WASTE-TO-ENERGY SUCCESS FACTORS IN
SWEDEN AND THE UNITED STATES
ANALYZING THE TRANFERABILITY OF THE SWEDISH WASTETO-ENERGY MODEL TO THE UNITED STATES
Matt Williams
Professor Anna Helm
December, 2011
-1-
CONTENTS
I. Background ........................................................................................................ 3
II. Introduction ....................................................................................................... 3
III. History of Energy and WTE in Sweden ............................................................ 3
IV. History of Waste-to-Energy in the U.S ............................................................. 5
V. Waste-to-Energy Success Factors ................................................................... 6
1. High Landfill Tipping Fees ............................................................................. 6
2. Policies Favorable to Waste-to-Energy ......................................................... 7
3. Extensive District Heating Network ............................................................. 10
4. Absence of Cheap Domestic Sources of Energy ......................................... 10
5. A High Price of Electricity ............................................................................ 11
6. Ample Supply of Waste ............................................................................... 11
7. Public Support ............................................................................................. 12
8. High Recyling Rate ...................................................................................... 12
9. Limited Land Resources .............................................................................. 13
VI. Shifting Economic Factors in the US ............................................................. 13
1. Increased Price of Electricity ....................................................................... 14
2. Higher Oil Prices Increase the Price to Ship to Landfills ............................. 14
3. Higher Metal Prices are Increasing the Revenue from Metal Recovery ...... 14
4. The Number of Permitted Landfills has Declined in the United States ........ 14
VIII. Conclusion and Recommendations ............................................................. 14
1. Locations in the US with the Greatest WTE Potential ................................. 15
2. Policy Opportunities for the United States ................................................... 16
3. Opportunities to Influence Public Perception ............................................... 16
IX. Appendix ....................................................................................................... 18
Figure 4 – Waste-to-Energy Success Factors ................................................. 18
Figure 5 – Energy Recovery – Source: AvFall Svirge ..................................... 19
Figure 6 – District Heat Production in Sweden ................................................ 19
Figure 8 – States with RPS and/or Defining WTE as Renewable In State Law
........................................................................................................................ 20
X. References: .................................................................................................... 21
I. BACKGROUND
Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to work on a consulting project in Sweden,
sponsored by the George Washington University School of Business, in which my team
looked at the market feasibility of several Swedish clean technologies for the American
market. During our tour of Sweden, we visited several energy companies where we
learned about the many fascinating things that these companies are doing to incorporate
renewable energy technologies into their energy mix – specifically biomass, wind and
waste-to-energy. I was particularly intrigued by many of the innovative waste treatment
methods that I saw. For example, in VafabMiljö, we visited a facility that converts food
waste to biogas, which is used to fuel the city buses in the city of Västerås. We also
visited a combined heat and power (CHP) plant at Mälarenergi, which currently uses
forestry waste as a feedstock, but was in the initial stages of building a second facility
that would generate both electricity and heat from household waste for the city of
Vasteras. During these visits, I wondered why the US, a country that produces massive
amounts of waste, is not using these readily available waste-to-energy technologies that
have proven so successful in Sweden to a greater degree.
This summer at the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), I had the
opportunity to work on a research project of my choosing. Inspired by my visit to
Sweden, I began to explore whether the US has the potential to replicate Sweden’s
success at harnessing waste from energy. For the project, I used ACORE’s resources
and also worked under the guidance of Professor Anna Helm at The George
Washington University as part of an independent study. I discovered that although
Sweden, when compared to the US, possesses a relatively unique set of characteristics
that have contributed to its recent waste-to-energy expansion, significant opportunities
still exist for growth in the US waste-to-energy market.
II. INTRODUCTION
Sweden is widely considered a waste-to-energy (WTE) success story. International
comparisons show that Sweden is the global leader in recovering energy from waste
[Figure 5]. In 2009, 49 percent of all household waste, or 232.6 kg per person was
converted into energy.1 Sweden continues to add WTE capacity as it continues to wean
itself off of fossil fuels. In the US you will find a much different set of circumstances.
Although WTE in the US was off to a promising start in the 1970s and 1980s, the
number of WTE facilities in the US declined over the next few decades. In 2009, 12
percent of all household waste, or 85.7 kg per person, was converted to energy. 2
This report looks at the current state of the waste-to-energy industries in Sweden and
the United States and explores at the transferability of Sweden’s waste-to-energy model
to the US market. Although there are several ways to generate energy from waste
(gasification, etc.) this report primarily looks at energy recovery from household waste
through incineration.
III. HISTORY OF ENERGY AND WTE IN SWEDEN
-3-
Sweden has a long history of harnessing energy from waste. The first waste incineration
plant with energy recovery opened over 100 years ago in 1904. In the late 1940s,
following World War II, Sweden began to significantly expand its district-heating network,
providing an outlet for waste-to-energy in the coming decades. In the 1970s, Sweden’s
heavy dependency on oil left it extremely vulnerable to the oil shocks of the 1970s.
During this time period Sweden introduced nuclear to its energy mix and reintroduced
coal. It was also during this period that a major expansion of waste-to-energy plants
began. In the 1980s coal once again started to become a major source of energy, but as
Sweden has increasingly looked to be more environmentally friendly and less dependent
on foreign sources of energy, it has turned to renewable sources such as biofuels, wind
and waste. The use of biofuels, peat and waste in the Swedish energy system has
increased over the years, from a little over 10 percent of total energy supply in the 1980s
to over 22 percent (127 TWh) in 2009. In 1996, Sweden’s electricity market was deregulated. The ensuing years were characterized by rapid restructuring through mergers
and acquisitions, lower electricity prices and a search for new marketing strategies in the
competitive market.3 It is unclear what effect, if any this has had on the adoption of
alternative fuels, such as waste-to-energy.
The Role of Renewables
Renewable energy has played a major role in Sweden’s push to become independent
from fossil fuels. In 2005, Sweden’s government set a target of producing 50 percent of
its energy from renewable sources by 2020 and achieving complete carbon neutrality by
2050.4 Currently Sweden produces 45 percent of its energy from renewable sources.5 It
supplies almost all its electricity from nuclear and hydroelectric power, but is increasingly
moving towards biomass and waste-to-energy.6 Thus far, Sweden has been
extraordinarily successful at weaning itself off of oil. In 1970, oil accounted for over 75
percent of Swedish energy supply. By 2009, the figure was just 32 percent, chiefly due
to the declining use of residential heating oil. Sweden has also substantially decreased
its coal consumption. Peaking at over 5 trillion tons of coal consumed in 1986, it now
consumes a third of that at 1.8 trillion tons.
