Waste-to-Energy Incineration

Greenhouse gas emissions compared to other waste treatment and energy production

RVF rapport 2004:15

RVFs comments and the Profu report entitled CO2 Emissions from Waste Incineration in Sweden ISSN 1103-4092

RVF rapport 2004:15 ISSN 1103-4092 RVF Service AB Tryck: Daleke Grafiska 2004 Upplaga: 1000 ex

Foreword
This report presents the results of a study into the content of fossil material in the waste incinerated at plants which the Swedish Association of Waste Management (RVF) classifies as waste-to-energy plants currently 26 plants. Carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions from waste incineration are also covered, and a comparison is drawn with other waste management processes, including alternative energy production using fuels other than waste. The purpose of the study is to produce a factor for CO2 emissions from waste incineration, and to determine what proportion of the waste is made up of fossil material. Another aim is to look into emissions of total greenhouse gases and compare this to alternative management methods and energy production. The study has been carried out by Johan Sundberg and Mattias Olofsson of the Profu consultancy firm in Gothenburg, Sweden. This report contains RVFs own summary and comments on Profus investigation, as well as the Profu report in its entirety.

Malm, November 2003 Weine Wiqvist CEO Hkan Rylander Chairman, RVF Waste Incineration work group

Introduction and aims

This report is in two parts. The first part comprises RVFs summary of the Profu report entitled CO2 Emissions from Waste Incineration in Sweden, along with RVFs own comments. RVF has also proposed how waste incineration should be viewed considering its content of renewable material. The second part comprises the Profu report entitled CO2 Emissions from Waste Incineration in Sweden in its entirety. There is no fixed definition of biofuel, nor of how large a percentage of waste can be considered biofuel. In the 1990s, the Swedish Biofuel Commission found that approximately 85% of waste could be considered biofuel. However, this has not been proved once and for all. However, there are several statutory documents, such as EC directives, ordinances and regulations, and even various standards and proposals etc., in which the term biofuel is used in different ways. There is therefore a high risk of varying interpretations of different documents. For this reason, RVF initiated a study, the results of which are presented in this report. The aim was to produce a factual foundation for determining what proportion of the waste incinerated today can be considered biofuel. The limitation point is the household and industrial waste currently used as fuel at the plants that RVF classifies as waste-to-energy incineration plants, comprising 26 plants at present. RVF considers it important to be able to establish how much of the waste incinerated can be considered biofuel, so that the waste can be given the same opportunities as other biofuel.

Background
Waste incineration is part both of the waste management system and the energy system in Sweden. Some 40% of all household waste today is incinerated at the present 26 waste-to-energy plants. The plants also incinerate industrial waste. In 2002 a total of 2.79 million tonnes of waste were incinerated (1.68 million tonnes of household and 1.1 million of industrial waste). A total of 8 TWh of heat was generated in 2002, which corresponds to just over 10% of all district heating. Some of the plants also generate electrical power, which totalled 0.6 TWh in 2002. Several factors influence both how the waste can/should be managed and how the energy recovery system is designed. A year ago a ban was imposed in Sweden on landfilling combustible waste, and in two years times a ban will also be introduced on landfilling organic waste. This leads to a greater need to deal with waste in other ways: material recycling, biological treatment, and incineration to yield heat and electricity. Capacity for both biological treatment and incineration is currently being expanded. Other factors that have an effect are taxation, fees and charges, emission entitlements, electricity certificates and other means of control. These factors can be crucial in selecting methods and technologies, such as the choice between heat production, and district heating and power production. Capacity expansion entails high investment, which means that the plants will be part of the system for a long time to come. This emphasises the importance of optimising investments from both a waste and an energy perspective.

CO2 emissions from waste incineration from a narrow and a wide perspective
The incinerated waste primarily consists of renewable matter, and can therefore largely be considered biofuel. As mentioned above this has already been established in other studies, although there is no

3 (5)

accepted fixed percentage for the amount of renewable material in waste. Profu has compiled data on the overall waste (from households and industry) incinerated at RVFs 26 waste-to-energy plants. This data has been used to calculate the proportion of renewable material, and thereby also CO2 emissions from waste incineration. This study has also looked into waste incineration from a broader perspective, i.e. how waste incineration contributes to the greenhouse effect, as all greenhouse gases are taken into account. The results of various system analyses have been used as a basis for the study. Calculations and results are presented in brief in the first part of the report, and in their entirety in the second part. The content of fossil matter in waste naturally varies, which also leads to a variation in results. Sensitivity analyses which consider equivalent variations in the results of random samples have therefore been applied in the calculations. The results make up an index case which both Profu and RVF take to be representative of all 26 waste-to-energy plants. Below is RVFs summary of Profus results, along with RVFs own comments and conclusions.

Renewable and fossil material in incinerated waste

The fossil combustible content of all incoming waste for incineration in the 26 waste-to-energy plants is approximately 14% by weight. The renewable content in the waste amounts to around 70% of the total weight of the incoming waste. The remaining weight, approximately 15%, comprises inert material such as metal and gravel. Of the fossil content, soft and hard plastic are predominant in household waste, and mixed plastic is predominant in industrial waste. The content of inert material in the form of e.g. gravel and stone in various biofuels varies depending on the fuels purity, whether the fuel has been treated, and other factors. The inert fraction does not contribute to CO2 emissions. With the above results in mind, RVF believes that waste should be considered biofuel to a degree of 85%. Conversely, RVF also believes that the proportion of fossil combustible waste can be taken as 15%. The figure of 85% is well in line with previous studies in this area.

The CO2 factor for waste incineration

Approximately 30% by weight of the incoming wastes total CO2 emissions come from the fossil content of the waste. This can be converted into a factor of 25 g CO2 per MJ of fuel. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency uses a factor of 32.7 g/MJ fuel. The factor is given in g/MJ fuel, and makes it easy to compare emissions between different fuels. RVF believes that the CO2 factor for waste incineration should be 25 g/MJ fuel.

Future prospects
The study shows that the values presented above are representative even in the longer term. An alternative development of waste management up to and including 2008 has been studied, and this indicated similar emission values as for 2002. This assessment is based primarily on Profus own capacity studies.

