Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T19:58:10.261Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

14 - Results for waste treatment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2014

Ari Rabl ,
Joseph V. Spadaro  and
Mike Holland
Ari Rabl
Affiliation:
Ecole des Mines, Paris
Joseph V. Spadaro
Affiliation:
Basque Centre for Climate Change, Bilbao, Spain
Mike Holland
Affiliation:
Ecometrics Research and Consulting (EMRC)
Get access

Summary

Summary

In this chapter, we evaluate the damage costs of landfill and incineration of municipal solid waste in Europe and North America, with due account for transport and for energy and materials recovery. Whilst air pollution provides some of the most significant externalities of waste management, the comparison of landfill and incineration also needs to consider potential impacts on drinking water due to leachates from landfill. A full impact pathway analysis of leachate is not possible here given that such impacts are extremely site specific. This is not to say that it could not be done for a specific site, though even this is far from straightforward given the complexity of the environmental pathways and the long time horizon of persistent pollutants. As an alternative we consider an extreme scenario, based on impact pathway thinking, to show that they are not worth worrying about if a landfill is built and managed according to regulations such as those of the EU. The damage costs due to the construction of the waste treatment facility are negligible, and so are the damage costs of waste transport, illustrated with an arbitrary choice of a 100 km round trip by a 16 tonne truck. The benefits of materials recovery make a relatively small contribution to the total damage cost. The only significant contributions come from direct emissions (from the landfill or incinerator) and from avoided emissions due to energy recovery (from an incinerator). Damage costs for incineration range from about 1.5 to 21 €/twaste, extremely dependent on the assumed scenario for energy recovery. For landfill the cost ranges from about 11 to 14 €/twaste; it is dominated by greenhouse gas emissions because only a fraction of the CH4 can be captured (here assumed to be 70%). Amenity costs (odor, visual impact, noise) are highly site-specific and we only cite results from a literature survey which indicate that such costs could make a significant contribution, on the order of 1 €/twaste.