One of the main drivers of this increase has been biomass and biofuels. In 2010,
Sweden hit a major landmark when Svebio reported that 32 percent of Sweden’s total
energy production is generated from biomass. The total energy consumption generated
from biomass in Sweden grew from 88 TWh to 115 TWh between 2000 and 2009. In
recent years, the increase in demand for woody biomass has resulted in higher prices
which rose 36 percent from 2000 to 2010.7 As a result, household waste is becoming a
much more attractive feedstock option.
The Expansion of WTE In Sweden
In the last decade, WTE has expanded at a rapid rate. From 1999 to 2010, waste
incineration with energy recovery increased from 39 percent to account for 49 percent of
the country’s waste treatment methods. In 2009, 2,173,000 tons of household waste and
2,497,830 tons of industrial or other waste were treated by incineration, with energy
recovery at roughly 32 Swedish waste-to-energy facilities. 13.9 TWh of energy was
produced through incineration, of which the equivalent of 12.3 TWh was used for heating
and 1.6 TWh for electricity. This amounted to 15 percent of Sweden’s district heating
needs and 2.45 percent of all of Sweden’s total energy needs (including transportation,
aviation, etc.). Due to a confluence of factors, which will be explored later, waste-to-4-
energy now has the lowest energy production cost of all known and proven technologies
in Sweden. WTE installed capacity is therefore expected to continue to expand for the
foreseeable future.
IV. HISTORY OF WASTE-TO-ENERGY IN THE U.S
The first waste-to energy facilities in the US emerged in the early 20th century. These
basic facilities generated steam from incineration of waste, but were typically quite dirty.
In the 1970s and 80s, the US waste-to-energy industry appeared to be taking off. This
was spurred in part by regulation and incentives that were enacted in response to the
energy shortage of the 1970s. One instrumental policy was congress’ passage of the
Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) in 1978. This mandated that the price
paid for electricity to “Qualifying Facilities”, which included waste-to-energy plants, must
be equal to the utility's avoided cost of energy and capacity. As a result, WTE plants
received a higher price for their power than they likely would have otherwise.8
Stagnation and Decline
By the 1990s, more than 15 percent of all US household waste was burned for energy
recovery and nearly all non-hazardous waste incinerators were recovering energy. This
time period however was the peak of the industry in the US. The number of WTE plants
thereafter began to decrease as several factors began to their profitability. First, between
1990 and 2004, production tax credits for production of energy from waste were
rescinded. In addition, even though most of the facilities had installed pollution control
equipment, they did not have adequate controls to address the newly recognized threats
posed by mercury and dioxin emissions. In the 1990s, this lead to the enactment by EPA
of Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) regulations that resulted in the
retrofit of the Air Pollution Control (APC) systems of most facilities. Several smaller units
that could not afford the costly retrofits were forced to shut down. Furthermore, the
development of large environmentally-sound Subtitle D landfills made landfill disposal
more plentiful and less expensive. The confluence of these factors affected the
profitability of the most WTE plants in the US and many were forced to shut down.
In the mid 2000s, there was evidence that the WTE might again be ready for
resurgence. The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 expanded the federal production
tax credit for renewables to include energy from waste. In 2005, the Energy Policy Act of
2005 defined Municipal Solid Waste as a renewable energy, thus making it eligible for
loan guarantees.9 Despite these new incentives, there have only been modest signs that
WTE is poised to make a comeback in the US and the industry continues to fight
negative public perceptions. Although passage of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act in 2009 extended the 1.1¢/kWh tax credit until 2013, there is
uncertainty about whether these tax credits will again be extended.10
US WTE Today
Currently, The United States has 87 waste-to-energy plants that generate approximately
2,720 megawatts, or about 0.4 percent of total US power generation.11 In 2009, the
United States combusted about 29 million tons for energy recovery (about 12 percent of
all waste). The first new WTE capacity in almost 2 decades was recently added in Fort
Meyers, Florida and other new capacity is being added in Maryland, Minnesota and
-5-
Hawaii.12 In addition, the first new greenfield WTE facility in over a decade is currently
being planned and is estimated to be completed in 2014. These developments however
are relatively modest considering the size of the US and its energy needs.
V. WASTE-TO-ENERGY SUCCESS FACTORS
This section identifies success factors that can help drive successful deployment of
waste-to-energy capacities. Additionally, it analyzes the degree to which these factors
have played a role in Sweden and the US. These factors are summarized in Figure 4 of
the Appendix.
1. HIGH LANDFILL TIPPING FEES
Perhaps the largest driver of waste-to-energy has been the gate fees or tipping fees
levied by landfills for receiving a quantity of waste (typically per ton). High gate fees can
make landfills cost prohibitive and energy recovery a more economical alternative
means to dispose of waste.
Although Sweden has an abundance of land relative to its population, its landfills are
expensive. As of 2005, average tipping fees equivalent to €135 per ton or approximately
$175.13 In the United States, although tipping fees have risen in recent years, the
average fees remain relatively inexpensive at $44.14 In the United States, waste-toenergy plants are most common where landfill tipping fees are highest, most notably the
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic [Figure 2 and Figure 3].
Figure 2 - Landfill Tipping Fees in the United States
Figure 3 – Operating WTE Plants in the United States – By State15
-6-
Operating WTE Plants in the U.S. — By State
Washington (1)
Maine
(4)
Minnesota
(9)
Oregon (1)
New Hampshire
(2)
Wisconsin
(2)
New York
(10)
Michigan
(3)
Massachusetts (7)
Pennsylvania
(6)
Iowa (1)
Utah (1)
Connecticut (6)
New Jersey (5)
Indiana
(1)
Maryland (3)
Virginia (5)
3
California (3)
N. Carolina (1)
S. Carolina
(1)
Alabama
(1)
Alaska (1)
Georgia
(1)
Florida
(11)
Hawaii (1)
States with operating plants (number of plants in state)
Source: Ted Michaels, Integrated Waste Services Association, June 2007.
