Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Maximizing resource efficiency: opportunities for energy recovery from municipal solid waste in Europe

  • REVIEW
  • Published:
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The integration of renewable energy sources into sustainable development practices has become increasingly important. The municipal solid waste (MSW) utilisation presents a promising renewable energy source, provided that it is combined with modern technologies to optimise its energy conversion. The global population growth and the corresponding rise in living standards have resulted in increased consumption of goods and energy. Whilst such consumption boosts economic development, it also contributes to a significant increase in waste generation. In this article, the possibility of using MSW for energy production is examined, along with an overview of the production of waste and treatment activities in the European Union (EU). Europe generates 1.66 billion tonnes of waste yearly, with construction, demolition and MSW being a major contributor. The European Commission’s Waste Legislative Package aims for 60% reuse and recycling readiness by 2025 and a 65% target by 2030, focussing on landfill assessment, waste recycling promotion and other initiatives. In 2020, there were 504 waste to energy (WtE) plants in Europe with 61 million tonnes (137 kg per capita) of total incineration capacity. France has the most WtE (124) plants, whilst Germany has the highest capacity for waste incineration. The total energy produced from waste in 2019 was 41.2 MTOE (million tonnes of oil equivalent), with nearly half of that total was accounted by MSW. This includes non-renewable waste, MSW renewable and non-renewable waste and industrial waste. This statistics represents around 2.5% of the EU’s overall energy supply. The majority of energy recovery is used to generate electricity in electricity-only facilities or either in combined heat and power (CHP). In 2020, there was a 69 million tonnes or 58% decline in the amount of MSW that was landfilled in the EU, which represents 4.0% decline on an annual average. Germany recycled most MSW with 66% approximated recycling rate in 2020. Only eight EU countries have recycling rates that are higher than 50%. On average, WtE plants in the EU monitor around 60% of biogenic CO2 emissions, with the remaining 40% being fossil CO2 emissions. In the light of the EU’s prioritisation of the circular economy, it is imperative that all Member States, including EEA countries, shift from traditional waste disposal methods towards more intelligent waste treatment strategies, such as gasification and pyrolysis, which embody circular economy principles in their waste management policies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Van JCF, Tham PE, Lim HR, Khoo KS, Chang JS, Show PL (2022) Integration of internet-of-things as sustainable smart farming technology for the rearing of black soldier fly to mitigate food waste. J Taiwan Inst Chem Eng. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtice.2022.104235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Stoeva K, Alriksson S (2017) Influence of recycling programmes on waste separation behaviour. Waste Manage 68:732–741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.06.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Wan C, Shen GQ, Choi S (2017) A review on political factors influencing public support for urban environmental policy. Environ Sci Policy 75:70–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.05.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wan C, Shen GQ, Choi S (2018) Differential public support for waste management policy: the case of Hong Kong. J Clean Prod 175:477–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.060

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Pietzsch N, Ribeiro JLD, de Medeiros JF (2017) Benefits, challenges and critical factors of success for zero waste: a systematic literature review. Waste Manage 67:324–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.05.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Monte MC, Fuente E, Blanco A, Negro C (2009) Waste management from pulp and paper production in the European Union. Waste Manage 29(1):293–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.02.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Mariyam S, Shahbaz M, Al-Ansari T, Mackey HR, McKay G (2022) A critical review on co-gasification and co-pyrolysis for gas production. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 161:112349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Matheson T (2022) Disposal is not free: fiscal instruments to internalize the environmental costs of solid waste. Int Tax Public Finance 29(4):1047–1073. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10797-022-09741-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ma Y, Preveniou A, Kladis A, Pettersen JB (2022) Circular economy and life cycle assessment of alumina production: simulation-based comparison of Pedersen and Bayer processes. J Clean Prod 366:132807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132807

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hazarika J, Khwairakpam M (2022) Valorization of industrial solid waste through novel biological treatment methods—integrating different composting techniques. Advanced organic waste management sustainable practices and approaches. Elsevier, Amsterdam. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-85792-5.00012-5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Hansen W, Christopher M, Verbuecheln M (2002) EU waste policy and challenges for regional and local authorities. Ecol. Inst. Int. Eur. Environ. Policy, Berlin, Germany, p 4

