Energy demand
The tables and graphs below depict the relative difference of composting and incineration with energy recovery
towards the other treatment options. Figure 38 shows that in terms of energy budgets, incineration and
anaerobic digestion are clearly better options than composting. The landfill route is also better in most cases
except for two. Those two cases are included in study no 3, where the simulated landfill does not contain any
energy recovery from waste. This absence of benefits in these cases is responsible for the landfill’s shortcomings.
Generally, since composting is an option that does not recover any energy, it is difficult to compete against the
other alternatives in this impact category. However, study no 1 does not include any energy recovery from the
landfill either, but performs better than composting-
On Figure 39, shows a self-evident and clear classification of alternatives. Incineration appears to be the best
option in this category. However, this statement is only based on two studies (4 and 5) that included this
comparison for this indicator. According to them, incineration is much better than composting and landfill and
slightly better than anaerobic digestion. The last comparison, in terms of energy budget, means that in a life-
cycle perspective, the overall energy efficiencies for incineration and anaerobic digestion lean towards the former.
Technological advancements in the anaerobic digestion field might, however, improve the overall efficiencies of
energy recovery for this option. So far, the best alternative for using the potential energy in organic waste has
been incineration, but this analysis of recent LCAs shows that anaerobic digestion can result in similar energy
credits to incineration and certainly better ones than landfill (see study no 4).
Table 73 Relative difference between the impacts from the different end-of-life options vs. composting for energy demand for food and garden
waste. A positive value means that composting is preferable to the other end-of-life option. A negative value means that composting causes a
larger environmental burden than the other end-of-life option.
N° case 1[OR] 3[FW1] 3[FW2] 3[FW3] 4[FW1] 4[FW2] 5[OR]
Incineration with energy recovery ‐730% ‐730% ‐200%
Landfill ‐20% ‐70% 440% 440% ‐380% ‐380% ‐40%
Anaerobic digestion ‐610% ‐450%Compostingversus other alternativesStudies n°2,6 and 7 do not include a comparison with composting for this indicator and thus are not included
in this table*
- Composting scenario assuming total anaerobic degradation
Table 74 Relative difference between the impacts from the different end-of-life options vs. incineration with energy recovery for energy demand
for food and garden waste. 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 a larger environmental burden than the other end-of-life option.
N° case 4[FW1] 4[FW2] 5[OR]
Composting 120% 120% 200%
Landfill 60% 60% 160%
Anaerobic digestion 20% 40%Incineration with energy recovery
versus other alternativesOnly sudies n°4 and 5 include a comparison with incineration with energy
recovery for this indicator