2. POLICIES FAVORABLE TO WASTE-TO-ENERGY
Government policies can play a major role in creating incentives for waste-to-energy. In
Sweden there have been a number of Government and EU policies designed to help
move Sweden and Europe away from dependency on fossil fuels, and which have
encouraged utilities to develop increased waste-to-energy capacity. The following list,
while not all-inclusive, demonstrates policies that can be instrumental in helping to spur
WTE development.
A. Price on Carbon/Carbon Tax
Placing a price on greenhouse gas emissions, provided the price is high enough,
incentivizes emitters to reduce emissions. A price on carbon typically comes in the form
of a cap and trade system, or a carbon tax.
Swedish energy companies are currently under the influence of both a carbon tax and
the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS). However, waste-to-energy is
not included in the Emission Trading System and therefore does not require carbon
credits. In 1991, Sweden enacted a CO2 tax of 0.25 SEK/kg (about $100 per ton) on the
use of oil, coal, natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, petrol, and aviation fuel used in
domestic travel. In 2007, the tax was SEK 930 ($140) per ton of CO2. In Sweden the
carbon content for household waste is assumed to be 12.6 percent by weight, which is
far less than fossil fuels. Therefore, although household waste in Sweden is in fact
taxed, the rate that it is taxed is significantly less than fossil fuels. Currently coal is taxed
at a rate of 0.41 SEK/kWh while household waste is taxed at 0.16 SEK/kWh. In
Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plants, coal is taxed at a rate of 0.093 SEK/kWh while
household waste is taxed at .032 SEK/kWh.
-7-
Sweden’s carbon tax made it much more costly to burn coal and oil for energy and lead
many power plants to convert to using biomass as a feedstock.16 Today biomass
generates 20 percent of all energy consumption in Sweden, and as of 2010 wood-fired
district heating systems satisfies more than half of the residential heat demand.17 The
carbon tax has also proven to be a significant source of revenue for the Swedish
government, bringing in 28,289 million SEK. Energy taxes in general have brought in
approximately 73,492 million SEK or 9.3 percent of all state revenue.
Unlike Sweden, which has both a country-level carbon tax and also participates in the
EU’s cap and trade system, the United States does not currently have a price on carbon.
Several localities have passed carbon taxes, such as San Francisco, which in 2008
passed a 4.4 cent/kWh tax and Montgomery County Maryland, which passed a 5
cent/kWh tax in 2010. These localities however represent a relatively small portion of the
United States population. The short-term prospects for a national price on carbon in the
form of a carbon tax or a cap and trade system seem unlikely in the current political
climate. In the survey of the US power industry, only 40 percent believe that a price on
carbon will be set in the next 5 years.18
B. High Landfill Taxes and Fees / Bans on Landfilling
High landfill taxes drive-up gate/tipping fees paid to landfills and help encourage
recycling and waste-to-energy. In Europe, these have proven to be extremely effective at
diverting wastes from landfills and encouraging growth in the WTE industry.19 In
Sweden, since 2006, the tax alone on waste sent to landfills has been 435 SEK a ton
(currently equivalent to $72.5) ton. This has made it expensive to dispose of waste of
landfills and is one of the primary reasons that Sweden has such a high recycling rate.20
In 2007, a similar tax was introduced on the incineration of waste for energy. However,
this was subsequently removed in 2010 in an effort to compete with WTE plants in
Norway.21 While the lack of an incineration tax remains controversial, no tax on burning
MSW for energy currently exists. Other Policies that have helped divert trash away from
Sweden’s landfills include the 1999 EU landfill directive, the 2002 Swedish ban on
landfilling of combustible waste, the 2005 Swedish ban on landfilling of organic waste
and the 2008 new EU Waste Framework Directive.
In the United States there is currently no national landfill tax or fee, although some fees
currently exist at the local or state level. Currently the highest landfill tax in the United
States is in San Jose, California, where the tax is $13 per ton, well below any taxes in
Sweden.
C. Recognition of Waste-to-Energy as a Renewable Resource
When governments recognize waste-to-energy as renewable, WTE projects can be
eligible for incentives and programs that they otherwise would have been. In Sweden
and the rest of the EU, the organic portion of waste-to-energy is recognized as a
renewable resource.22
The United States EPA states that waste-to-energy facilities “are clean reliable
renewable sources of energy with less environmental impact than almost any other
source of energy.” However, only 24 states and the District of Columbia recognize it as
renewable.
-8-
D. Preference to Waste-to-Energy in the Solid Waste Management Hierarchy
Both Sweden and the United States prefer waste prevention, reuse and material
recycling to energy recover. Both countries also prefer energy recovery to landfilling, or
incineration without energy recovery. In the 2008 EU Waste Framework Directive, the
five stages of the waste hierarchy are introduced as (1) waste prevention, (2) reuse, (3)
material recycling, (4) other recycling – e.g. energy recovery – and finally disposal.
According to the directive “efficient energy recovery” now counts as recycling. The
United States EPA’s Solid Waste Management Hierarchy is almost identical and can be
found in Figure 7.
Figure 7 – The EPA Solid Waste Management Hierarchy
E. Renewable Portfolio Standards
Renewable portfolio standards (RPS) are standards that obligate retail sellers of
electricity to supply retail customers a certain amount from renewable energy sources.
As stated earlier, Sweden has set a target of generating 50 percent of its energy from
renewable sources by 2020. In the United States, no such target exists. There are
currently 33 states in the United States that have renewable portfolio standards, of which
5 have voluntary standards instead of binding targets [Figure 8].
F. Direct Subsidies / Tax Credits
Subsidies can come in many forms such as production grants and tax credits, feed-intariffs, low interest / preferential loans to producers, or accelerated depreciation
allowances.
Sweden currently offers production tax credits for renewables such as wind energy, but
does not currently have production tax credits for waste-to-energy. Long-term production
tax credits can be an extremely effective tool for incentivizing renewable energy
industries, due to the high capital costs.
-9-
In the United States, production tax credits have proven to be an effective policy
measure for incentivizing renewable industries. The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004
expanded the federal production tax credit for renewables to include energy from waste.
Although passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009 extended
the 1.1¢/kWh tax credit until 2013, there is uncertainty about whether these tax credits
will again be extended.23
3. EXTENSIVE DISTRICT HEATING NETWORK
Waste incineration is much more efficient at producing heat than it is electricity.