4 (5)

Waste incineration from a broader perspective a carbon sink

In a comparison of total greenhouse gas emissions in Sweden in 2001, total emissions of fossil CO2 from waste incineration are 1.3% in 2002 and 2.6% in 2008. However, this comparison does not reveal the whole picture. Waste incineration also replaces some other energy production and waste treatment, thus avoiding emissions from these alternatives. It is therefore wrong to suggest that increased waste incineration leads to higher greenhouse gas emissions by only looking at emissions from incineration. The issue has to be analysed from a wider angle, considering energy production and alternative waste treatment from a system perspective. One way of achieving a more truly indicative comparison of waste incineration versus other energy production and other waste management is to adjust the CO2 factor for the waste fuel. Depending on the effect of the alternative waste treatment and energy production, the factor for waste fuel can be increased or decreased. Whether the factor increases or decreases depends on whether the alternatives entail higher or lower emissions. This is the method used in system analyses. Profus study has compared the results from studies into incineration and landfill. The net emissions of all greenhouse gases have been compared when landfill has been replaced by waste-to-energy incineration with district heating production. The net emission varies depending on assumptions regarding which fuel would otherwise have been used to produce district heating. Although the results rely on assumptions, different replacement fuels and so on, it is clear that incineration leads to a drop in total greenhouse gases in all cases. The fact that methane is a far stronger greenhouse gas that carbon dioxide has been taken into account in the calculations. All of this means that waste incineration is in fact more renewable than biofuel, provided that landfill is replaced. If biofuel is taken to be the replacement fuel this would correspond to a reduction in total greenhouse gases in 2001 of 1.7% (compare to an increase in CO2 emissions of 1.3% above). Another way of expressing the study results is to say that for every kilogram of fossil CO2 emitted by waste incineration, greenhouse gases are avoided equivalent to almost 3 kg of CO2. Moreover, it should also be noted that the effect would have been even greater if fuel other than biofuel had been used. RVF believes that the reduction in the greenhouse effect achieved by replacing landfill and other energy production, regardless of fuel, with waste incineration must be emphasised. This positive environmental effect should be taken into account when determining various means of control, taxes and other regulations in both the waste and energy systems in Sweden.

RVFs conclusions
Further to the results presented by Profu in its study, RVF believes that: 1. Waste should be considered 85% biofuel, 2. The CO2 factor for waste incineration should be 25 g/MJ fuel, 3. The reduction in the greenhouse effect achieved by replacing landfill and other energy production, regardless of fuel, with waste incineration must be emphasised. This positive environmental effect should be taken into account when determining various means of control, taxes and other regulations in both the waste and energy systems in Sweden.

5 (5)

The Profu report CO2 Emissions from Waste Incineration in Sweden

Contents
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 3 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 7 2. Calculation methods, input data and assumptions .......................................................................... 8 2.1 Calculation methods and important input data........................................................................... 8 2.2 Other assumptions and input data.............................................................................................. 12 3. Results .................................................................................................................................................... 13 3.1 Results in 2002............................................................................................................................... 13 3.2 Results for 2008 ............................................................................................................................. 16 3.3 Total emissions of fossil CO2 from waste incineration in Sweden ....................................... 20 4. Waste incinerations contribution to the greenhouse effect from a general perspective ........ 22 4.1 Waste incineration mixed waste .............................................................................................. 22 4.2 Waste incineration plastic ......................................................................................................... 24 References ................................................................................................................................................. 26

Abstract
The aim of this project is to make an objective assessment of how large a proportion of the energy production at Swedish waste-to-energy plants should be considered to be produced from fossil fuel. The results from this study can therefore be used as a basis in several of the studies in progress within the energy and waste sector that have an impact on waste incineration, such as trading in emission entitlements for CO2, taxation on waste incineration if applicable, certificates for renewable electrical power and new energy taxation. Calculations have been made for the whole of Sweden, and for Gothenburg specifically. The project shows that fossil CO2 emissions from waste incineration in Sweden are lower than the values used by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. The Agency will revise these values next year. Incoming waste for incineration today comprises approximately 50-60% household waste and approximately 30-40% other waste (primarily industrial waste). The household waste consistently has a slightly higher combustible fossil content than the other waste. The study shows that the total content of combustible fossil waste amounts to around 14% of the total weight of the incoming waste. The energy figure is higher (because the combustible fossil fraction has a higher thermal value than most other fractions) and amounts to around 40% of the fuel energy in the incoming waste. Moreover, the results indicate that approximately 30% of the total CO2 emissions are of fossil origin. The renewable content in the waste amounts to around 70% of the total weight of the incoming waste. The remaining weight (apart from renewable and combustible fossil waste) is comprised of inert fossil material (such as metal and gravel). The study also shows that the values are representative even in the longer term. By studying various different developments of waste management up to and including 2008, we have been able to note that emission values will be roughly the same as in 2002. The results are presented in more detail below.

Results in 2002
Table 1: National results
Calculated factor Unit Index Case Variation in sensitivity analyses Min Max 10 69 32 22 17 17 75 46 39 33 Present Env. Agency value

Percentage by weight of combustible fossil waste (W, fossil f) Percentage by weight of renewable fuel (W, biof)
1

% by weight % by weight energy % % by weight g/MJ f

14 72 40 30 25

Energy proportion of combustible fossil waste (E, fossil f) Content of fossil CO2 in flue gas discharged (CO2, fossil f) CO2 emission factor (CO2 em)

32.7

The sensitivity analyses refer to variations in the percentage of combustible fossil waste as there are uncertainties as to the composition of the waste being incinerated. Moreover, the
In addition to combustible fossil waste and renewable fuel, inert fossil material (metal, gravel etc.) makes up the remainder.
1

Profu

efficiency of each waste-to-energy plant varies, which affects the CO2 emission factor (CO2 em). The study showed that in almost all cases analysed, the waste-to-energy plants came well within the present Environmental Protection Agency value. Table 2: Results for Gothenburg
Calculated factor Unit Index Case Variation in sensitivity analyses Min Max 9 67 32 22 17 17 73 49 40 35

Percentage by weight of combustible fossil waste (W, fossil f) Percentage by weight of renewable fuel (W, biof) Energy proportion of combustible fossil waste (E, fossil f) Content of fossil CO2 in flue gas discharged (CO2, fossil f) CO2 emission factor (CO2 em)

% by weight % by weight energy % % by weight g/MJ f

13 70 42 31 25

The same sensitivity analyses were carried out in Gothenburg as at national level. The Gothenburg results themselves can be viewed as a sensitivity analysis of the national results as the composition of the waste is different. For example, combustible fossil waste comprises a higher content of plastic than at national level. Plastic has a higher specific thermal value and specific CO2 emissions than rubber and textile. This explains why the content of energy and fossil CO2 is higher in Gothenburg, even though the percentage by weight of combustible fossil waste is lower than the national level.