    Google Scholar 

  12. Sileryte R, Wandl A, van Timmeren A (2022) The responsibility of waste production: comparison of European waste statistics regulation and Dutch National Waste Registry. Waste Manage 151:171–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2022.07.022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Szaniawski J (2015) Alexandra. In: Szaniawski J (ed) The cinema of Alexander Sokurov. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 233–249

    Google Scholar 

  14. Arias O, Pulgar JA, Soto M (2022) Application of organic wastes to soils and legislative intricacies in a circular economy context. Clean Technol Environ Policy 24:1871–1888. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-022-02293-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Zhamiyeva R, Sultanbekova G, Balgimbekova G, Mussin K, Abzalbekova M, Kozhanov M (2022) Problems of the effectiveness of the implementation of international agreements in the field of waste management: the study of the experience of Kazakhstan in the context of the applicability of European legal practices. Int Environ Agreements Polit Law Econ 22(1):177–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-021-09549-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ramm K (2022) Considerations related to the application of the EU water reuse regulation to the production of snow from reclaimed water. Circ Econ Sustain 2(2):569–587. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-021-00075-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Duquennoi C, Martinez J (2022) European Union’s policymaking on sustainable waste management and circularity in agroecosystems: The potential for innovative interactions between science and decision-making. Front Sustain Food Syst 6:327. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2022.937802

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Friant MC, Vermeulen WJ, Salomone R (2021) Analysing European Union circular economy policies: Words versus actions. Sustain Prod Consum 27:337–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.11.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kurniawan TA, Maiurova A, Kustikova M, Bykovskaia E, Othman MHD, Goh HH (2022) Accelerating sustainability transition in St. Petersburg (Russia) through digitalization-based circular economy in waste recycling industry: a strategy to promote carbon neutrality in era of Industry 4.0. J Clean Prod 363:132452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ashfaq A, Iqbal Z, Ahmad K, Arslan M, Iftikhar M, Elghareeb EM (2022) Hazard of selenium metal contamination in vegetables grown in municipal solid waste amended soil: assessment of the potential sources and systemic health effects. Agric Water Manage 271:107768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2022.107768

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Giorgi S, Lavagna M, Wang K, Osmani M, Liu G, Campioli A (2022) Drivers and barriers towards circular economy in the building sector: stakeholder interviews and analysis of five European countries policies and practices. J Clean Prod 336:130395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Chioatto E, Sospiro P (2022) Transition from waste management to circular economy: the European Union roadmap. Environ Dev Sustain 25:249–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-02050-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bottausci S, Midence R, Serrano-Bernardo F, Bonoli A (2022) Organic waste management and circular bioeconomy: a literature review comparison between Latin America and the European Union. Sustainability 14(3):1661. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Colelli FP, Croci E, Pontoni FB, Zanini SF (2022) Assessment of the effectiveness and efficiency of packaging waste EPR schemes in Europe. Waste Manage 148:61–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2022.05.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Alam P et al (2022) Energy generation and revenue potential from municipal solid waste using system dynamic approach. Chemosphere 299:134351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.134351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Huang B et al (2022) Recent progress on the thermal treatment and resource utilization technologies of municipal waste incineration fly ash: a review. Process Saf Environ Prot 159:547–565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2022.01.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Piebalgs MOA (2022) Energy security meets the circular economy: a stronger case for sustainable biomethane production in the EU. Robert Schuman Centre

  28. Milanović T, Savić G, Martić M, Milanović M, Petrović N (2022) Development of the waste management composite index using DEA method as circular economy indicator: the case of European Union countries. Polish J Environ Stud 31(1):771–784. https://doi.org/10.15244/pjoes/139896

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Minelgaitė A, Liobikienė G (2019) Waste problem in European Union and its influence on waste management behaviours. Sci Total Environ 667:86–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Somlai C, Bullock C, Gallagher J (2023) Plastic packaging waste in Europe: addressing methodological challenges in recording and reporting. Waste Manag Res 41(6):1134–1143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X221142192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Tauš P, Šimková Z, Cehlár M, Krajňáková I, Drozda J (2023) Fulfillment of EU goals in the field of waste management through energy recovery from waste. Energies 16(4):1913. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16041913