Furthermore, district-heating plants can provide higher efficiencies and better pollution
control than localized boilers. Therefore, when a district-heating infrastructure exists,
WTE plants become more effective source of energy.
In a district heating system, thermal energy is distributed to individual buildings or
houses from a central plant by means of steam or hot water lines. The thermal energy is
typically produced from either a boiler or a combined heat and power plant (CHP) – a
plant that incinerates fuel to produce electricity and transfer excess heat through a heat
exchanger to supply hot water or steam to the district-heating network. When using
municipal solid waste for electricity generation alone, it can only achieve efficiencies of
20-30 percent. However, when used for combined heat and power (CHP) applications,
waste-to-energy plants can achieve efficiencies of 85-90 percent. At Swedish WTE
plants with cogeneration, the sale of heat for district heating can be the largest and most
dependable revenue stream and provide 40-50 percent of total annual revenues. Gate
fees and sale of electricity to the grid both typically provide the rest of the revenue
stream, each representing approximately 25 percent of revenues.24
Sweden has a long tradition of using district heating for urban areas. The first districtheating network was introduced in 1948. The district-heating network in Sweden was
expanded considerably during the late 1940s after World War 2, creating an outlet for
energy from waste incineration.25 Now, district heating can be found in every Swedish
city. Currently 15 percent of the district heating production in Sweden originates from
waste-to-energy production, and 90 percent is produced from renewable sources.26
In the United States, natural gas is the primary heating fuel (52 percent) and district
heating is much less common. Furthermore the relatively warmer climate means that
most regions of the United States have lower potential revenue from district heating
sales, thus making it unlikely that district heating will be a viable option in warmer parts
of the US. As a result, waste-to-energy plants in the US are not typically used for district
heating purposes. They therefore have fewer revenue streams and cannot achieve the
same efficiencies that CHP plants do. As of 2008, there were 5,800 district
heating/cooling systems in the United States, which provide 320,000 GWh or roughly 5
percent of US heating/cooling. Of this, approximately 14,000 GWh came from WTE
energy.27 Of the 87 WTE plants in the United States, only 28 sell steam for district
heating (21 of these co-generate electricity and steam, while the other 7 produce steam
only).28
4. ABSENCE OF CHEAP DOMESTIC SOURCES OF ENERGY
- 10 -
Abundant sources of cheap traditional energy sources can put WTE at economic
disadvantage for both power generation and heating. Sweden lacks an abundant
domestic supply of the fossil energy resources such as coal, oil or natural gas. It does
however have rich, natural supplies of coniferous forests, hydropower and the potential
for wind generation (the technical wind-power potential, according to the Swedish Wind
Energy Association, is 540 TWH/year). Before 1945, domestic biomass and imported
coal were the two primary sources of energy. Then, between 1945-1975, the country
became highly dependent on imported oil for electricity production. The oil shock of the
1970s lead to decreased use of oil between 1975 and 1985, with the revival of coal and
the introduction of nuclear. Since 1985, a focus on the environment and a search for
renewable resources has lead to an increase in the use of biomass as an energy source
and has helped encourage the proliferation of waste-to-energy plants.
The United States has long benefited from abundant domestic fossil-fuel reserves to
supply its massive electricity, heating and transportation needs. Although it relies heavily
on oil imports to meet gasoline demand, and is thus highly exposed to fluctuations in the
world price of oil, vast quantities of coal, and recently discovered supplies of natural gas
could potentially provide cheap electricity and heating to Americans in the foreseeable
future.29 Additionally, the US oil and coal industries have benefited from a century of
subsidies and supporting infrastructure, which provides these fuels with a competitive
advantage over newer and less-established technologies like waste-to-energy.30
5. A HIGH PRICE OF ELECTRICITY
When electricity prices are higher, waste-to-energy power producers receive a higher
price for the energy they produce. In Sweden, the price of electricity has been
considerably higher than it has in the US. In September 2011, the price of electricity in
Sweden was approximately €0.20 ($0.36) per kilowatt-hour. Of this, about 4 cents is a
consumer electricity tax.
In the United States, the price of electricity in real terms peaked in the early 1980s and
has been hovering around 10 cents per kWh ever since.31 This price has remained
relatively low due largely to abundant and inexpensive coal and natural gas supplies.
Additionally, the absence of electricity taxes or a true accounting for the externalities that
result from the production of electricity from dirty sources – the pollution and carbon
emissions created – keeps the electricity costs in the US much lower than in other
European Countries. Finally, many argue that fossil fuel companies benefit from direct
and indirect subsidies, which helps keep the price of fuel down.
6. AMPLE SUPPLY OF WASTE
To state the obvious, for waste-to-energy to be a viable energy source, there must be an
adequate supply of waste to use as feedstock. Just as in the rest of the world, Swedish
consumers are producing much more waste than they did decades ago. This can largely
be attributed to economic growth, which is highly correlated with consumption and the
resulting waste. Although Swedes are recycling more, solid waste in Sweden has tripled
since 1960s. As landfills have become increasingly cost prohibitive, more waste is now
being funneled to waste-to-energy plants.
- 11 -
The average Swede produces 512 kg32 and Sweden as a whole produces 4.7 billion kg
of waste per year. Although the amount of waste that the average Swede produces has
been steadily climbing, it appears to have reached a peak. In 2009, waste decreased by
5 percent, although this was likely a result of the recession.
In the US, there is no shortage of waste from which energy could be recovered.
According to the EPA, in 2009, the United States produced over 243 million tons (220
billion kilograms) of municipal solid waste (MSW) per year.33 This works out to 2
kilograms (4.3 pounds) per person per day or 712 kg per year. In the US, MSW peaked
in 2007 at 255 million tons and then decreased in 2008 and 2009.
Despite Sweden’s growing supply of waste, in stark contrast to the United States, it now
has more WTE capacity than it does waste. As a result, Sweden is importing waste from
other countries such as Great Britain and Norway. In 2009, Sweden imported 36,480
tons of household waste for incineration. The United States, on the other hand, is a net
exporter of trash, with most of its cast-offs going to China in the form of scrap metal,
waste paper and e-waste.34
7. PUBLIC SUPPORT
Swedes are famous for their commitment to the environmental and their knowledge of
environmental issues. In a 2008 poll, 87 percent of Swedes said they had personally
taken action to reduce their C02 emissions – the highest percentage among European
countries.35 Although most Swedes prefer recycling to waste-to-energy, they are
generally supportive of WTE as a waste disposal method as the number of plants has
grown oven, and as regulations and technological advancements have decreased the
emissions of Swedish WTE plants by over 90 percent since the 1980s.