Results in 2008
Table 3: National results
Calculated factor Unit Index scenario Variation in alternative development scenarios Min Max 14 70 40 31 23 15 72 43 33 28 Present Env. Agency value

Percentage by weight of combustible fossil waste (W, fossil f) Percentage by weight of renewable fuel (W, biof) Energy proportion of combustible fossil waste (E, fossil f) Content of fossil CO2 in flue gas discharged (CO2, fossil f) CO2 emission factor (CO2 em)

% by weight % by weight energy % % by weight g/MJ f

15 71 42 33 26

32.7

We have obtained the 2008 results using the Index Case in 2002. Compared to the Index Case in 2002, emissions of fossil CO2 will rise slightly due to a higher proportion of combustible fossil waste. This increase is however only slight, and still means that the CO2 emission factor is below the Environmental Protection Agencys present value. In the Index Scenario we have assumed that plastic consumption will continue to grow at the same rate as before, which is a faster rate than for other types of waste. Using the current waste composition we can instead see a marginally lower content of plastic in the waste being incinerated. This is a consequence of the landfill bans which overall contribute to an increased proportion of renewable fuel in the waste being incinerated. In the alternative

Profu

development scenarios we have attempted to take into account any possible changes that could have an impact on fossil CO2 emissions. This means for example that we have studied the consequences of the plastic recycling target in line with producer responsibility being successfully achieved, and have also considered how different development rates of biological treatment methods influence the results. These changes do affect CO2 emissions, although as mentioned above the changes are only minor. The results for 2008 can therefore be considered both clear and stable.

Waste incinerations contribution to the greenhouse effect from a general perspective

The emission factors calculated above only take into account the emissions of fossil CO2 in the flue gases produced by waste incineration. However, waste incineration means that other waste treatment and other energy production are replaced. Therefore, an assessment of waste incinerations contribution to the greenhouse effect should also consider the emissions that have been prevented by replacing other types of waste treatment and energy production, as well as all types of greenhouse gases (methane, nitrous oxide etc.). Waste incineration differs greatly from other fuels in this respect, and it is therefore misleading only to compare CO2 emissions in the flue gases. Several thorough system analyses have been conducted to calculate waste incinerations true contribution to the greenhouse effect, including some by various Swedish research groups. For the purposes of this study we have chosen to highlight the Swedish studies in order to clarify the effect of this. Figure S1 shows how important it is to view waste incineration from this holistic perspective. The bar on the left shows waste incinerations contribution to the greenhouse effect including only emissions of fossil CO2 in the flue gases, i.e. the value we have calculated in this study. The bar on the right shows the resulting net emission of all greenhouse gases including the effects of replacing landfill and biofuel-based district heating production. The figure illustrates that for each kg of fossil CO2 emitted from the waste incinerator, the equivalent of almost 3 kg of fossil CO2 has simultaneously been eliminated which would otherwise have been discharged. This is a conservative scenario, and several other examples show that the effect could be even greater, as described in more detail in the report.
0.4 0.3
Flue gas emissions of fossil CO2 from waste incineration 2002

tonnes CO2 equiv/tonne waste

0.2 0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 -0.5 -0.6

Net emissions of greenhouse gases from waste incineration when landfill and biofuel-based district heating are replaced

Profu

Figure S1: The bar on the left illustrates emissions of fossil CO2 in flue gases from waste incineration in Sweden in 2002 according to this study. The bar on the right shows net greenhouse gas emissions according to Sundqvist et al. (2002), taking account of the fact that waste incineration replaces landfill and biofuel-based district heating production. The expansion of waste-to-energy incineration in Sweden between 2002 and 2008 means that primarily landfill is replaced, and that primarily biofuels as well as some fossil fuels are replaced in the district heating systems. The study also shows that it is mainly plastic that contributes to fossil CO2 emissions. From a greenhouse perspective, system analyses indicate that increasing material recycling and reducing incineration of plastic would be a positive move (provided that material recycling works well and that there is a demand for the recycled material). This would also be a great help in reducing fossil CO2 emissions in the flue gases from waste incineration in Sweden.

Profu

1. Introduction
Project outline
The combustible fossil content of waste fuel is made up of waste fractions that originate from fossil oil. These primarily comprise various types of plastic, although also synthetic rubbers and synthetic textiles to a lesser extent. The fossil content overall is relatively low, and waste fuel is often considered to be biofuel, and as such a renewable fuel. Assessments in recent years have estimated the combustible fossil content of waste fuel at between 10% and 25% by weight of the incoming fuel. In future discussions regarding the development of waste-toenergy incineration with regard to the greenhouse effect (environmentally friendly electricity certificates, incineration tax, etc.) it is important to clarify how large a proportion of the waste fuel should be considered a renewable fuel source. The aim of this project is to make an objective assessment of how large a proportion of the energy production at Swedish waste-to-energy plants should be considered to be produced from fossil fuel. The results from this study can therefore be used as a basis in several of the studies in progress within the energy and waste sector that have an impact on waste incineration, such as trading in emission entitlements for CO2, taxation on waste incineration if applicable, certificates for renewable electrical power and new energy taxation. Calculations have been made for the whole of Sweden, and for Gothenburg specifically. Profu is continuously collecting information on the factors that influence the fossil content used in energy production. This project applies both this data and data from Renova (Gothenburg) and the Swedish Association of Waste Management (RVF) for incinerated waste. The information from Renova is used in a separate study of the waste-to-energy plant in Gothenburg. RVFs statistics of incinerated waste types at the Swedish waste-to-energy plants are used to assess Swedens current waste incineration (2002). In addition an assessment is made of how this proportion would change if Swedens wasteto-energy plants are expanded by 2008. According to the capacity study conducted by Profu on behalf of the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, full expansion of waste incineration would entail that a significantly larger percentage of incinerated waste would be comprised of various industrial waste flows in the future. The composition and volume of each industrial waste flow is evaluated, and we therefore estimate what the fossil content used in energy production will be in the future (2008). Report structure Section 2 describes the calculation methods, input data and assumptions that have been applied. Section 3 presents the results of the analyses into the fossil content of the waste and the fossil emissions of CO2 in Swedish waste-to-energy incineration. In Section 4 greenhouse gas emissions from waste incineration are compared to emissions from other fuels. Moreover, waste incineration is briefly compared to other waste treatment options from a general greenhouse gas perspective using the results of previous system analyses.

