Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
economically competitive is important, but also impacts on the DH networks and the
incentive for CHP production from waste incineration. The problem is that the goals that are
enumerated conflict.
In the waste incineration tax proposal, resulting from the government investigation, the
energy system perspective is the predominant; waste is seen primarily as a fuel, and therefore
the main objective is that waste taxation be harmonized with energy taxes on other fuels. The
investigation states that the fossil content of waste is subsidized in comparison to fossil fuels
and that the value of the subsidization of biomass fuels is lessened if there is no tax on
incinerated waste. This is corrected if the tax on incinerated waste is designed in this way, and
it also provides the incentive for CHP production in waste incineration plants which has
hitherto been lacking. The EU directive on promotion of CHP (European Union, 2004a) has
influence over this. When summarizing the proposal, it can be said that the energy perspective
has been given first priority and the waste management priority second. The only fraction
which will have an increased incentive to material recover is various plastics. This fraction is
appropriate for material recycling in an energy efficiency perspective; an earlier study has
shown large energy savings when recycled plastic material is used instead of virgin material
(Holmgren and Henning, 2004).
Another study has analysed the consequences for a municipal energy utility of investing
in waste incineration if a tax on incinerated waste were introduced. (Holmgren and
Gebremedhin, 2004). Tax levels of 11 and 42.5 €/ton were analysed, since those were the
levels proposed in an earlier government investigation (Ministry of Finance, 2002). The
conclusion was that at the tax level of 11 €/ton, the investment was still profitable for the
utility, but at the 42.5 €/ton level, the investment was not profitable. Note that in Table 3
these levels are in the proximity of the levels proposed for plants with CHP production and
hot water boilers respectively. The prerequisite for the results is naturally that the utility can
not raise the gate fee for receiving the waste. The results indicate, however, that at these tax
levels, other treatment options begin to be of interest.
Other questions which are raised concern the impact on gate fees of waste incineration
plants. Plants with electricity production could maintain lower gate fees than other plants.
Would that mean transportation of waste to those plants? This, however, is contradicted by
the lack of waste treatment capacity (Swedish Association of Waste Management, 2004), due
to waste management regulations.
Another issue is to what extent the energy utilities will
raise their gate fees to let consumers shoulder the increasing costs. Most existing plants
without electricity production can not easily convert to CHP production since they consist of
hot water boilers,
15
and conversion would virtually mean building a new plant. Of the planned
waste incineration plans, all have electricity production
16
(Swedish District Heating
Association, 2005). One question in a waste management perspective is what will happen in
terms of encouraging material recovery and biological treatment, in accordance with the
waste hierarchy, since this opportunity to increase incentive was not taken.
17
14
Electrical efficiency in the interval 15-28%.
15
Personal contact with Anders Hedenstedt, Swedish Association of Waste Management.
16
Personal contact with Anders Hedenstedt, Swedish Association of Waste Management.
17
Again; except for fractions of plastic waste.