In the United States, the commitment to the environment and climate change is not
nearly as prevalent. This year, a Gallup poll found that only 51 percent of Americans
said they “worry a great deal or fair amount about climate change”.36 This combination of
less awareness and less environmental commitment means less public support for
policies than you see in Sweden and other western European countries. Furthermore,
the earlier, dirtier days of waste-to-energy in the United States created a negative
perception of the WTE industry. Most Americans are relatively unaware of the
environmental benefits that waste-to-energy offers, which creates and additional barrier
for WTE proponents in the US to overcome.
8. HIGH RECYLING RATE
Although recycling and waste-to-energy might at first seem to be in direct competition
with one another, this is not the case. In fact, throughout Europe and the United States
there is a positive correlation in communities between WTE usage and recycling.37 Many
recyclable materials, such as metal and glass, provide no energy potential. It is therefore
better that these materials are recycled and not sent to WTE plants. Although one might
argue that recycling may not directly lead to waste-to-energy, it is clear that communities
that tend to be better at recycling tend to also be better at recovering energy from waste.
Sweden has one of the best recycling rates in the world, with an almost 50 percent
material recycling rate (13 percent of waste is composted and 35 percent is recycled)38
- 12 -
The result is that less than 2 percent of waste ends up in landfills, and the remaining 48
percent is converted into energy. Conversely, in the United States, the majority of waste
(54 percent) is landfilled and only 34 percent is recycled. As Sweden has demonstrated,
there is clearly room to increase both recycling rates and the WTE capacity by reducing
the amount of waste sent to landfills.
Figure 1 – Waste Management Method Comparison
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
34%
48%
Recycling /
Composting
12%
Waste to Energy
54%
49%
United States
3%
Sweden
Landfill
9. LIMITED LAND RESOURCES
WTE often makes greater sense for densely populated areas or areas with high land
prices because real estate prices drives up the fees at landfills making it more expensive
to ship waste to less densely-populated areas. This is one of the reasons that WTE has
succeeded in countries like Denmark and Japan, where land is scarce and real estate
prices are high.
In Sweden, the cost of land has been less of a factor than it has in other countries.
Sweden has a considerable amount of land relative to its population – although 85
percent of Swedes live in urban areas. Still, although Sweden is famous for its high cost
of living, real estate prices remain relatively inexpensive.
Although the United States has abundant land, real estate prices can vary considerably.
You will find many of the waste-to-energy plants in densely populated areas like Long
Island and Cape Cod. Thus, land prices do appear to be a driver for US waste-toenergy.
VI. SHIFTING ECONOMIC FACTORS IN THE US
Although WTE growth has been stagnant in recent years, there are several reasons for
optimism for the US WTE energy industry. The increasing price of electricity,
transportation fuels, and metals, coupled with a decrease in landfill capacity, is creating
economic pressures that could lead to a resurgence for the WTE industry.
- 13 -
1. INCREASED PRICE OF ELECTRICITY
If the price of electricity increases, it will become more profitable for a WTE plant to sell
electricity to the grid. While no one knows for sure what will happen to electricity prices,
a recent survey of executives and managers in the utility sector found that more than 70
percent of all respondents agree or strongly agree with the statement “energy and
commodity prices will rise significantly in the next five years”.39
2. HIGHER OIL PRICES INCREASE THE PRICE TO SHIP TO
LANDFILLS
Waste-to-energy plants, unlike landfills, can be located on small plots of land close to
urban centers. As the price of oil increases, which most experts expect that it eventually
will, it will become more expensive to ship waste to landfills that are not near city
centers. WTE facilities will thus become a more economical option for many
communities.
3. HIGHER METAL PRICES ARE INCREASING THE REVENUE FROM
METAL RECOVERY
In recent years, metal prices have been increasing. WTE plants in the United States
currently recover 49 percent of all ferrous metals and 8 percent of non-ferrous metals
they process.40 As the price of metals continues to increase, there will be stronger
incentives for plants to look for ways to expand ferrous and non-ferrous metal recovery
effectiveness.
It is possible to recover a much higher percentage of metal than plants currently do. The
SEMASS WTE facility in Massachusetts is now able to recover 90 percent of the metal
that it processes. 41One 2007 study estimated that if US plants were to increase their
recovery efficiency, they could realize $162 million from the sale of recoverable metals
and savings on avoided tipping fees.42 As the potential for this additional revenue stream
becomes more evident, new WTE plants may become more attractive as metal recovery
plays an increasing role in WTE capital budgeting decisions.
4. THE NUMBER OF PERMITTED LANDFILLS HAS DECLINED IN THE
UNITED STATES
In 1988, there were 7,924 landfills permitted in the United States, but by 2005, that
number had shrunk to 1,654. Although the capacity of the average landfill was
substantially increased, some are concerned that unless new landfills are added, the
United States will not be able to adequately manage with its waste generation. Currently
existing landfills have a combined total of about 20 years of capacity at present
generation rates. If new capacity is not added in the coming years, tipping fees may
increase, thus tilting the economics more in favor of WTE.
VIII. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Given the significantly dissimilar success factor profiles of Sweden and the United
States, it is unlikely that waste-to-energy in the United States will experience the same
- 14 -
level of success that it has in Sweden in the near future. However, significant
opportunities still exist for companies in the US to profitably pursue waste-to-energy. In
fact, some companies and governments are already finding that it is the most
economical option. For instance, the US Capitol recently announced that it plans to
divert 90 percent of its waste to a nearby waste-to-energy facility because it was the
most cost-efficient solution.43
Furthermore, as the economic factors continue to shift with an increase in electricity
prices, fuel prices, metal prices, and a decrease in landfill capacity, waste-to-energy
should eventually become the most economically competitive waste disposal option in
many locations of the US. It is thus important to determine which locations provide the
greatest potential for WTE success, and explore policies and opportunities to influence
public perception that could expedite the transition to a country that better utilizes WTE
as a waste-management and energy solution.
1. LOCATIONS IN THE US WITH THE GREATEST WTE POTENTIAL
Although the US as a whole lacks many of the success factors that have helped drive
waste-to-energy in Sweden, many locations within the US can still provide ample
opportunities for waste-to-energy to thrive. Areas that meet some or all of the following
criteria could be the best candidates for future WTE expansion.
