Chapter 3. What type of sink? Landfill or valorisation? Organics or energy?
objective should not direct the public authorities’ attention solely towards building landfill infrastructures. This approach generally leads to over-sized landfills and the destruction of existing recovery channels. While landfilling in good sanitary and environmental conditions remains a priority, it needs to be implemented in parallel to waste recovery efforts and not to their detriment. As in Bogotá since 2014, most “zero-waste” policies worldwide have emerged amidst tensions over the extension/creation of disposal sites (Sidibe, 2015). The fact that these sites have become saturated is now a positive driver for new waste recovery and reduction practices. Global South countries have some lead in avoiding waste generation due to their consumption patterns and production methods. This allows landfills to be minimally sized and helps to abate tensions.
II.
Caution required with energy recovery
Be it the capture and recovery of landfill biogas or incineration, decision-makers view energy recovery as a simple solution (being centralised and linear) that helps to resolve the problem definitively (as waste volumes are significantly reduced). The development of incineration along with energy recovery has also helped to move this technology forward as it produces electricity or heat from waste (instead of fossil fuels, which contribute to climate change). Yet, the global North countries (e.g., in northern Europe) that have mobilised this technology on a large-scale have now started to limit its use as the recovery is less complete than recycling or composting. Moreover, exploiting this technology to a maximum is at odds with the injunction to reduce the amount of waste (Rocher, 2008, Wilts & von Gries, 2015). Plans to develop incineration need to take into account the complex interactions among actors whose livelihood depends on waste recycling, as well as local environmental impacts caused by the residues of this treatment method (leachate infiltration, production of clinker, MSWIR, etc.) and global environmental impacts (GHG emissions, destruction of secondary raw materials).
1. Incineration: limited success for managing very large waste stocks Incineration has made its way into global South countries as it compensates for the lack of landfill sites in very dense urban areas. Yet, the waste composition (high moisture content) greatly complicates implementing this technology. In all cases, the cost of incineration with adequate flue gas treatment is certainly much higher than that of other treatment methods and proves burdensome for cash-strapped municipalities. Attempts to finance incineration by selling electricity have systematically failed, as feed-in tariffs remain very low (de Bercegol, 2016). Following the crisis sparked by the saturation of disposal sites, one of the solutions envisaged in Delhi was to build three incinerator plants (one for each municipality in the city’s outer suburbs). Delhi’s public authorities called on large private Indian groups to build and operate the three incinerators. The first incinerator1 has been running since 2012. However, the opening of both the Ghazipur incinerator by ILFS (1,300 t/day,10 MW) and the Narela-Bawana incinerator by Ramky (4,000 t/day, 24 MW) was delayed several times for technical reasons until their recent opening in 2017. Only the Okhla incinerator managed by Jindal (2,500 t/day,
1
A first incinerator was in fact built in 1984 by Danish cooperation but never operated (as the waste was too wet).
70 | TECHNICAL REPORTS– No. 54 – OCTOBER 2020
