Dealing with the climate change issue
Incineration can appear as a viable option for plastic waste management thanks to the high heating value of
plastics. Incineration is thus an interesting option regarding depletion of abiotic resources and energy demand,
especially for plastics with a heating value above 40 MJ/ton such as HDPE or PP for example (while not for PET
and PVC). However, incineration raises some concerns regarding CO 2 emissions. These emissions are partly
compensated by the energy recovered that substitutes coal and natural gas but incineration is still not
recommended if the focus is put on climate change.
As argued in current European and National policies, disposal in landfills is globally an unfavourable option.
Nevertheless, when looking at GHG emissions on a 100-year perspective landfill can perform better than
incineration as no degradation is assumed to take place. As plastics are not covered by the Landfill Directive
which deals with imposing requirements on biodegradable waste only, disposal in landfills might remain the
preferred option for the residual waste than cannot be recycled since incineration is to be avoided if the main
priority is the reduction of CO 2 emissions. As plastics are not degradable it has been suggested that they could be
stored in landfills in order to be recycled in the future when the recycling infrastructure is more developed. The
criticism that may be raised over this option is that it does not appear sustainable since it implies leaving the next
generation to deal with our waste.
The promotion of energy from waste
The analysis has also pointed out the good performance of pyrolysis. Pyrolysis appeared preferable over
incineration regarding the impacts on climate change and depletion of abiotic resources. The analysis also
suggested that pyrolysis is less energy-demanding than either recycling or incineration. The performances
regarding eutrophication and acidification also confirm that this is a promising option. This technology is still in
early development and so the results may not be representative of commercial operations. Nevertheless, the
results highlight that pyrolysis should be promoted, in line with the UK policy that aims at promoting energy from
waste. Indeed, via the ‘Renewables Obligation’, the UK government is supporting electricity produced from the
biomass content of waste treated in gasification, pyrolysis, anaerobic digestion and good quality combined heat
and power plants (DEFRA, 2007).
Summing up
Table 92 sums up how the UK waste sector contribute to make the relevant end-of-life option more or less
beneficial from an environmental point of view and how future trends could change the picture.
Table 92 Influence of the UK context on the various end-of-life options for plastic waste managementInfluence^ on^ the^ end‐of‐life^ options^
Elements^ of^ the^ UK^ context^ Recycling^ Pyrolysis^ Incineration^ Landfill^
1 Energy mix based on fossil fuels ↘ ↗ ↗ ↗
2 Co‐mingled plastic collection ↘
Sector‐
based
elements (^3) Lack of domestic recycling facilities ↘
4 Low carbon energy mix ↗ ↘ ↘ ↘
5 Increased use of cogeneration ↗
6 Separate collection ↗
Future
trends
7 Development of domestic
recycling facilities
↗
↗
Could contribute to make the concerned end‐of‐life option more beneficial from an environmental point
of view↘
Could contribute to make the concerned end‐of‐life option less beneficial from an environmental point of
view1 Currently, the UK energy mix is mainly based on fossil fuels. Therefore the energy savings brought by incineration, pyrolysis
and landfills make these options advantageous while on the contrary recycling is associated with energy consumption.
2 Co-mingled plastic collection results in a relatively low quality of the collected plastics and thus limits the environmental
benefits of recycling.
3 The lack of domestic recycling facilities implies that the collected plastics need to be exported to be recycled and
transportation is increasing the environmental impacts of the recycling process.