1. Areas Close to Urban Centers: WTE plants typically make greater economic sense
when they are located closer to urban centers. This helps keep the cost of transporting
the waste down, and allows these plants to charge higher tipping fees. Higher population
density is one of the contributing factors to the greater number of waste-to-energy plants
in the northeastern United States.
2. Areas with District Heating: District heating is not nearly as prevalent in the United
States as it is in Sweden. However it does exist in certain locals, such as New York City
and Minneapolis.
3. States that have RPS Standards and Define WTE as Renewable: There are currently
33 states in the United States that have renewable portfolio standards (RPS), of which 5
have voluntary standards instead of binding targets. There are also currently 25 states
that legally define waste-to-energy as a renewable resource, of which, 21 have RPS
standards. These 21 states offer potential for increased waste-to-energy [Figure 8].
4. Areas that Impose a Price on Carbon: In December 2010, California passed an
extensive carbon-trading plan aimed at cutting greenhouse emissions. If the plan is
implemented, California will have the second largest carbon trading market behind
Europe and may thus be more attractive for waste-to-energy developers. Other locations
in the US that levy a carbon tax such as Boulder, Colorado; San Francisco, California; or
Montgomery County, Maryland may also present more opportunities for waste-to-energy
development.
5. Areas with Higher Electricity Prices: In 2010 New England, the Mid Atlantic, Alaska
and Hawaii boasted the highest average electricity prices.44
- 15 -
6. Areas with High Tipping Fees: The northeast states typically have the highest tipping
fees, with an average of $70.04 in 2004.45 Other states such as Wisconsin, Washington
and Oregon have higher than average tipping fees.
2. POLICY OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE UNITED STATES
As Sweden has illustrated, policy favorable to WTE can be instrumental in encouraging
its success. In the United States, the following policy opportunities have the greatest
potential to incentivize waste-management companies and energy companies to fund
WTE projects:
1. States and Municipalities Can Levy Taxes on Tipping Fees: Although some US
municipalities charge landfill taxes, most are relatively modest, at around $1 or $2 per
ton (a far cry from the 435 SEK tax in Sweden). This has proven to be a very effective
policy instrument in Sweden and the EU, yet is rarely discussed in the US.
2. The Per Kilowatt Production Tax Credit for WTE Should be Extended Past 2013: This
will help create certainty in the market of future revenue streams, and help WTE
developers justify the immense capital costs required to finance WTE facilities.
3. More States Should Recognize WTE as a Renewable: Although the federal
government officially recognized waste-to-energy as a renewable resource, currently
only 24 states and the District of Columbia officially do.
4. Impose a National Price on Carbon: Although this seems unlikely under the current
political climate, a price on carbon could go a long way to help encourage investment in
clean and less carbon intensive forms of energy such as solar, wind and waste-toenergy.
3. OPPORTUNITIES TO INFLUENCE PUBLIC PERCEPTION
Public perception holds great importance in energy policy decision-making. A public that
is better educated on the benefits of waste-to-energy will be more likely to demand
action from public officials and policy makers at the federal, state and local levels. Before
WTE can take-off in the United States, it will be important to change any negative
perception and dispel any misconceptions that exist. It will thus be important for to
emphasize the following points.
1. Waste-to-Energy Helps Reduce Greenhouse Emissions: Waste-to-energy helps avoid
greenhouse gases in several ways:
 By reducing methane emissions that would otherwise be generated if the waste
was instead sent to a landfill and allowed to decompose
 By avoiding carbon dioxide emissions that would have been generated by a fossil
fuel power plant
 By increasing the recovery of ferrous and nonferrous metals, which is more
energy efficient than production from raw materials.
2. Waste-to-Energy Is Clean: Just as in Sweden, WTE facilities in the US have to comply
with strict governmental standards on the emissions. In the last decade most WTE
plants in the US have undergone expensive retrofits, and as a result have dramatically
- 16 -
reduced their emissions to comply with the EPA’s Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) standards. After analyzing the inventory of waste-to-energy
emissions, EPA concluded that waste-to-energy facilities produce electricity “with less
environmental impact than almost any other source of electricity.”
3. Waste-to-Energy Does NOT Compete with Recycling: Contrary to what many think,
waste-to-energy plants do not compete directly with recycling. Much of the recyclable
waste, such as a glass and metals, cannot be converted into energy. In fact,
communities that rely on waste-to-energy maintain on average a higher recycling rate
than other communities. Furthermore, waste-to-energy plants offer additional
opportunities to recycle because of the increased handling of waste streams. WTE
facilities recover over 750,000 tons of ferrous metals every year that would otherwise be
landfilled.46
- 17 -
IX. APPENDIX
FIGURE 4 – WASTE-TO-ENERGY SUCCESS FACTORS
Swede
n
United
States
High Tipping / Gate Fees
Yes
No
Policies Favoring Waste-to-Energy:
Yes
No
Price on Carbon/Carbon Tax
Yes
No
High Landfill Taxes and Fees
Yes
No
Recognition of Waste-to-Energy as a Renewable Resource
Partial
Partial
Preference to Waste-to-Energy in the Waste Management Hierarchy
Yes
Yes
Renewable Portfolio Standards
Partial
Partial
Direct Subsidies / Tax Credts
No
Partial
Extensive District Heating Network
Yes
No
Ample Supply of Waste
Yes
Yes
Shortage of Cheap Domestic Sources of Energy
Yes
No
Lack of Cheap Land
Yes
No
High Price of Electricity
Yes
No
Public Support
Yes
No
High Recycling Rate
Yes
Partial
Success Factors
*“Partial” indicates either that the success factor may exist in certain locations within the country,
or that it exists to a lesser degree.
