Energy demand
In all cases in this impact category, landfill is the worst option. The reduced energy recovery compared to
incineration or avoided energy consumption compared to recycling mean that the results are very clear on this
point. The choice between recycling and incineration depends on the plants’ individual data and efficiencies as the
review of the studies reveals a controversy.
Figure 8 compares recycling to the other two options. Its superiority over landfill is beyond any doubt, as all
thirteen cases are consistent. The only difference lies in the intensity of preference observed, which is regulated
by the recycling technologies assumed and the efficiency of the landfill (both in terms of gas collection and
conversion to electricity). The majority of cases concede that recycling is also better than incineration.
Interestingly, though, there is a larger difference in the energy demand results for the two cases where
incineration is better. These cases refer to magazines and textbooks, materials that differ from each other and
have relatively low heating values compared to other cases in the same study. An explanation given in the study
is that the energy savings from recycling of these two materials are 10-17 times lower than for the other paper
products examined in the study.
In Figure 9, incineration appears to be absolutely better than landfill. The rate of energy recovery from paper,
which can reach higher overall efficiencies in incineration than landfill gas recovery (assumed in all studies) is
mainly responsible for this outcome. In only three cases out of thirteen do the burdens from incineration
supersede the benefits for this impact category, while landfill burdens are higher than the savings in ten cases.
From this figure, it is also clear that recycling has a statistical advantage versus incineration.
Table 11 Relative difference between the impacts from the different end-of-life options vs. recycling for energy demand for paper. A positive value
means that recycling is preferable to the other end-of-life option. A negative value means that recycling causes more environmental burden than
the other end-of-life option.
N° case 1[PB] 2[NS] 2[CC] 2[MC] 3[PS] 3[EN]
Incineration with energy recovery ‐40% 60% 10% 10% ‐10% ‐10%
Landfill 80% 90% 100% 80% 10% 20%Recycling versus other alternativesN° case 4[CC] 4[MA] 4[NS] 4[OP] 4[PB] 4[TE] 4[MP]
Incineration with energy recovery 90% ‐130% 80% 80% 80% ‐300% 90%
Landfill 100% 160% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%Recycling versus other alternativesStudies n°5 does not include a comparison with recycling for this indicator and thus is not included in this
tableTable 12 Relative difference between the impacts from the different end-of-life options vs. incineration with energy recovery for energy demand
for paper. A positive value means that incineration with energy recovery is preferable to the other end-of-life option. A negative value means that
incineration with energy recovery causes more environmental burden than the other end-of-life option.
N° case 1[PB] 2[NS] 2[CC] 2[MC] 3[PS] 3[EN]
Recycling 70% ‐180% ‐10% ‐10% 10% 10%
Landfill 200% 80% 100% 70% 20% 30%Incineration with energy recovery versus other
alternativesN° case 4[CC] 4[MA] 4[NS] 4[OP] 4[PB] 4[TE] 4[MP]
Recycling ‐600% 60% ‐550% ‐370% ‐350% 80% ‐930%
Landfill 110% 130% 120% 100% 120% 100% 110%
Studies n°5 does not include a comparison with incineration with energy recovery for this indicator and thus is
not included in this tableIncineration with energy recoveryversus other alternatives