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Psomopoulos CS, Kiskira K, Kalkanis K, Leligou HC, Themelis NJ (2022) The role of energy recovery from wastes in the decarbonization efforts of the EU power sector. IET Renew Power Gener 16(1):48–64. https://doi.org/10.1049/rpg2.12315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Altieri VG, De Sanctis M, Sgherza D, Pentassuglia S, Barca E, Di Iaconi C (2021) Treating and reusing wastewater generated by the washing operations in the non-hazardous plastic solid waste recycling process: advanced method vs. conventional method. J Environ Manage 284:112011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Iordache M et al (2021) Temporal evolution of greenhouse gas emissions in European Union (Eu-28): a perspective on Romania. Smart Energy Sustain Environ 24(2):43–58. https://doi.org/10.46390/j.smensuen.24221.438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Fischer C (2011) The development and achievements of EU waste policy. J Mater Cycles Waste Manage 13(1):2–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-010-0311-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. van der Linden A, Reichel A (2020) Bio-waste in Europe: turning challenges into opportunities, no. 04. [Online]. Available https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/bio-waste-in-europe. Accessed 4 Mar 2023

  37. Du Y, Ju T, Meng Y, Lan T, Han S, Jiang J (2021) A review on municipal solid waste pyrolysis of different composition for gas production. Fuel Process Technol 224:107026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2021.107026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. “Eurostat: Environmental Data Centre on waste—European Environment Agency.” https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/waste/links/eurostat-environmental-data-centre-on-waste. Accessed 25 July 2022

  39. “IPCC—task force on national greenhouse gas inventories,” May 30, 2023

  40. Amin M et al (2022) Hydrogen production through renewable and non-renewable energy processes and their impact on climate change. Int J Hydrogen Energy 47(77):33112–33134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.07.172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Amin M, Shah HH (2022) Effect of absorption time for the preparation of activated carbon from wasted tree leaves of Quercus alba and investigating life cycle. C J Carbon Res 8:57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Amin M, Chung E (2022) Effect of different activation agents for activated carbon preparation through characterization and life cycle assessment. Int J Environ Sci Technol 20:7645–7656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-022-04472-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Amin M et al (2022) Conversion of waste biomass into activated carbon and evaluation of environmental consequences using life cycle assessment. Appl Sci 12:5741

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Vigier E, Curt C, Curt T, Arnaud A, Dubois J (2019) Joint analysis of environmental and risk policies: methodology and application to the French case. Environ Sci Policy 101:63–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.07.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. CEWEP (2022) Waste-to-energy climate roadmap the path to carbon negative, pp 1–20

  46. UNFCCC (2022) Canada. 2022 National Inventory Report (NIR). Natl. Invent. Reports, May 2022. [Online]. Available https://unfccc.int/documents/461919

  47. Yamada K, Ii R, Yamamoto M, Ueda H, Sakai S (2023) Japan’s greenhouse gas reduction scenarios toward net zero by 2050 in the material cycles and waste management sector. J Mater Cycles Waste Manage. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-023-01650-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Porshnov D (2022) Evolution of pyrolysis and gasification as waste to energy tools for low carbon economy. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Energy Environ 11(1):1–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/wene.421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Kavathia K, Prajapati P (2020) A review on biomass-fired CHP system using fruit and vegetable waste with regenerative organic Rankine cycle (RORC). Mater Today Proc 43:572–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.12.052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Ngo PL, Udugama IA, Gernaey KV, Young BR, Baroutian S (2021) Mechanisms, status, and challenges of thermal hydrolysis and advanced thermal hydrolysis processes in sewage sludge treatment. Chemosphere 281:130890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.130890