- 18 -
FIGURE 5 – ENERGY RECOVERY – SOURCE: AVFALL SVIRGE
FIGURE 6 – DISTRICT HEAT PRODUCTION IN SWEDEN47
- 19 -
FIGURE 8 – STATES WITH RPS AND/OR DEFINING WTE AS
RENEWABLE IN STATE LAW
State
RPS Target
Year
WTE Defined as Renewable
Alaska
N/A
N/A
Yes
Arkansas
Arizona
N/A
15%
N/A
2025
Yes
California
33%
2030
Yes
Colorado
20%
2020
No
Connecticut
23%
2020
Yes
District of Columbia
20%
2020
Delaware
20%
2019
No
Florida
N/A
20%
N/A
2020
Yes
Hawaii
Iowa
105 MW
Illinois
25%
2025
No
Indiana
N/A
2020
Yes
Massachusetts
N/A
15%
Maryland
20%
2022
Yes
Maine
40%
2017
Yes
Michigan
10%
2015
Yes
Minnesota
25%
2025
Yes
Missouri
15%
2021
No
Montana
15%
2015
Yes
New Hampshire
23.80%
2025
Yes
New Jersey
22.50%
2021
Yes
New Mexico
20%
2020
No
Nevada
20%
2015
Yes
New York
24%
2013
Yes
North Carolina
12.50%
2021
North Dakota*
10%
2015
No
Oregon
25%
2025
Yes
Pennsylvania
8%
2020
Rhode Island
16%
2019
South Dakota*
10%
2015
Texas
5,880 MW
2015
No
Utah*
20%
2025
No
Vermont*
10%
2013
No
Virginia*
12%
2022
Yes
Washington
15%
2020
Yes
Wisconsin
10%
2015
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
*Five states, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, and Vermont, have set voluntary goals for adopting renewable
energy instead of portfolio standards with binding targets.
- 20 -
X. REFERENCES:
UK Achieves Average EU Municipal Recycling Rate — Letsrecycle.com - Recycling and Waste
Management News and Information." Home — Letsrecycle.com - Recycling and Waste
Management News and Information. Web. 01 Oct. 2011.
<http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/waste-management/uk-achieves-average-eumunicipal-recycling-rate>.
2 United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Solid Waste and Emergency
Response.Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts
and Figures for 2009. 2009. Web. 1 Oct. 2011. <Solid Waste and Emergency
Responsehttp://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw2009-fs.pdf>
3 http://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/3066/1/gupea_2077_3066_1.pdf
4 Yarow, Jay. "Sweden Hopes To Get 50% Of Its Energy From Renewables By 2020."Business
Insider. Web. 01 Oct. 2011. <http://www.businessinsider.com/sweden-hopes-to-get-50-of-itsenergy-from-renewables-in-2020-2009-3>.
5 "Energy: Generating Power for a Sustainable Future - SWEDEN.SE." SWEDEN.SE - The
Official Gateway to Sweden — Features, Facts, Music, Film. Web. 01 Oct. 2011.
<http://www.sweden.se/eng/Home/Society/Sustainability/Facts/Energy/>.
6 "Sweden, the Top Most Eco Friendly Country in the World." Shocking News. Web. 01 Oct.
2011. <http://shocking-news.org/world/sweden-the-top-most-eco-friendly-country-in-the-world/>.
7 "Biomass Now Generates 32% of All Energy in Sweden, Causing Increased Competition for
Pulpwood, Reports the Wood Resource Quarter | PressReleasePoint."PressReleasePoint | Free
Press Release Distribution Website | Submit Press Release. Web. 01 Oct. 2011.
<http://www.pressreleasepoint.com/biomass-now-generates-32-all-energy-sweden-causingincreased-competition-pulpwood-reports-wood-resou>.
8 Gibson, Lisa. Biomass Power and Thermal | Biomassmagazine.com. Web. 01 Oct. 2011.
<http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/3088/witnessing-a-Waste-to-Energy-revival>.
9 United States of America. Energy Policy Act of 2005. 08 Aug. 2005. Web.
<http://doi.net/iepa/EnergyPolicyActof2005.pdf>.
10 DSIRE: DSIRE Home. Web. 01 Oct. 2011.
<http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=US13F>.
11 Gies, Erica. "Waste-to-Energy Plants a Waste of Energy, Recycling Advocates Say - The New
York Times." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. The New York
Times, 4 July 2008. Web. 01 Oct. 2011.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/business/worldbusiness/04iht-rbogwaste.html>.
12 Energy Recovery Council. Web. 01 Oct. 2011. <http://www.wte.org/>.
13 http://www.forfas.ie/media/forfas060613_waste_benchmarking_report.pdf
14 "US Landfill Tipping Fees Reach New Record, despite Economic Downturn | Solid Waste &
Recycling Magazine." Solid Waste & Recycling Magazine - Canada's Magazine on Collection,
Hauling, Processing & Disposal. 23 Aug. 2010. Web. 01 Oct. 2011.
<http://www.solidwastemag.com/news/us-landfill-tipping-fees-reach-new-record-despiteeconomic-downturn/1000382892/>.
15 Michaels, Ted. Http://www.wte.org/userfiles/file/IWSA_2007_Directory.pdf. Rep. 27 Oct. 2007.
Web. <http://www.wte.org/userfiles/file/IWSA_2007_Directory.pdf>.
16 Fouché, Gwladys. "Sweden's Carbon-tax Solution to Climate Change Puts It Top of the Green
List | Environment | Guardian.co.uk." The Guardian. 27 Apr. 2008. Web. 07 Oct. 2011.
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/29/climatechange.carbonemissions>.
17 Biomass Power and Thermal | Biomassmagazine.com. 23 Nov. 2010. Web. 01 Oct. 2011.
<http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/5146/biomass-sweet-spot>.
18 Roberts, David. "What the US Power Industry Thinks about the Future of the US Power
Industry | Grist." Grist.org. 16 June 2011. Web. 07 Oct. 2011. <http://www.grist.org/climateenergy/2011-06-16-what-the-us-power-industry-thinks-about-future>.
19 Diverting Waste from Landfill. Rep. European Environment Agency, 2009. Web. 7 Oct. 2011.
<http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/waste/documents/Landfill_Directive_Report.p
df>.
1
- 21 -
20
SWEDISH WASTE MANAGEMENT | 2010. Avfall Sverige, 2010. Web. 7 Oct. 2011.
<http://www.avfallsverige.se/fileadmin/uploads/Statistikfiler/SWM2010.pdf>
21 "Sweden and Norway in Harsh Competition for the Incineration of Waste." ASK. 14 May 2010.
Web. 07 Oct. 2011. <http://www.ask-eu.de/News/7881/Sweden-and-Norway-in-harshcompetition-for-the-incineration-of-waste.htm>.