Profu

2. Calculation methods, input data and assumptions

2.1 Calculation methods and important input data
If we remove the combustible fossil fuel (plastics, synthetic rubbers and synthetic textiles) from the waste incinerated in Sweden, two fractions remain: a renewable content which can be regarded as a biofuel, and a non-combustible fossil fraction consisting of inert material (metal, stone, etc.). The latter will only comprise a minor proportion as this kind of material is generally removed before reaching the incinerator by separating the waste at source or by central separation. The proportion of fossil waste fuel can therefore be defined as:
W, fossil f = M, fossil f / (M, biof + M, fossil f + M, inert mtrl) [% by wt] (1) Where M, fossil f = total weight of combustible fossil waste M, biof = total weight of renewable waste M, inert mtrl = total weight of non-combustible fossil waste

The proportion of renewable fuel can therefore be defined as:

W, biof = M, biof / (M, biof + M, fossil f + M, inert mtrl) [% by wt] (2)

Calculating these proportions requires knowing a number of other parameters: the types of different waste being incinerated (household, industrial, etc.), and the composition of each type of waste going into the incinerator, in order to determine how large a part is comprised of combustible fossil waste, renewable waste and inert material respectively. Regarding the type of waste, our foundation is illustrated by Figure 1, which shows the waste composition of Swedish incineration furnaces since 1996. The values are based on the figures and waste contents used in the annual reports submitted to RVF. Corresponding values have also been obtained for Gothenburg. For the purposes of this study, this division method has been deemed more reliable than other methods. Even so, this division method does have its problems. It is not absolutely clear which types of waste have been reported under each heading, which can make it difficult to estimate the size of the fossil fuel fractions. The figure also shows the anticipated waste volumes following the expansion of currently planned waste-to-energy incineration furnaces. The values for this forecast have been taken from the recently completed third capacity study (Profu 2003). Moreover, the figure reveals that the relative composition has changed over the years, and that further changes are predicted for the future. The contents of industrial waste, waste wood and sludge increase, while the proportion of household waste decreases. As for composition, we have based our values on Profus own compilation of data in literature. There are some uncertainties here, particularly with regard to the content of plastic in the waste. We have therefore conducted a number of sensitivity analyses, varying the content of combustible fossil fuel in each type of waste. We have also examined different scenarios for how this proportion could change up until 2008 (see also Section 3). In these scenarios we also take into account how the total generated volumes and the volumes subjected to other management methods change.

Profu

Mton/yr

100%

Total Household waste Industrial waste Waste wood etc. Plastic, rubber RDF (househ.) Hospital waste Sludge Other

3
100% 51%

2
59% 32%

1
27% 11% 10%

1995

2000

2005

2010

Figure 1: Types of waste in waste-to-energy incineration in tonnes, 1996-2002 according to RVF, and 2008 according to capacity study 3 (Profu 2003).

Profu

Equation 1 gives the content by weight of combustible fossil waste incinerated. The project also calculates the following proportions and values: Energy proportion (E, fossil f): Specifies how large a percentage of the fuel energy in the incoming waste fuel comes from combustible fossil material. This takes account of the content by mass of the constituent fractions, and their thermal value. This can generally be given as:
E, fossil f = M, fossil f, i * Hi, fossil f, i / ( M, biof, j * Hi, biof, j + M, fossil f, i * Hi, fossil f, i) [energy %] (3)

Where M, fossil f, i = Weight of combustible fossil waste, fraction i M, fossil f, j = Weight of renewable waste, fraction j Hi, fossil f, i = Thermal value of combustible fossil waste, fraction i Hi, fossil f, j = Thermal value of renewable waste, fraction j

The weight of the constituent fractions is given for the waste types shown in Figure 1, along with the composition of each type of waste. The thermal value for each fraction is based on Profus own compilation of literature data. Content of CO2 (CO2, fossil f): Specifies total CO2 emissions from combustible fossil waste. This takes account of the content by mass of the constituent fractions, and their specific CO2 emission. This can generally be given as:
CO2, fossil f = M, fossil f, i * CO2, fossil f, i / (M, other * CO2, other + M, fossil f, i * CO2, fossil f, i) [% by weight] (4)

Where M, other = M, biof + M, inert mtrl CO2, fossil f, i = Amount of CO2 formed on incineration of fraction i CO2, other = Average amount of CO2 formed on incineration of other waste

Figure 2 illustrates the amount of fossil-based CO2 formed on incineration of one kilogram of each combustible fossil waste fraction. These specific values are calculated from Profus statistics on constituent waste fractions and environmental impact. The values shown in the figure are thus compilations, calculations and estimates based on a large number of different values. CO2 emissions from other waste, originating exclusively from combustible renewable material, are estimated as an average based on data for Gothenburg. Based on waste incineration in 2002, we have estimated these emissions at 0.86 kg CO2/kg other waste. In two sensitivity analyses relating to the content by weight of combustible fossil waste (High and Low fossil content respectively, see also Section 3.1), these emissions are estimated at 0.78 and 0.93 kg CO2/kg other waste.

