Burgeoning Waste-to-Energy Industry in Europe

According to the latest findings by Frost & Sullivan, the waste-to-energy industry is finding itself confronted with growing opposition from environmental pressure groups and objections raised by individuals who proclaim “Not In My Back Yard!” (NIMBY)

New York, New York – February 10, 2003 [SolarAccess.com] – against the locating and development of major waste facilities, especially thermal treatment plants. In addition to voicing concern over emissions and ash disposal, critics claim that thermal treatment of waste reduces the incentive to recycle materials as waste-to-energy plants need to maintain the throughput of commercial and industrial waste to ensure viability. The NIMBY syndrome is particularly evident in environmentally conscious countries and across nations with poorly developed internal treatment and disposal capacity. The high degree of continued resistance is hampering the construction of new waste-to-energy facilities. Despite this opposition, growth in the European waste-to-energy market will be sustained throughout the coming decade. According to the study, a number of European countries have embraced waste-to-energy, with approximately 340 plants processing annual volumes of around 50 million tons of municipal waste in 2002. “Each household discards around a ton of waste on a yearly basis and Frost & Sullivan’s projections indicate that we will require twice the current number of waste management facilities by 2020,” said Matthew Barker, industry analyst at Frost & Sullivan. “The introduction of landfill bans to further improve rates of recycling – most prominently the adoption of the EU Landfill Directive – is poised to stimulate growth in the European waste-to-energy plant market. We believe that 166 plants will be commissioned across Europe between 2003 and 2009, when the overall market will be worth US$313.6 million.” Frost & Sullivan cautions that the maturity of some municipal solid waste services markets could adversely affect Europe-wide revenues and competitive pricing. The study cites the Alpine region and Germany, which have historically been spearheading the implementation of new methods of treatment and disposal (such as thermal and biological treatment), as key examples. Frost & Sullivan points to a lack of political will as another serious stumbling block to the waste-to-energy plant construction. While at EU level, Directives have been passed to improve packaging recycling, limit the environmental impact from incinerators and reduce the impact of waste on landfill, the commitment to these issues at a national level is debatable. Buyers in this market, such as waste treatment companies and municipalities, have come under increasing pressure to prove and communicate their green credentials. Those responsible for purchasing or specifying within an organization are taking an increasingly environmentally aware approach to purchasing. “These considerations may prompt companies to pay more than the minimum waste treatment costs in order to obtain dependable technology from a reliable brand name,” said Barker. Generating awareness and acceptance amongst stakeholders such as local communities, municipalities and councils through public relations initiatives will help overcome misconceptions. Activities must be aligned to suppliers’ key strategic priorities to avoid delays or even cancellation of projects whose implementation could fall victim to local objections. The competitive landscape of the European market for waste-to-energy plants currently comprises around 40 companies, ranging from huge multinational turnkey power plant suppliers to smaller, more dedicated waste-to-energy equipment suppliers. CNIM/Martin is the undisputed market leader in terms of treatment capacity added over the period 2000 to 2002, accounting for around 47.0 percent of total revenues on the strength of the company’s involvement in over 17 plants and strong visibility across the European market. Trailing behind in second and third position are Foster Wheeler and VonRoll Inova, accounting for 9.5 and 9.2 percent of the market respectively.
Previous articleSolid Oxide Fuel Cell Research Success
Next articleManufacturer Reaches Bioethanol Milestone

No posts to display