Sweden Needs More Trash

Sweden has always been ahead of its neighbors when it comes to reducing its environmental impact. To make power, the country does something unique: it turns trash into power on a national scale using high-power incinerators. At first glance, it solves two problems: getting rid of trash before it piles up and generating electricity without burning dirty fossil fuels.

But now Sweden is hitting a wall. According to the country’s Environmental Protection Agency, it needs more trash to feet Sweden’s energy habit, and it’s begun importing trash—just over 881,000 tons—from nearby Norway to do it.

It’s an innovative idea that seems to work for everyone. Sweden powers most of its homes and business with a waste product, and gets paid to do so. Norway gets rid of trash it doesn’t have space to bury more cheaply than exporting trash elsewhere (it gets the ashes back after incineration, but those take up much less space). And no one has to dig or drill for energy.

When I heard about the growth of this technology, I immediately thought of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, the growing island of the world’s trash kept in constant swirl about 1,000 miles north of Hawaii. Back in 2009, a group of environmentalists and waste managers began trying to tackle the global trash heap, which has turned vast swaths of the Northern Pacific into an ecological dead zone. The Ocean Voyages Institute in Sausalito, California, tried testing ways to clean it up, including incinerating the trash to create energy or even oil.

Unfortunately, the idea that works so well for Sweden isn’t so replicable. Especially not in the geographically inconvenient North Pacific, where even a solid day’s work incinerating trash is quickly eclipsed by exponentially more trash that joins the heap.

But could trash incineration come to the United States at a large-enough scale? Only under the best of conditions, say a few waste managers I talked to. Like Swedish cities, U.S. municipalities would have to invest heavily in pick-up and distribution infrastructure that would essentially marry trash pick-up with energy generation. America’s insatiable appetite for power would also be hard to keep up with. And then there’s the problem of ash, which can be more chemically potent than the raw trash.

Still, even if large countries can’t embrace incineration-to-power technology as impressively as Sweden, the technology continues to grow. Montgomery County, Maryland, has a waste incineration plant. And later this year, the city of Pontotoc, Mississippi, is planning to start turning local waste into liquid fuel. In a region full of agriculture waste, not a bad idea.

Comments

  1. Child
    USA
    May 21, 9:30 am

    I am a student doing research for a project, and I stumbled upon this idea. I would like to say it’s a good idea.

  2. Sarreq Teryx
    Philadelphia
    May 20, 3:05 pm

    I live in Phila, PA. we were supposed to get one of these about 12 or s years ago, the outcry from the less than informed public ended any inkling of it happening. the main concerns were over the false perception of the odor a plant like this would produce.

  3. Mercedes Brugh
    Indiana
    May 20, 2:20 pm

    I fail to see how vaporizing used products to gain a fraction of the energy that went into producing them, makes any sense at all. It is obvious to me that recycling creates far more jobs and conserves far more energy.

  4. Josiah
    United States
    May 20, 12:21 pm

    Something I’d like to clear up in the article. When you talked about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch you made it sound like an actual island or trash that is visible to the eye. This is not the case. The amount of trash in the GPGP is huge, yes, but it cannot be seen. There is a lot of trash, but when you’re in the patch you can only see open water. Most of the trash is broken down into tiny pieces of plastic almost invisible unless you look closely enough.

    To get a more informed and better idea of the GPGP take a look at the short video series that Vice did on it. Most of the people of the Vice crew had the same misconceptions about the garbage patch that were washed away with something much worse when they actually got out there to film it.

  5. Storm
    Canada
    May 20, 11:54 am

    Amazing but rather than put the ash into the ground turn it to stones or diamonds. http://www.lifegem.com/index.aspx?BType=GTxt&BAg=HCrem&gclid=CM-K5OeDpbcCFYZaMgodiS4AGg this place will do it for the remains of a loved one. lets do it with the left over ashes and have everything pretty

  6. john
    Houston
    May 20, 9:05 am

    I really liked the article until it said, “it needs more trash to FEET Sweden’s energy habit.” then I quit reading. If we want skeptics to take us seriously we have to be perfect. Keep up the good work, but you made environmentalist and National Geographic look foolish by not proofreading your article.

  7. Dana Cashwell
    North Carolina USA
    May 20, 7:06 am

    My question is about the carbon emissions from the incinerators. Are they sacrificing air quality for less trash?