22 Usitall AB. Rep. Web. 7 Oct. 2011.
<https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDsQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fs
tockholm.trade.gov.pl%2Fen%2Fdownload%2Ffile%2Ff%2C3299&ei=RJmPTtIHcPu0gGQ_PVG&usg=AFQjCNFp56xkeqdsh98_kAzFVwwCwUznA&sig2=idvGBVVTNvJhC5PCYwlsLA>.
23 DSIRE: DSIRE Home. Web. 01 Oct. 2011.
<http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=US13F>.
24 "Interview with VP of Malarenergi." Telephone interview. Aug. 2012.
25 http://www.presseurop.eu/en/content/article/670281-europe-s-happy-rubbish-collectors
26 "RENEWABLE ENERGY IN THE US - WASTE-TO-ENERGY." Swedish Trade Council, Jan.
2008. Web. 7 Oct. 2011.
<http://www.wtert.com.br/home2010/arquivo/noticias_eventos/waste.pdf>.
27 Themelis, Nickolas J., and Priscilla Ulloa. "Potential for WTE District Heating in Northern US
and Canada." Http://www.metrovancouver.org/. Waste-to-Energy Research and Technology
Council, 12 June 2008. Web. 7 Oct. 2011.
<http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/solidwaste/planning/ReportsforQA/WTERC.pdf>.
28 Themelis, Nickolas J., and Priscilla Ulloa. "Potential for WTE District Heating in Northern US
and Canada." Http://www.metrovancouver.org/. Waste-to-Energy Research and Technology
Council, 12 June 2008. Web. 7 Oct. 2011.
<http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/solidwaste/planning/ReportsforQA/WTERC.pdf>.
29 Behrens, Carl E., and Carol Glover. "US Fossil Fuel Resources: Terminology, Reporting, and
Summary." Congressional Research Service, 30 Nov. 2010. Web. 7 Oct. 2011. <US Fossil Fuel
Resources:>.
30 Roberts, David. "Fossil Fuel Subsidies Dwarf Clean Energy Subsidies; Obama Wants to
Eliminate Them | Grist." Grist. 23 Sept. 2009. Web. 07 Oct. 2011.
<http://www.grist.org/article/2009-09-22-fossil-fuel-subsidies-dwarf-clean-energy-subsidiesobama-wants>.
31 "Average Retail Prices of Electricity, 1960-2009 (Cents per Kilowatthour, Including Taxes)." US
Energy Information Administration (EIA). Web. 07 Oct. 2011.
<http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/txt/ptb0810.html>.
32 "UK Achieves Average EU Municipal Recycling Rate — Letsrecycle.com - Recycling and
Waste Management News and Information." Letsrecycle.com. 23 Mar. 2010. Web. 07 Oct. 2011.
<http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/waste-management/uk-achieves-average-eumunicipal-recycling-rate>.
33 United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Solid Waste and Emergency
Response.Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts
and Figures for 2009. 2009. Web. 1 Oct. 2011. <Solid Waste and Emergency
Responsehttp://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw2009-fs.pdf>
34 Allen, Jodie. "America’s Biggest Trade Export to China? Trash - Jodie Allen (usnews.com)." US
News & World Report | News & Rankings | Best Colleges, Best Hospitals, and More. 30 Mar.
2010. Web. 12 Oct. 2011. <http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/jodieallen/2010/03/03/americas-biggest-trade-export-to-china-trash>.
35 "Climate Change Poll Reveals 61% Have Taken Action." European Parliament. 15 Sept. 2008.
Web. 12 Oct. 2011. <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?language=en>.
36 "AFP: Fewer Americans Worry about Climate Change: Poll." AFP, 14 Mar. 2011. Web. 12 Oct.
2011. <http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iLlplzCfRzOCYprlopzs04GvuoQ?docId=CNG.9ef0a881a7c2cb5d9c21f0a1a7bdc17d.241>.
37 "Waste-to-Energy (WTE) in an Integrated Solid Waste Management System." Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, 14 June 2010. Web.
- 22 -
"UK Achieves Average EU Municipal Recycling Rate — Letsrecycle.com - Recycling and
Waste Management News and Information." Home — Letsrecycle.com - Recycling and Waste
Management News and Information. 23 Mar. 2010. Web. 12 Oct. 2011.
<http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/waste-management/uk-achieves-average-eumunicipal-recycling-rate>.
39 Roberts, David. "What the US Power Industry Thinks about the Future of the US Power
Industry | Grist." Grist. 16 June 2011. Web. 12 Oct. 2011. <http://www.grist.org/climateenergy/2011-06-16-what-the-us-power-industry-thinks-about-future>.
40 Sunk, Werner. "Survey of Metal Recovery in the US WTE Industry." Diss. Columbia University,
2007. Abstract. Web.
<http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/nawtec/nawtec15/nawtec15-3219.pdf>.
41 "Reconsidering Municipal Solid Waste as a Renewable Energy Feedstock." Environmental and
Energy Policy Institute, July 2009. Web.
<http://www.eesi.org/files/eesi_msw_issuebrief_072109.pdf>.
42 Sunk, Werner. "Survey of Metal Recovery in the US WTE Industry." Diss. Columbia University,
2007. Abstract. Web.
<http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/nawtec/nawtec15/nawtec15-3219.pdf>.
43 "US Capitol Pens Waste-to-Energy Contract · Environmental Management & Energy News ·
Environmental Leader." Environmental Leader. 10 Oct. 2011. Web. 13 Oct. 2011.
<http://www.environmentalleader.com/2011/10/10/u-s-capitol-pens-Waste-to-Energy-contract/>.
44 "Electricity Prices by State | Compare Electric Rates by State in Your Area Nation Wide."
Electric Choice | Compare Electricity Prices & Electric Rates, Shop Electric Companies & Plans.
Electricchoice.com. Web. 13 Oct. 2011. <http://www.electricchoice.com/electricity-prices-bystate.php>.
45 Repa, PHD, Edward W. "NSWMA’s 2005 Tip Fee Survey." NATIONAL SOLID WASTES
MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, Mar. 2005. Web.
46 "Innovative Solutions for the Next Generation." Welcome to Novo Energy, LLC. Web. 13 Oct.
2011. <http://wte.novoenergyllc.com/index.php?option=com_content>.
47 http://wastebiorefining.blogspot.com/2011/08/district-heat-major-advantage-of.html
38
- 23 -