Type
Chapter
Information
How Much Is Clean Air Worth?
Calculating the Benefits of Pollution Control
 , pp. 560 - 580
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ADEME 2000. Analyse environnementale de systèmes de gestion de déchets ménagers, Phase 1: analyse des parameters determinants pour les impacts environnementaux des différents modules (Environmental system analysis of municipal waste treatment, Phase 1: analysis of the key parameters for the environmental impacts). Study by BIO Intelligence and Ecobilan for ADEME and Eco-Emballages. Agence Française de l’Environnement et de la Maîtrise de l’Energie, 27 Rue Louis Vicat, 75737 Paris CEDEX 15.
ADEME 2003. Outil de calcul des émissions dans l’air de CH4, CO2, SOx, NOx issues des centres de stockage de déchets ménagers et assimilés. (Tool for calculation of emissions of CH4, CO2, SOx, NOx from municipal and similar solid waste). Agence Française de l’Environnement et de la Maîtrise de l’Energie, 27 Rue Louis Vicat, 75737 Paris CEDEX 15.
Alvarez, R. A., Pacala, S. W., James, J. et al. 2012. Greater focus needed on methane leakage from natural gas infrastructure. PNAS 109 (17): 6435–6440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barlaz, M. A., Rooker, A. P., Kjeldsen, P., Gabr, M. A. and Borden, R. C. 2002. Critical evaluation of factors required to terminate the postclosure monitoring period at solid waste landfills. Environmental Science & Technology 36 (16): 3457–3464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CE 1996. Financiele Waardering van de Milieu-effecten van afvalverbrandingsinstallaties in Nederland. Centrum voor Energiebesparing, Delft. In Dutch.
COWI 2000. A Study on the Economic Valuation of Environmental Externalities from Landfill Disposal and Incineration of Waste. Final Main Report. European Commission, DG Environment, October 2000.
Delucchi, M. A. 2003. A lifecycle emissions model (LEM): lifecycle emissions from transportation fuels, motor vehicles, transportation modes, electricity use, heating and cooking fuels, and materials. UCD-ITS-RR-03-17, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, CA95616.
Dijkgraaf, E. and Vollebergh, H. R. J. 2004. Burn or bury? A social cost comparison of final waste disposal methods. Ecological Economics 50: 233–247.Google Scholar
EC 2000. Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste.
EC 2001. Directive 2001/80/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants.
ETSU 1996. Economic Evaluation of the Draft Incineration Directive. Report for the European Commission DG11. ETSU, Harwell Laboratory, Didcot, Oxfordshire OX11 0RA, UK.
ExternE 2008. With this reference we cite the methodology and results of the NEEDS (2004–2008) and CASES (2006–2008) phases of ExternE. For the damage costs per kg of pollutant and per kWh of electricity we cite the numbers of the data CD that is included in the book edited by Markandya, A., Bigano, A. and Porchia, R. in 2010: The Social Cost of Electricity: Scenarios and Policy Implications. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham, UK. They can also be downloaded from (although in the latter some numbers have changed since the data CD in the book).
Florida 2002. Solid Waste Management in Florida 2001–2002. Report of Florida Department of State, downloaded 31 May 2005 from .
Hester, R. E. and Harrison, R. M. 2002. Environmental and Health Impact of Solid Waste Management Activities. Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, UK.
Kjeldsen, P., Barlaz, M. A., Rooker, A. P. et al. 2002. Present and long-term composition of MSW landfill leachate: A review. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 32(4): 297–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreith, F. 1990. Integrated Solid Waste Management. Genium Publishing Corp. Schenectady, NY.
Lee, G. F. and Associates. 1993. Groundwater Pollution by Municipal Landfills: Leachate Composition, Detection and Water Quality Significance. Sardinia 1993 IV International Landfill Symposium, Margherita di Pula, Italy, 11–15 October 1993.
Lindberg, S. E., Southworth, G., Prestbo, E. M. et al. 2005. Gaseous methyl- and inorganic mercury in landfill gas from landfills in Florida, Minnesota, Delaware, and California. Atmospheric Environment 39: 249–258.Google Scholar
OECD 2012. Mortality Risk Valuation in Environment, Health and Transport Policies. OECD Publishing.
Petts, J. and Eduljee, G. 1994. Environmental Impact Assessment for Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Chichester, UK.
Rabl, A., Spadaro, J. V. and McGavran, P. D. 1998. Health risks of air pollution from incinerators: a perspective. Waste Management & Research 16: 365–388. This paper received the 1998 ISWA (International Solid Waste Association) Publication Award.Google Scholar
Rabl, A., Zoughaib, A., von Blottnitz, H. et al. 2004. Tools for sustainability: Development and application of an integrated framework. Final Technical Report for project SusTools, contract N° EVG3-CT-2002-80010. EC DG Research. Available at
Rabl, A., Spadaro, J. V. and Zoughaib, A. 2008. Environmental impacts and costs of municipal solid waste: A comparison of landfill and incineration. Waste Management & Research 26: 147–162.Google Scholar
Rice, G. and Hammitt, J. K. 2005. Economic Valuation of Human Health Benefits of Controlling Mercury Emissions from US Coal-Fired Power Plants. Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM). Boston, MA. February 2005.
Spadaro, J. V. and Rabl, A. 2008b. Global health impacts and costs due to mercury emissions. Risk Analysis 28 (3): 603–613.Google Scholar
Stern, N., et al. 2006. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Available at
UNEP 2002. United Nations Environment Programme. Global Mercury Assessment. UNEP Chemicals, Geneva, Switzerland.
Walton, H., Boyd, R., Taylor, T. and Markandya, A. 2006. Explaining Variation in Amenity Costs of Landfill: Meta-Analysis and Benefit Transfer. Presented at the Third World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists, Kyoto, July 3rd–7th 2006.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×