  8. Anders
    Sweden
    May 20, 6:48 am

    Well, it all boils down to economics… My Norwegian friends here are correct that it would be better if Norway burnt their own trash and benefited from it themselves. Also to avoid the transportation between Norway and Sweden would of course be beneficial to the environment.

    However, Sweden is more dependent on the “trash burning” than Norway is. Also Norwegian companies are making more money selling the trash to Sweden than burning it themselves. The problem here is that Sweden has a large dependency on the waste incineration but only from an economical stand-point. The cheapest way to produce electricity and heat for community heat-plants are by burning waste!

    Most of Sweden’s electricity actually comes from hydro-plants and nuclear power plants (water about 45%, nuclear 40% and wind about 4%) and not really from burning waste as you might think from reading the article…
    Since we in Sweden are recycling in such a high frequency there is not enough trash to get the incinerators burning att 100%, meaning the power companies have to rely on more expensive alternatives for electricity and heat.
    The best economical solution for them is then to by trash and burn it since that is the cheapest way of producing the electricity.
    I doubt they really put much thought into environmental issues, or rather I think they put the stock price ahead of any environmental concerns… Difference here is that the economical and environmental benefits happen to be the same (which of course is very good).

  9. Daniel in Stockholm
    Stockholm Sweden
    May 20, 3:48 am

    We power most of our homes and industries with nuclear and hydroelectric power plants. Waste is a marginal power source.

  10. Elizabeth
    US, Michigan
    February 6, 9:02 am

    This same situation, difference in application, is occurring in Michigan. It seems Waste Management and our Legislators have chosen our “Great Lakes State” for a Canadian dump. We use it for the methane production. But the emissions from the hundreds of trucks coming in each day worries me of a horrible side effect.

  11. Elizabeth
    US, Michigan
    February 6, 8:55 am

    I’m glad Mississippi is doing something of their trash. It’s filthy! They have no deposit/return on their aluminum cans. Driving through, perhaps due to their drug addiction crisis, it looks as though the filthy habits have been transferred several generations. I’m not talking of ag trash-but plastic jugs/containers, paper, glass bottles, and aluminum cans. And yet there is a tourist tax on almost EVERYTHING. Those funds should go towards cleaning up a state tourists would WANT to return to or tackling the drug crisis.

  12. Elizabeth
    US, Michigan
    February 6, 8:47 am

    I’m in question of the emissions produced from the transport of the trash from one place to another. Is it moved by truck, train, barges, etc. ?

  13. Mohammad Kambiz Fatehi
    iraq erbil environment department
    February 1, 1:40 am

    Really i could find a new method for solving the world energy from water via immersed turbine with formula of( P+1at).
    I can show you all of the method shits.
    I am waiting to your email very soon.

  14. Dan Stone
    January 14, 12:13 pm

    Good to see some local opinions here on trash incineration. Sweden certainly has a unique approach, but not without drawbacks.

    There’s definitely room for debate on implementation and downsides, but the broader point seems to be that no country, not even Sweden, which has expressed interest in importing its neighbor’s trash, has fully figured out how to confront the mountains of waste around the world that continue to grow at a stunning pace.

  15. Roy Ulvang
    Norge
    January 9, 4:44 am

    The article describes the utilization of Norwegian waste in Swedish high-power incinerators as a win-win situation; as if Norway avoids landfilling by exporting our waste. Not so.
    In fact, Norway has a landfill-ban on biodegradeable waste since 2009, and the only thing avoided is full capacity use of Norwegian plants producing renewable heat and power.

  16. Roy Ulvang
    Norway
    January 8, 10:46 am

    The article describes the utilization of Norwegian waste in Swedish high-power incinerators as a win-win situation; as if Norway avoids landfilling by exporting our waste. Not so. In fact, Norway has a landfill-ban on biodegradeable waste since 2009, and the only thing avoided is full capacity use of Norwegian plants producing renewable heat and power.

  17. Norwegian
    Noth
    January 7, 5:14 pm

    Norway ended landfilling july 1.2009. The swedish import of norwegian waste is making a lot of problem for environement in the nordic area. Journalist Dan Stone has done a very bad article, based on no facts. Check facts, man. Read some swedish and norwegian papers or call Waste Manegement Norway or Waste Management Sweden to get info. Swedish consultant ProFu have made documentation that shows oposite results than what Dane Stone describe.