentine is the president of Green Strategies, Inc.

Working on environmental issues for a living is not for the faint of heart. It always feels like there are too many problems and too few solutions — and even the solutions can turn out to be problems. 

One big problem getting a lot of attention is plastic waste. Everyone has heard the admonition to “reduce, reuse, and recycle.” The increasingly ubiquitous use of reusable water bottles, shopping bags, and straws are signs that we are getting better at reducing and reusing. When it comes to recycling, however, we may be heading in the wrong direction. Prior to severe new international restrictions on imports enacted in 2018, the U.S. was sending 4,000 shipping containers of materials per day to China for recycling — including about a third of our waste plastic. In 2018, China accepted only about 4.5% of our plastic. Since these restrictions took effect, hundreds of towns and cities across the country have either shut down or greatly reduced their recycling programs. Our waste is piling up.

And perhaps the mother of all environmental problems is climate change. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world’s leading authority on the issue, has declared that in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change we need to transition to a net-zero carbon economy by mid-century. Such “economy-wide” decarbonization includes electricity, heavy industry, transportation, and agriculture. Of these sectors, electricity might be the most important. If we can decarbonize the grid, we not only eliminate the tremendous amount of greenhouse gases we emit in producing electricity, we also then can electrify other sectors (like transportation, the production of heat, and some industrial processes) knowing they in turn will be powered by climate-friendly energy. But today, about two-thirds of our electric grid is powered by greenhouse gas-emitting fossil energy. We have a long way to go.

What do these two problems have to do with each other? One of the ways we have dealt with municipal solid waste in the U.S. is to incinerate it. And through incineration, you can produce electricity that is then put on the grid (termed “waste-to-energy” or “WTE”). Some states deem WTE to be “renewable energy” and include it in policies that subsidize and support other forms of renewable energy, like wind and solar. Now, in the face of mounting waste including more and more plastic, the incineration industry believes that we can kill two birds with one stone: dispose of our mounting waste with more incineration and help fight climate change with more “renewable energy.” Sounds great, right?

Um, no. 

Regarding “bird #1” — the plastic and waste crisis — incineration is not the answer. In addition to causing local air pollution and health impacts, more demand for waste streams that include otherwise recyclable materials will further undercut the economics of our already struggling recycling. And if incineration is seen by consumers as a “solution” to our plastics crisis, it could undermine our progress on improving reduction and reuse behaviors. The WTE stone might just kill the wrong bird.

“Bird #2” — climate change — is the big bird, and unfortunately, the WTE “stone” badly misses its target. Whether WTE is “renewable” is debatable. It’s also irrelevant. What the climate cares about — and what matters in our efforts to decarbonize the grid — are greenhouse gas emissions. Those of us who work on climate change support wind and solar because they are zero emission, not because they are “renewable.” To decarbonize the grid, we need all forms of zero-carbon generation — and we need a lot more of it. Stated differently, we need to stop adding carbon-intensive generation — such as waste incineration — to our energy mix and rapidly phase out the dirty generation we have. 

Is burning garbage green? In Sweden, there’s little debate »

Adding more waste-to-energy generation would set us back in our critical need to decarbonize the grid. Even before China’s import restrictions, half of the carbon dioxide emissions from waste incineration came from plastic. Plastic is made from fossil fuels and contains a lot of embedded carbon which is released to the atmosphere when combusted. With declining recycling rates, we will have only more plastic in our waste stream. The dirty secret (literally) is that the energy produced from this mixed waste incineration is nearly as greenhouse gas intensive as coal and worse than natural gas. To make matters worse, some states include WTE in “renewable” energy subsidy programs, which means this dirty source of energy competes directly with zero emission renewables like wind and solar.

The urgent task of decarbonizing our electric grid is immensely challenging. At a time that we must rapidly add clean energy to the grid, we cannot afford to take a step backward with waste-to-energy. Our only option is to move forward.

Read More

ENN Contributor's picture

Thank ENN for the Post!

Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.


Laurie-Anne MICHNICK's picture
Laurie-Anne MICHNICK on Dec 2, 2019 8:17 pm GMT

This is an insightful article, unfortunately there are a few points, although not being the focus here, that I disagree on: The first one is stating that solar and wind are zero-emissions technologies. This over-used statement is misleading and can be dangerous given that climate change has become a very popular movement where myths can travel fast. Indeed, the sourcing and fabrication of solar and wind materials and equipment usually result from energy-intensive processes. The second remark is on stating that the renewable qualification is less important than the zero emissions characteristics. Being renewable is of uttermost importance for energy security, one obvious example is how renewables have seriously started getting more and more attention in Europe after the Russians episodes of implementing severe gas feed cuts to the West.

Matt Chester's picture
Matt Chester on Dec 2, 2019 10:58 pm GMT

This over-used statement is misleading and can be dangerous given that climate change has become a very popular movement where myths can travel fast. Indeed, the sourcing and fabrication of solar and wind materials and equipment usually result from energy-intensive processes.

While certainly true that construction of any sort of materials don't exist in a carbon vacuum and have a footprint, but I don't think it's terribly misleading. We don't often talk about the carbon emissions of building the coal plants, just the fuel burning. So why must the production of solar/wind infrastructure be pegged with the 'burden' of these emissions and not the rest of the industry? Maybe the move is instead to talk about whole construction to demolition carbon emissions for them all, because when you do that the renewable sources will still come out quite ahead

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »