Trash Incineration More Polluting than Coal

To make the same amount of ener­gy as a coal pow­er plant, trash incin­er­a­tors in 2018 released 65% more car­bon diox­ide (CO2), as much car­bon monox­ide, three times as much nitro­gen oxides (NOx), five times as much mer­cury, near­ly six times as much lead and 27 times more hydrochlo­ric acid (HCl).

Trash incin­er­a­tors are the dirt­i­est way to make elec­tric­i­ty by most air pol­lu­tion mea­sures. Even with air pol­lu­tion con­trol equip­ment, trash incin­er­a­tors emit more pol­lu­tion than (less con­trolled) coal pow­er plants per unit of ener­gy pro­duced. Coal pow­er plants are wide­ly under­stood as the most air-pol­lut­ing ener­gy source, but few real­ize how much worse trash incin­er­a­tors are for air quality.

This is not a rad­i­cal con­clu­sion. The New York State Depart­ment of Envi­ron­men­tal Con­ser­va­tion proved, in a 2011 analy­sis, that the state’s 10 trash incin­er­a­tors are dirt­i­er than the 8 coal-burn­ing pow­er plants that were still oper­at­ing at the time (all of the coal pow­er plants have since closed, but the 10 incin­er­a­tors remain). Except for sul­fur diox­ide, trash incin­er­a­tors are dirt­i­er than coal on the six oth­er pol­lu­tants the state com­pared (nitro­gen oxides, car­bon monox­ide, hydrochlo­ric acid, mer­cury, lead, and cadmium).[1] See the chart at the bot­tom of this page for the sum­ma­rized New York data.

Dioxins/furans: Trash incin­er­a­tors are well known to be the largest source of the most tox­ic man-made chem­i­cals known to sci­ence – diox­ins. The lat­est nation­al inven­to­ry of diox­in emis­sions – by the U.S. Envi­ron­men­tal Pro­tec­tion Agency in 2006, look­ing at data from 1987, 1995, and 2000 – shows that trash incin­er­a­tion has gone from the largest source of diox­in emis­sions in 1987 and 1995 to the 4th largest source in 2000. How­ev­er, if one accounts for the lack of con­tin­u­ous mon­i­tor­ing and the con­se­quent mas­sive under­es­ti­ma­tion of diox­in emis­sions from incin­er­a­tion, trash incin­er­a­tion is still the largest source of diox­ins, despite the cleanup or clo­sure of some of the dirt­i­est incinerators.[2]

Between 2000 and 2005, new diox­in emis­sions lim­its were imple­ment­ed for trash incin­er­a­tors, requir­ing the worst diox­in pol­lut­ing incin­er­a­tors to clean up or shut down. EPA and the trash incin­er­a­tor indus­try tout that diox­in emis­sions from trash incin­er­a­tors have been reduced by over 99% between 1990 and 2005. Even with this large reduc­tion, and with­out even account­ing for the afore­men­tioned under­es­ti­ma­tion from lack of con­tin­u­ous mon­i­tor­ing, trash incin­er­a­tors release 28 times as much diox­in than coal pow­er plants do to pro­duce the same amount of energy.[2][3][4]

Mer­cury is anoth­er noto­ri­ous­ly tox­ic pol­lu­tant released from incin­er­a­tors. It is a potent neu­ro­tox­in that accu­mu­lates in the fat­ty tis­sue of fish once in the envi­ron­ment. Mer­cury emis­sions from trash incin­er­a­tion were a close sec­ond to coal pow­er plants in the ear­ly 1990s, which is rather incred­i­ble giv­en the much larg­er size of coal pow­er plants and the fact that there are about five times as many coal plants as incin­er­a­tors. Pol­lu­tion con­trols required on trash incin­er­a­tors reduced the indus­try’s mer­cury emis­sions 96% by 2005.[5] How­ev­er, even with this dra­mat­ic indus­try-wide reduc­tion, trash incin­er­a­tion still put out 5.3 times as much mer­cury as coal plants do to pro­duce the same amount of ener­gy, accord­ing to the lat­est avail­able nation­al data from 2018.[5] A state-wide analy­sis by the New York State Depart­ment of Envi­ron­men­tal Con­ser­va­tion found that, in 2009, the state’s 10 trash incin­er­a­tors released 14 times as much mer­cury per unit of ener­gy than the state’s 8 coal pow­er plants – high enough that the total amount of mer­cury com­ing from the incin­er­a­tors was high­er than the emis­sions from the coal plants, even with­out adjust­ing for size (coal plants are far larg­er facilities).[1]

Lead is anoth­er well-known tox­ic chem­i­cal that dimin­ish­es intel­li­gence and – by low­er­ing dopamine lev­els in the brain – may even be tied to increas­es in vio­lent behav­ior and cocaine addiction.[6][7][8] Trash incin­er­a­tion releas­es more than six times as much lead as coal to pro­duce the same amount of energy.[5]

Nitro­gen oxide (NOx) pol­lu­tion pri­mar­i­ly con­tributes to eye, nose, throat, and lung irri­ta­tion and res­pi­ra­to­ry prob­lems like short­ness of breath that can trig­ger asth­ma. Trash incin­er­a­tion releas­es 3.3 times as much NOx as coal does to pro­duce the same amount of energy.[9]

Car­bon monox­ide (CO) is also released from trash incin­er­a­tors at rates com­pa­ra­ble coal pow­er plants per 1 MWh of ener­gy produced.[5] Both NOx (direct­ly) and CO (indi­rect­ly) con­tribute to the for­ma­tion of ground-lev­el ozone pol­lu­tion, aggra­vat­ing asthma.[11][12]

Sul­fur diox­ide (SO2) – famous as a cause of acid rain – is also bad for lungs, with even short expo­sures to ambi­ent lev­els caus­ing “bron­chocon­stric­tion and increased asth­ma symptoms.”[13] SO2 is one of the rare pol­lu­tants where coal plants are worse. Coal plants release two times more SO2 as trash incinerationbsp;to pro­duce the same amount of energy.[5][9]

Hydrochlo­ric Acid (HCl) is linked to acute bron­chi­tis and lung cancer.[14] Trash incin­er­a­tion releas­es a whop­ping 27 times more HCl than coal plants to pro­duce the same amount of energy.[5]

Car­bon diox­ide (CO2) – the prime glob­al warm­ing pol­lu­tant – is released at a rate 1.65 times that of coal pow­er plants.[15][16][17]. By ana­lyz­ing 2018 data from EPA’s Green­house Gas Report­ing Pro­gram (GHGRP), we were able to com­pare data from con­tin­u­ous emis­sions mon­i­tor­ing sys­tems (CEMS) on both incin­er­a­tors and coal plants. Oth­er data sources (such as EPA’s eGRID data­base) esti­mate incin­er­a­tor emis­sions with emis­sions fac­tors. How­ev­er, accord­ing to EPA, “for het­ero­ge­neous fuels such as munic­i­pal sol­id waste, CEMS are gen­er­al­ly con­sid­ered the most accu­rate emis­sions esti­ma­tion method.”[18]

While com­par­ing incin­er­a­tors and coal plants, we ruled out facil­i­ties that burn more than 5% of anoth­er fuel (to ensure a fair com­par­i­son of fuel types) and facil­i­ties that weren’t gen­er­at­ing any ener­gy. We also exclud­ed facil­i­ties that aren’t pri­mar­i­ly mak­ing elec­tric­i­ty. This was done to ensure that we can make com­par­isons in terms of pol­lu­tion per amount of elec­tric­i­ty pro­duced with­out over­es­ti­mat­ing pol­lu­tion lev­els by fail­ing to account for sig­nif­i­cant amounts of ener­gy pro­duced in the form of steam heat instead of electricity.

CO2 emis­sions from incin­er­a­tors and coal plants have not changed much over time. In 2012, trash incin­er­a­tors also emit­ted 65% more CO2 than coal plants.[15][17]

CEMS tech­nol­o­gy tracks the total CO2 com­ing out of the smoke­stack and doesn’t dis­crim­i­nate between the bio­genic and anthro­pogenic frac­tions of car­bon diox­ide emissions.

The indus­try argues that the “bio­genic” por­tion of CO2 emis­sions (that from burn­ing paper and oth­er organ­ic mate­r­i­al) should not count because trees will regrow and take the CO2 back out of the air.[19] How­ev­er, stud­ies of the alleged “car­bon neu­tral­i­ty” of bio­mass incin­er­a­tion have shown that bio­mass is not tru­ly car­bon neu­tral, as it can take many decades for trees to reab­sorb the pulse of CO2 emit­ted by incin­er­a­tion – mean­while, the cli­mate is heat­ing up at a high­er rate.[20] This also pre­sumes that some­where, trees are being replant­ed in suf­fi­cient num­bers to even­tu­al­ly take up this extra car­bon pol­lu­tion (and that those trees aren’t being count­ed toward off­set­ting some oth­er cli­mate dam­age… and that the trees will not be cut back down as soon as it’s prof­itable to use them). Trash incin­er­a­tors are not caus­ing any addi­tion­al tree and plant growth, so in com­par­i­son to land­fills or to oth­er ener­gy pro­duc­ers, no cred­it deserves to be applied to zero out bio­genic car­bon emissions.

Comparision of pollutants with the strongest data

Using 2018 inter­im NEI data[5], we con­duct­ed a robust analy­sis of over 73 pol­lu­tants tracked by NEI that were emit­ted and tracked across many dif­fer­ent types of pow­er plants (bio­mass burn­ers, gas plants, oil plants, etc.). From there, we elim­i­nat­ed pol­lu­tants that had few­er than 25 facil­i­ties report­ing emis­sions (since an out­lier could sig­nif­i­cant­ly change data) and pol­lu­tants based on mod­eled data. Using reli­a­bil­i­ty scores (with a reli­a­bil­i­ty score of 1 rep­re­sent­ing a ver­i­fied mea­sure­ment and a score of 5 rep­re­sent­ing the low­est data qual­i­ty) from EPA’s peer-reviewed StEWI software[21], we fur­ther restrict­ed the pol­lu­tants to those with reli­a­bil­i­ty scores of 1, 2, 3 ensur­ing that we were only com­par­ing pol­lu­tants with ver­i­fied mea­sure­ments and calculations.