Profu

10

kg CO2/kg waste

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

soft plastic househ. waste

nappies (fossil) househ. waste

other (fossil) househ. waste

textile and rubber (fossil), househ. waste

plastic and rubber separated at source

hospital waste (fossil)

hard plastic househ. waste

mixed plastic ind. waste

0.00

textile and rubber (fossil), ind. waste

mixed plastic househ. waste

Figure 2: Emissions of CO2 on incineration of various combustible fossil waste fractions CO2 emission factor (CO2 em): Specifies the fossil emission of CO2 expressed in g/MJ f. The CO2 emission factor can be used to compare the fossil emissions from the waste fuel with other fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas. This is also the unit for CO2 emissions used by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency in its calculations of total greenhouse gas emissions in Sweden. It is thus possible to compare the calculated CO2 emission factor in this project with the Environmental Protection Agencys values both for waste and other fuels. The CO2 emission factor is calculated as follows:
CO2 em = ( M, fossil f, i * CO2, fossil f, i / (DH, prod + Elec, prod)) * n, tot Where DH, prod = total amount of district heating produced (MJ) Elec, prod = total amount of electricity produced (MJ) n, tot = total efficiency of waste-to-energy incineration [g/MJ f] (5)

Figures for total district heating and electricity production from waste incineration for 2002 have been obtained from RVF (corresponding data for Gothenburg has been obtained from Renova): Total DH production 2002: 28,870,000,000 MJ Total electricity production 2002: 2,220,000,000 MJ Total efficiency varies between different incinerators. We have worked on the basic assumption that efficiency is 85%, but have also conducted sensitivity analyses using 80% and 90% efficiency. For 2008, total district heating and electricity production are based on constituent waste types for incineration, according to the third capacity study. The effect of various assumptions as regards efficiency is examined in the same way as for 2002.

other (fossil) ind. waste

other (fossil)

Profu

11

2.2 Other assumptions and input data Unburned carbon in ash

During waste incineration, a certain amount of carbon is left unburned among the ash. We have assumed that the content of carbon of fossil origin is equivalent to the content by weight of the combustible fossil waste. Moreover, we have assumed that the carbon bound in the ash reduces total emissions of CO2 as the emission factors in Figure 2 apply to fully incinerated waste fractions. We have made this adaptation to enable waste incineration to be compared to other fuels, the figures of which only include emissions in the flue gases. Studies from a broader greenhouse perspective should also take into account what happens to unburned carbon after a period in landfill both for waste-to-energy incineration and for other fuels. Theoretically, for example, this could give rise to methane being formed, which is a powerful greenhouse gas. Our calculations include the following assumptions: Remaining ash: 20% of the incoming waste volume Proportion of unburned carbon: 1.5% of the remaining ash Each carbon atom bound reduces CO2 by one molecule. The molar weight for carbon is 12 g/mol and for CO2 44 g/mol. This means a total reduction of:
0.2*0.015*M, fossil f*44/12 = 0.011 * M, fossil f (6)

This is a small amount in relation to total emissions, yet still not negligible. Baling plastic We have increased emissions to account for the extra plastic used when sealing bales of waste. The following assumptions have been made: Proportion of waste made into bales: 10% Baling plastic: 0.002 kg/kg waste CO2 emission: 2.6 kg CO2/kg baling plastic The assumption that 10% of waste is baled is slightly high in order not to underestimate balings contribution to CO2 emissions. Nevertheless, emissions for this plastic fraction are still very low.

Profu

12

3. Results
The results are presented in three sections. First come the results for 2002, i.e. todays waste-to-energy incineration. This section also includes specific results for Gothenburg. The second section covers results for 2008, i.e. when waste incineration is expected to be expanded in line with the recently published capacity report, which specifies national results for a number of different development scenarios. In the third section the emissions are compared to total greenhouse gas emissions and to other fuels in Sweden.

3.1 Results in 2002

Figure 3 illustrates the content by weight of fossil waste fuel (W, fossil f) and the content by weight of renewable fuel (W, biof). The results are given nationally and specifically for Gothenburg, and refer to one Index Case and two sensitivity analyses (High fossil content and Low fossil content respectively). In total these fractions make up between 82 and 86% of the waste incinerated, while the remainder is comprised of inert material of fossil origin (metals, stone, glass etc.). W, fossil f varies between 9 and 17%, while W, biof varies between 69 and 75%. The two sensitivity analyses reflect the uncertainty in how large a proportion of the waste is comprised of combustible fossil material. Compared to the Index Case, we have increased and decreased respectively the content by weight of combustible fossil material in each type of waste in Figure 1 by 30%, which roughly corresponds to the variations evident in spot checks of household waste after material recycling. Other parameters have been kept constant. As is apparent, this has an impact on the proportions of fossil and renewable fuel. Figure 4 shows the combustible fossil content for energy (E, fossil f) both nationally and for Gothenburg, in the Index Case and in the two sensitivity analyses as above. As with the content by weight, uncertainties regarding the composition of each type of waste have an impact on the combustible fossil content for energy, which varies between 32% and 49%. The renewable energy proportion therefore varies between 51% and 68%. The fact that the energy proportion is considerably higher than the content by weight is because the combustible fossil waste fractions have a much higher thermal value than most other waste fractions. Figure 5 shows the fossil CO2 content (CO2, fossil f) both nationally and for Gothenburg, in the Index Case and in the two sensitivity analyses as above. As with the content by weight and energy proportion, uncertainties regarding the composition of each type of waste have an impact on the fossil CO2 content, which varies between 22% and 40%. Figure 6a compares the Index Case for the CO2 emission factor (CO2 em) nationally, with the Swedish Environmental Protection Agencys present value for emissions from waste incineration for district heating and electricity production2. This study value is clearly far lower (at 25 g/MJ f compared to 32.7 g/MJ f) than the Environmental Protection Agencys present value. The Agencys figures are extremely old and will be updated next year by SMED (Swedish Methodology for Environmental Data, a consortium of IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, Statistics Sweden and the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute) (Pettersson 2003). Figure 6b illustrates the results for the CO2 emission factor (CO2 em) nationally in the various sensitivity analyses, where we have also considered the impact of varying efficiencies in waste-to-energy incineration. The figure clearly shows that most values are
2

The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency uses a different CO2 emission factor for waste-to-energy incineration in industry: 28.4 g/MJ f (Pettersson 2003)

Profu

13

below the Environmental Protection Agency value. It is important to note that efficiency has a major impact.

