14.12.2012 Views

International Review of Waste Management Policy - Department of ...

International Review of Waste Management Policy - Department of ...

International Review of Waste Management Policy - Department of ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Table 61-5: Summary <strong>of</strong> externality costs for incineration and landfill scenarios<br />

(€/tonne)<br />

957<br />

Impact Impact Impact I1 I1 I2 I2 I3 I3 L1 L1 L2 L2<br />

Global<br />

warming<br />

Damage<br />

from air<br />

pollution<br />

Damage<br />

from<br />

leachate<br />

Disamenity<br />

Total<br />

Total<br />

external<br />

external<br />

costs<br />

costs<br />

Pollution<br />

displacement<br />

Net Net external<br />

external<br />

costs<br />

costs<br />

Source: COWI, 2000<br />

0.8<br />

(0.5 - 1.0)<br />

20<br />

(5 - 27)<br />

<strong>International</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Waste</strong> <strong>Policy</strong>: Annexes<br />

0<br />

(0 – 0.3)<br />

8<br />

(4 - 14)<br />

28<br />

(10 (10 (10 – 43)<br />

43)<br />

-71<br />

(-115 - -19)<br />

-43 43<br />

(-72 72 - -9) 9)<br />

0.8<br />

(0.5 - 1.0)<br />

50<br />

(15 - 72)<br />

0<br />

(0 – 0.3)<br />

8<br />

(4 - 14)<br />

58<br />

(20 (20 – 88)<br />

88)<br />

-21<br />

(-29 - -4)<br />

37 37<br />

(19 (19 – 84)<br />

84)<br />

0.8<br />

(0.5 - 1.0)<br />

69<br />

(20 – 108)<br />

0<br />

(0 – 0.3)<br />

8<br />

( 4 - 14)<br />

77<br />

(25 (25 – 124)<br />

124)<br />

0<br />

(-)<br />

77<br />

(25 (25 (25 – 124)<br />

124)<br />

5<br />

(1 – 14)<br />

0.1<br />

(0.02 –<br />

0.2)<br />

0<br />

(0 – 1)<br />

10<br />

(6 – 19)<br />

15 15<br />

(7 – 34)<br />

34)<br />

-4<br />

(-10 - -1)<br />

11 11<br />

(6 – 24)<br />

24)<br />

8<br />

(2 – 23)<br />

0<br />

(-)<br />

1.5<br />

(1 – 2)<br />

10<br />

(6 – 19)<br />

20<br />

(9 – 44)<br />

44)<br />

0<br />

(-)<br />

20 20<br />

(9 – 44)<br />

44)<br />

Understanding the various assumptions underpinning these results is important.<br />

Where incineration produces electricity, the authors credit it with displacing emissions<br />

from a coal fired plant. The assumption that electricity from coal fired plant is the<br />

marginal source has a large impact on the analysis. If gas, arguably a more likely<br />

marginal generation source, was assumed to be displaced, the credited greenhouse<br />

gas emissions would be significantly reduced. Moreover, the study also includes<br />

emissions from mining and transport <strong>of</strong> the coal, while not accounting for transport<br />

emissions associated with waste delivered to the incinerator. This somewhat<br />

overstates the benefits <strong>of</strong> displaced energy generation. The assumed conversion<br />

efficiencies could also be argued to be rather high.<br />

The authors undertake sensitivity analysis using oil as the displaced fuel for electricity<br />

generation. For I1, this roughly halves the pollution displacement, resulting in a net<br />

external benefit <strong>of</strong> €9/tonne waste incinerated instead <strong>of</strong> the benefit <strong>of</strong> €43/tonne<br />

waste incinerated with coal as the displaced source. Displacing gas, with a lower

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!