Pol­lu­tantCoal emis­sions (lbs/MWh)Coal Data PointsIncin­er­a­tor emis­sions (lbs/MWh)Incin­er­a­tor Data Pointsx times worse than coal
Lead4.0E-051862.5E-04426.2
Mer­cury7.8E-061884.0E-05415.2
Ben­zene3.2E-041591.1E-03303.3
Nitro­gen oxides1.5E+002204.9E+00513.3
Toluene7.1E-051482.0E-04302.8
Cad­mi­um1.0E-051892.4E-05402.4
Car­bon Monoxide7.0E-011897.1E-01421.0
PM2.5 Pri­ma­ry3.1E-011891.6E-01420.5
Nick­el6.3E-051882.5E-05320.4
Sul­fur dioxide2.1E+002207.6E-01510.4
  1. New York State Depart­ment of Envi­ron­men­tal Con­ser­va­tion, “Mat­ter of the Appli­ca­tion of Cov­an­ta Ener­gy Cor­po­ra­tion for Inclu­sion of Ener­gy from Waste Facil­i­ties as an Eli­gi­ble Tech­nol­o­gy in the Main Tier of the Renew­able Port­fo­lio Stan­dard Pro­gram. Case No. 03-E-0188,” Aug. 19, 2011. http://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/Common/ViewDoc.aspx?DocRefId={DEEA097E-A9A6-4E53-898C-0BC2F4C60CC4}
  2. “An Inven­to­ry of Sources and Envi­ron­men­tal Releas­es of Diox­in-Like Com­pounds in the Unit­ed States for the Years 1987, 1995, and 2000,” U.S. EPA, Novem­ber 2006, Table ES‑2. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/recordisplay.cfm?deid=159286 The largest sources in 2000 are con­sid­ered to be back­yard burn bar­rels (498.5 grams), fol­lowed by med­ical waste incin­er­a­tion (378 g), sewage sludge applied to land and emis­sions from sludge incin­er­a­tion (89.7 g) and trash incin­er­a­tion (83.8 g). The back­yard burn bar­rel esti­mate is not sub­ject to dras­tic dif­fer­ences based on test meth­ods. 95% of med­ical waste incin­er­a­tors have closed between 2000 and 2009. Most of the sewage sludge diox­in emis­sions are from land appli­ca­tion rather than sludge incin­er­a­tion (since far more is dumped on farm fields than is burned). EPA admits in their inven­to­ry report (p 3–23): “Because all tests were con­duct­ed under nor­mal oper­at­ing con­di­tions, some uncer­tain­ty exists about the mag­ni­tude of emis­sions that may have occurred dur­ing oth­er con­di­tions (e.g., upset con­di­tions, start up, and shut down).” If the med­ical waste, sludge incin­er­a­tion and trash incin­er­a­tion num­bers are adjust­ed upwards by 30–50 times to account for the fact that a 6‑hour stack test each year under­es­ti­mates diox­in emis­sions by this amount, com­pared to using con­tin­u­ous mon­i­tor­ing (and if the afore­men­tioned dif­fer­ences in the med­ical waste and sludge incin­er­a­tion data are account­ed for), trash incin­er­a­tion would still be the largest diox­in pol­lu­tion source by far. A new­er study from the Nether­lands (data from 2015 to 2017) found that actu­al diox­in emis­sions are 460–1,290 times high­er than stack tests indi­cate. See Arken­bout, A, Olie K, Esbensen, KH. “Emis­sion regimes of POPs of a Dutch incin­er­a­tor: reg­u­lat­ed, mea­sured and hid­den issues” http://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/8b2c54_8842250015574805aeb13a18479226fc.pdf
  3. U.S. Envi­ron­men­tal Pro­tec­tion Agency, Emis­sions & Gen­er­a­tion Resource Inte­grat­ed Data­base, eGRID2002 and eGRID2007 (for 2000 and 2005 elec­tric gen­er­a­tion data). http://www.epa.gov/egrid/
  4. “Emis­sions from Large and Small MWC Units at MACT Com­pli­ance,” U.S. Envi­ron­men­tal Pro­tec­tion Agency mem­o­ran­dum, August 10, 2007. https://energyrecoverycouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/ERC-070810_Stevenson_MWC_memo.pdf
  5. Unit­ed States Envi­ron­men­tal Pro­tec­tion Agency (EPA). 2018. “Nation­al Emis­sions Inven­to­ry (NEI)” Inter­im 2018 data accessed from the Emis­sions Inven­to­ry Sys­tem (EIS)

EJ Communities Map

Map of Coal and Gas Facilities

We are mapping all of the existing, proposed, closed and defeated dirty energy and waste facilities in the US. We are building a network of community groups to fight the facilities and the corporations behind them.

Related Projects

Watch Us on YouTube