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 National Gothenburg Nationellt Gothenburg W, fossil f W, biof % by weight

Index Case High fossil content Low fossil content

Figure 3: Content by weight of fossil waste fuel (W, fossil f) and the content by weight of renewable fuel (W, biof) in the Index Case and two sensitivity analyses

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

% by weight

Index Case High fossil content Low fossil content

E, fossil f National

E, fossil f Gothenburg

Figure 4: The combustible fossil content for energy (E, fossil f) in the Index Case and two sensitivity analyses

Profu

14

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

% by weight

Index Case High fossil content Low fossil content

CO2, fossil f National

CO2, fossil f Gothenburg

Figure 5: The fossil CO2 content in flue gas emissions (CO2, fossil f) in the Index Case and two sensitivity analyses

35 g CO2/MJ f 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Index Case 2002, ntot = 0.85 Swedish Environmental Protection Agency

Figure 6a: CO2 emission factor (CO2 em) nationally, this studys Index Case and Swedish Environmental Protection Agency value

Profu

15

40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0

g CO2/MJ f
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency: 32.7 g/MJ f

ntot = 0.85 ntot=0.8 ntot=0.90 ntot=0.85 ntot=0.8 ntot=0.90 ntot=0.85 ntot=0.8 ntot=0.90

Index Case

High fossil content

Low fossil content

Figure 6b: CO2 emission factor (CO2 em) nationally in the Index Case and two sensitivity analyses with varying assumptions on the efficiency in waste-to-energy incineration

3.2 Results for 2008

Figure 7 illustrates the content by weight of fossil waste fuel (W, fossil f) and the content by weight of renewable fuel (W, biof) in national terms. The results are shown for an Index Scenario, as well as various alternative scenarios involving developments that differ from the Index Scenario. The various scenarios can be described as follows: Index Scenario: The basis for this is the Index Case from 2002. The volumes of waste going to incineration expand as predicted in the capacity study, amounting to approximately 5.06 Mton with proportions as per Figure 1 for 2008. All in all, the volume of waste generated increases by 2% a year from 2002. The volume of combustible fossil waste generated is predicted to increase more rapidly (3.5% a year) which is in line with the increased use of plastic over the past 10-15 years, as well as various international assessments of future developments (Tukker et al. 1999, Patel et al. 1998, Brown et al. 2000, Ellis et al. 2002, Andersson 2003 and The Danish Ministry of the Environment 1995). Material recycling in accordance with producer responsibility is presumed to increase alongside the volume of combustible fossil waste generated (3.5% a year), which means that the degree of material recycling for plastic remains constant. Lower consumption of combustible fossil material: The volume of combustible fossil waste generated increases at the same rate as other types of waste, i.e. 2% a year. Material recycling in accordance with producer responsibility is presumed to increase alongside the volume of combustible fossil waste generated (2 % a year), which means that the degree of material recycling for plastic remains constant. Otherwise the conditions are the same as in the Index Scenario. Plastic recycling target achieved: The difference from the Index Scenario here is that material recycling of plastic increases, and by 2008 has reached the producer responsibility

Profu

16

target, i.e. 30% of plastic packaging goes to material recycling. This means lower volumes of plastic to incineration, and the total volume of plastic to incineration decreases to approximately 4.99 Mton. Increased biological treatment: Biological treatment of waste increases more than in the Index Scenario so that by 2008 the governments target has already been reached, i.e. 35% of food waste from households is treated biologically. This means lower volumes of food waste to incineration, and the total volume to incineration decreases to approximately 4.97 Mton. No expansion of biological treatment: Compared to the Index Scenario, biological treatment does not expand at all after 2002. This means that larger volumes of biological waste have to be dealt with by incineration. The total volume to incineration increases to approximately 5.19 Mton. It is clear from Figure 7 that all these scenarios involve only a relatively slight variation in contents by weight of fossil waste fuel and renewable fuel. W, fossil f varies between 14 and 15%, while W, biof varies between 70 and 72%. Figure 8 shows the combustible fossil content for energy (E, fossil f) in the same scenarios as above. Here too there is only a relatively slight variation between the different scenarios. The energy proportion amounts to a minimum of around 40% and a maximum of around 43%. Figure 9 shows the fossil CO2 content (CO2, fossil f) in the same scenarios as above. The fossil CO2 content amounts to a minimum of just over 30% and a maximum of around 33%. Figure 10 illustrates the results for the CO2 emission factor (CO2 em) nationally. We have applied the same scenarios as above, but have also considered the effect of varying levels of efficiency. The line at the top indicates the value currently used by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency in its climate calculations for emissions from waste incineration to produce district heating and electricity. It is clear that the results for 2008 in this study are also well below the Environmental Protection Agencys figures. However, the Index Scenario entails a development whereby emissions increase slightly between 2002 and 2008. In the Index Scenario for 2008 the CO2 emission factor is just over 26 g/MJ f, while in the Index Scenario for 2002 it is slightly less than 25 g/MJ f.

Profu

17

80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0

% by weight

Index Scenario Lower consumption of combustible fossil material Plastic recycling target achieved Increased biological treatment No expansion of biological treatment

Proportion of fossil waste fuel

Proportion of renewable waste fuel

Figure 7: Content by weight of fossil waste fuel (W, fossil f) and the content by weight of renewable fuel (W, biof) in national terms, in an Index Scenario and several alternative development scenarios

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Energy %

Index Scenario Lower consumption of combustible fossil material Plastic recycling target achieved Increased biological treatment No expansion of biological treatment

Proportion of fossil waste fuel in incoming energy

Figure 8: The combustible fossil content for energy (E, fossil f) in an Index Scenario and several alternative development scenarios

Profu

18

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

% by weight

Index Scenario Lower consumption of combustible fossil material Plastic recycling target achieved Increased biological treatment No expansion of biological treatment

Figure 9: The fossil CO2 content in flue gas (CO2, fossil f) in an Index Scenario and several alternative development scenarios

Fossil CO2 content in flue gas

40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0

g CO2/MJ f
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency: 32.7 g/MJ

ntot=0.80

ntot=0.80

ntot=0.90

ntot=0.80

ntot=0.80

ntot=0.85

ntot=0.80

ntot=0.85

ntot=0.85

ntot=0.85

ntot=0.85

ntot=0.90

ntot=0.90

Index Scenario

Lower consumption Plastic recycling of combustible target achieved fossil material

Increased biological treatment

ntot=0.90

No expansion of biological treatment

ntot=0.90

Profu

19

Figure 10: CO2 emission factor (CO2 em) nationally in an Index Scenario and several alternative development scenarios, with varying assumptions on the efficiency in waste-toenergy incineration