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Puricelli S, Cardellini G, Casadei S, Faedo D, van den Oever AEM, Grosso M (2021) A review on biofuels for light-duty vehicles in Europe. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 137(2019):110398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Li C et al (2022) Pyrolysis of waste surgical masks into liquid fuel and its life-cycle assessment. Bioresour Technol 346(2021):126582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.126582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Ławińska O, Korombel A, Zajemska M (2022) Pyrolysis-based municipal solid waste management in Poland—SWOT analysis. Energies 15(2):510. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15020510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Sipra AT, Gao N, Sarwar H (2018) Municipal solid waste (MSW) pyrolysis for bio-fuel production: a review of effects of MSW components and catalysts. Fuel Process Technol 175:131–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2018.02.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Hasan MM, Rasul MG, Khan MMK, Ashwath N, Jahirul MI (2021) Energy recovery from municipal solid waste using pyrolysis technology: a review on current status and developments. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 145:111073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111073

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Chanthakett A, Arif MT, Khan MMK, Oo AMT (2021) Performance assessment of gasification reactors for sustainable management of municipal solid waste. J Environ Manage 291:112661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Shah HH et al (2023) A review on gasi fi cation and pyrolysis of waste plastics. Front Chem 10:1–38. https://doi.org/10.3389/fchem.2022.960894

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Wei J et al (2021) A review on reactivity characteristics and synergy behavior of biomass and coal co-gasification. Int J Hydrogen Energy 46(33):17116–17132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.02.162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Diao R, Lu H, Yang Y, Bai J, Zhu X (2022) Strategic valorization of bio-oil distillation sludge via gasification: a comparative study for reactivities, kinetics, prediction and ash deposition. Chem Eng J 433:134334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2021.134334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Sajid M, Raheem A, Ullah N, Asim M, Ur Rehman MS, Ali N (2022) Gasification of municipal solid waste: progress, challenges, and prospects. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 168:112815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112815

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Leckner B (2022) Hundred years of fluidization for the conversion of solid fuels. Powder Technol 411:117935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2022.117935

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Santos SM, Assis AC, Gomes L, Nobre C, Brito P (2022) Waste gasification technologies: a brief overview. Waste 1(1):140–165. https://doi.org/10.3390/waste1010011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. IEA Bioenergy: Task 33, “Status report on thermal gasification of biomass and waste 2021,” IEA Bioenergy, February 2022

  64. Im-orb K, Wiyaratn W, Arpornwichanop A (2018) Technical and economic assessment of the pyrolysis and gasification integrated process for biomass conversion. Energy 153:592–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.04.049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Raheem A, He Q, Ding L, Dastyar W, Yu G (2022) Evaluating performance of pyrolysis and gasification processes of agriculture residues-derived hydrochar: effect of hydrothermal carbonization. J. Clean. Prod. 338:130578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Velghe I, Carleer R, Yperman J, Schreurs S (2011) Study of the pyrolysis of municipal solid waste for the production of valuable products. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 92(2):366–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2011.07.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Malinauskaite J et al (2017) Municipal solid waste management and waste-to-energy in the context of a circular economy and energy recycling in Europe. Energy 141:2013–2044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.11.128

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Department of Engineering and the laboratory of Chemical Process Engineering, University of Sannio, Piazza Roma 21, Benevento, 82100, Italy.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Engineering, University of Sannio, Piazza Roma 21, 82100, Benevento, Italy

    Hamad Hussain Shah & Francesco Pepe

  2. Interdisciplinary Research Center for Hydrogen and Energy Storage (Tier II)-Research and Innovation, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM), Dhahran, 31261, Saudi Arabia

    Muhammad Amin

  3. Department of Energy Systems Engineering, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

    Muhammad Amin

Authors
  1. Hamad Hussain Shah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Muhammad Amin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Francesco Pepe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors (HHS, MA and FP) participated in all stages of this work, from conception to this review and final submission. We highlight some important stages: conceptualization, methodological development, data and results analysis, writing, drafting and original article, review and final edition.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hamad Hussain Shah.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shah, H.H., Amin, M. & Pepe, F. Maximizing resource efficiency: opportunities for energy recovery from municipal solid waste in Europe. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 25, 2766–2782 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-023-01733-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-023-01733-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation