In Europe, about 20% of municipal solid waste is incinerated. Large differences can be found between northern and southern Europe regarding energy recovery efficiencies, flue gas cleaning technologies and residue management. Life-cycle assessment (LCA) of waste incineration often provides contradictory results if these local conditions are not properly accounted for. The importance of regional differences and site-specific data, and choice of LCA model itself, was evaluated by assessment of two waste incinerators representing northern and southern Europe (Denmark and Italy) based on two different LCA models (SimaPro and EASEWASTE). The results showed that assumptions and modelling approaches regarding energy recovery/substitution and direct air emissions were most critical. Differences in model design and model databases mainly had consequences for the toxicity-related impact categories. The overall environmental performance of the Danish system was better than the Italian, mainly because of higher heat recovery at the Danish plant. Flue gas cleaning at the Italian plant was, however, preferable to the Danish, indicating that efficient flue gas cleaning may provide significant benefits. Differences in waste composition between the two countries mainly affected global warming and human toxicity via water. Overall, SimaPro and EASEWASTE provided consistent ranking of the individual scenarios. However, important differences in results from the two models were related to differences in the databases and modelling approaches, in particular the possibility for modelling of waste-specific emissions affected the toxicity-related impact categories. The results clearly showed that the use of site-specific data was essential for the results.

Waste-to-energy (WtE) plants are traditionally designed for clean and economical disposal of waste. Design for output on the other hand was the guideline when projecting the HRC (HoogRendement Centrale) block of Afval Energie Bedrijf Amsterdam. Since commissioning of the plant in 2007, operation has continuously improved. In December 2010, the block's running average subsidy efficiency for one year exceeded 30% for the first time. The plant can increase its efficiency even further by raising the steam temperature to 480°C. In addition, the plant throughput can be increased by 10% to reduce the total cost of ownership. In order to take these steps, good preparation is required in areas such as change in heat transfer in the boiler and the resulting higher temperature upstream of the super heaters. A solution was found in the form of combining measured data with a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model. Suction and acoustic pyrometers are used to obtain a clear picture of the temperature distribution in the first boiler pass. With the help of the CFD model, the change in heat transfer and vertical temperature distribution was predicted. For the increased load, the temperature is increased by 100°C; this implies a higher heat transfer in the first and second boiler passes. Even though the new block was designed beyond state-of-the art in waste-to-energy technology, margins remain for pushing energy efficiency and economy even further.

Bottom ashes (BA) obtained from a municipal solid waste incineration plant, have shown different pH and lead concentrations in leachate for different lines. In order to explain this behaviour, combustion tests were performed concerning the lines and the effect of the type of wastes. The BA obtained from the same waste has shown the same raw chemical composition, but different leachate characteristics for the different lines. The bottom ash from different wastes burned on the same line instead showed very similar leachate behaviour. The results suggest that the quality of leach ate depends on the plant and process conditions (in particular the ash quenching phase) and not on the composition of the waste. During ash quenching, the formation and dissolution of soluble alkalis depends on the washing ratio and on the residence time. A different washing degree leads to a different residual alkalinity in the bottom ash, and consequently to a different value of leachate pH with different metal releases. Therefore, with the practical aim of establishing the best conditions for the final disposal of bottom ash, a careful planning of this phase could be proposed as an alternative to a weathering process.