3.3 Total emissions of fossil CO2 from waste incineration in Sweden

Figure 11 illustrates total emissions of fossil CO2 in Index Case 2002 and Index Scenario 2008. There are clearly three predominant groups of waste: soft and hard plastic in household waste, and mixed plastic in industrial waste. It is also evident that total emissions from waste incineration double between 2002 and 2008. Comparing the figures with total greenhouse gas emissions in Sweden in 2001, total emissions of fossil CO2 are 1.3% and 2.6% respectively for the years covered by Figure 11. However, waste incineration also replaces some other energy production and waste treatment, thus avoiding emissions from these alternatives. It is therefore wrong to suggest that increased waste incineration leads to higher greenhouse gas emissions by only looking at flue gas emissions. The issue has to be analysed from a wider angle, considering energy production and alternative waste treatment from a system perspective. Section 4 summarises the results of several studies of this nature.
500 kton CO2 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50
textile and rubber (fossil), househ. waste
Index Case 2002 Index Scenario 2008

plastic and rubber separated at source

soft plastic househ. waste

mixed plastic househ. waste

hospital waste (fossil)

nappies (fossil) househ. waste

other (fossil) househ. waste

hard plastic househ. waste

mixed plastic ind. waste

textile and rubber (fossil), ind. waste

Figure 11: Total emissions of fossil CO2 from waste-to-energy incineration plants in Index Case 2002 and Index Scenario 2008, divided into combustible fossil fractions Figure 12 compares the calculated CO2 emission factors (CO2 em) to various other fuels. It is also important to point out here that the CO2 emission factors do not provide the complete picture of how emissions of greenhouse gases are affected overall. Given the efficiency of

other (fossil) ind. waste

other (fossil)

Profu

20

each incinerator, the CO2 emission factors specify emissions from the incinerator when a certain amount of useful energy (e.g. district heating or electricity) is to be produced. However, waste incineration also entails waste being treated. The use of the other fuels does not include this function, which is why it is necessary to add the effect of alternative waste treatment to the other fuels to see how emissions are affected overall. Alternatively, the effects of alternative waste treatment can be subtracted from the CO2 emission factors for the fuels in Figure 12. The volume to be subtracted or added (if the alternative waste treatment entails lower emissions) depends on the type of alternative waste treatment applied (see also Section 4).
120

g CO2/MJ,f

100

80

60

40

20

Other fuels

Waste fuels

Figure 12: CO2 emission factors for fossil emissions of CO2. For waste fuels, figures are taken from Sections 3.1 and 3.2 with an efficiency of 0.85. (Index Case 2002: 25 g/MJ f, Index Scenario 2008: 26 g/MJ f)

Low fossil content 2002 Index Scenario 2008 Lower consumption 2008 Plastic recyc target achieved 2008

Profu

Increased biol treat 2008 No exp of biol treat 2008

Aviation kerosene

Propane

High fossil content 2002

Env Prot Agency

Index Case 2002

Coke

Fuel oil 1

Diesel

Coal

Natural gas

Fuel oil 2-5

Paraffin

Petrol

Biofuel

21

4. Waste incinerations contribution to the greenhouse effect from a general perspective

4.1 Waste incineration mixed waste
In Section 3.3 we observed that it was not enough only to consider emissions from the incinerator itself to assess the contribution of waste-to-energy incineration to the greenhouse effect. The fact that waste incineration replaces other waste treatment and energy production, and the effect this has on the results, also have to be taken into account. System analyses of waste treatment do take these factors into consideration. They compare the emissions produced by different waste treatment methods, and include emissions for alternative energy production to satisfy a particular energy requirement. The expansion from 2002 to 2008 means that waste incineration will primarily replace landfill, which is to say that the alternative waste treatment method for the 2.3 million or so tonnes of extra incinerated waste would generally have been landfill. Incinerating these 2.3 million tonnes of waste also means that alternative energy production is replaced. Sahlin (2003) has researched which fuels are being replaced in the Swedish district heating systems, and has found that primarily biofuel is being replaced, along with a certain amount of fossil fuels. In local terms, incineration can replace a larger proportion of fossil fuels. Figure 13 compares the system results from two research groups who studied incineration and landfill. The figure shows the resultant net emissions of all greenhouse gases when landfill is replaced by incineration (which only produces district heating). The net emission varies depending on assumptions regarding which fuel is used for the district heating production that is replaced by waste incineration. In one exceptional case (the bar farthest to the right), waste incineration entails higher emissions. This case only looks at emissions from landfill over a short period, thus discounting a large proportion of subsequent methane emissions. It should be pointed out that in its official calculations of greenhouse gas emissions, Sweden does not use carbon sinks, either in landfill or increased forest growth. Even though the results are different to some extent (which could be due to variations in basic calculation details, assumptions, input data etc.), it is clear that waste incineration does lead to a reduction in greenhouse gases overall. All of this means that waste incineration is in fact more renewable than biofuel, provided that landfill is replaced. As a calculation example we can use the bar farthest to the left (which probably underestimates the effect as only biofuel is replaced in district heat production, while in national terms some fossil fuels are also replaced) to estimate the net emissions resulting from more widespread waste-to-energy incineration: Resultant net emissions = - 0.53 ton CO2 equiv/ton mixed waste * 2.3 Mton mixed waste = 1200 kton CO2 equiv which corresponds to a reduction in total greenhouse gas emissions in Sweden in 2001 of 1.7%.

Profu

22

0.5
DH: biofuel DH: oil, high efficiency DH: oil, low efficiency DH: biofuel DH: natural gas

DH: biofuel, landfill counts as carbon sink

0.0 -0.5 -1.0 -1.5

Sundqvist et al 2002

-2.0 -2.5 -3.0 tonnes CO2 equiv/tonne mixed waste

Finnveden et al 2000

Figure 13: The resultant net emissions of all greenhouse gases when landfilling of mixed waste has been replaced by waste-to-energy incineration with district heating production. The figure covers the various fuels used for the district heating production which are thereby replaced We can now compare only considering flue gas emissions of fossil CO2, and considering net emissions of greenhouse gases from an overall perspective. The two different approaches are illustrated in Figure 14. The bar on the left shows waste incinerations contribution to the greenhouse effect including only emissions of fossil CO2 in the flue gases, i.e. the value we have calculated in this study. The bar on the right shows the resulting net emission of all greenhouse gases including the effects of replacing landfill and biofuel-based district heating production. The figure illustrates that for each kg of fossil CO2 emitted from the waste incinerator, the equivalent of almost 3 kg of fossil CO2 has simultaneously been eliminated which would otherwise have been discharged.

Profu

23

0.4 0.3
Flue gas emissions of fossil CO2 from waste incineration 2002

tonnes CO2 equiv/tonne waste

0.2 0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 -0.5 -0.6

Net emissions of greenhouse gases from waste incineration when landfill and biofuel-based district heating are replaced

Figure 14: The bar on the left illustrates emissions of fossil CO2 in flue gases from waste incineration in Sweden in 2002 according to this study. The bar on the right shows the net effect according to Sundqvist et al. (2002), taking account of the fact that waste incineration replaces landfill and biofuel-based district heating production.

4.2 Waste incineration plastic

Figure 11 (in Section 3.3) shows that plastic is the fraction in waste that mainly contributes to fossil CO2 emissions. Reducing the plastic content will reduce specific CO2 emissions. One alternative to incineration is material recycling of plastic. If material recycling replaces incineration of plastic, energy production will decrease (less waste is incinerated), which is why alternative energy production must be used to a greater extent, which can lead to higher emissions. Material recycling also entails less virgin production of plastic and thus also reduced emissions from that eliminated virgin production. Material recycling and incineration have been studied in a number of system analyses which include all these effects. Figure 15 illustrates the resultant net emissions of greenhouse gases when material recycling replaces incineration of polythene (the most common type of plastic in waste) in district heating production. As before, the effect varies depending on assumptions regarding alternative district heating production. The results are based on a material recycling system in which the recycled material can be used in an equivalent function to virgin material without losing large amounts of material. Another important precondition is of course that there is a market for the recycled material. Even though material recycling does not work this well at present, the results clearly indicate that from an overall greenhouse gas perspective, it is worth improving and extending material recycling. This would also advance the chances of waste-to-energy incineration to achieve a certificate for renewable electrical power, as the proportion of combustible fossil waste going into the incinerators would decrease.

Profu

24

District heating fuel that replaces incineration:

Biofuel Biofuel Biofuel According to Sahlin 2003 Natural gas
Finnveden et al 2000

Oil, high efficiency

Oil, low efficiency

Sundqvist et al 2002

-1
Ljunggren Sderman 2000*

-1.5

Ljunggren Sderman 2000*

-2.5

-3

-3.5

tonnes CO2 equiv/tonne plastic

Figure 15: The resultant net emissions of greenhouse gases when incineration of polythene (the most common type of plastic) has been replaced by material recycling. The figure covers the various fuels used for the district heating that has to be produced when waste-to-energy incineration is replaced. * We have supplemented the Ljunggren Sderman data on material recycling with our own calculations for incineration and alternative district heating production

Sundqvist et al 2002

Finnveden et al 2000

-2

Sundqvist et al 2002

-0.5

Profu

25

References
Andersson, S., Lortig hantering av plastsopor [Dirty plastic waste management], Ny Teknik, issue 34, 20 August 2003 Brown, K.A., Holland, M.R., Boyd, R.A., Thresh, S., Jones, H., Ogilvie, S.M., Economic Evaluation of PVC Waste Management, a report produced for the European Commission Environment Directorate, June 2000 Ellis, P., Frogg, J., Maack, H., Scheidl, K., Global PP End-Markets, Application Trends, www.chemweek.com, September 11 2002 Finnveden, G., Johansson, J., Lind, P, Moberg, , Life Cycle Assessments of Energy from Solid Waste, fms report 2000:2, 2000 Ljunggren Sderman, A Systems Engineering Approach to National Waste Management, doctoral thesis, Department of Energy Technology, Chalmers University of Technology, 2000 The Danish Ministry of the Environment, Environmental project 313, page 81, Denmark 1995 Patel, M.K., Jochem, E., Radgen, P. And Worrell, E., Plastics streams in Germany an analysis of production, consumption and waste generation, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 24, 191-215, 1998 Pettersson, S., Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, e-mail: Sandra.Pettersson@naturvardsverket.se, 10 September 2003 Profu, Kapacitet fr att behandla brnnbart och organiskt avfall [Capacity for treating combustible and organic waste], report commissioned by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2003 Sahlin, J., licentiate thesis, Department of Energy Conversion, Chalmers University of Technology, 2003 Sundqvist, J-O, Baky, A., Carlsson Reich, M., Eriksson, O., Granath, J., Hur skall hushllsavfallet tas om hand? Utvrdering av olika behandlingsmetoder [How to deal with household waste? An evaluation of various treatment methods], IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute report B1462, 2002 Tukker, A., de Groot, H., Simons, L. And Wiegersma, S., Chemical Recycling of Plastics Waste (PVC and other resins), TNO-report STB-99-55 Final, 1999

Profu

26

Rapporter frn RVF 2004

2004:01 2004:02 2004:03 2004:04 2004:05 2004:06 2004:07 2004:08 Tillmpning i Sverige av EU-direktivet om frbrnning av avfall Avfallsfrbrnning. Utbyggnadsplaner, behov och brist Behandling av restavfall genom lakcellsteknik med rtning av processvattnet System fr kvalitetsskringav uppgraderad biogas Teknik fr mtning av metan frn avfallsupplag i Sverige Utredning. Klassificering av farligt avfall Vgledning. Klassificering av farligt avfall Hantering av grovavfall, elektriskt och elektroniskt avfall samt farligt avfall i flerfamiljshus Sluttckning av avfallsupplag. Alternativa metoder att uppn gllande krav avseende infiltration. Frstudie Nr ett plus ett blir tre Om samverkan inom kommunal avfallsverksamhet Identifieringssystem fr behllare fr hushllsavfall Analys av vrdet av hushllens materialtervinning Avfallsanlggningar med deponering. Statistik 2003 Branschindex Ett stt att arbeta med jmfrelsetal inom renhllningssektorn i Sverige Waste-to-Energy Incineration Greenhouse gas emissions compared to other waste treatment and energy production

2004:09

2004:10

2004:11 2004:12 2004:13 2004:14

2004:15

RVF Svenska Renhllningsverksfreningen Prostgatan 2 211 25 Malm Tel. 040-35 66 00 Fax. 040-35 66 26 www.rvf.se