Australia is at the cusp of a great transformation in the way we manage waste. At present, there are 11 energy-from-waste plants operating or proposed across the country. This transition continues from a desire to burn waste to create energy, which offers great promise in addressing both a disposal and energy need. This shift to this model is a big step in the right direction, similar to successful practices around the world, like Denmark, with more than 500 such facilities. Worries over environmental effects and the health of local communities have led to contention between citizens, elected officials, and environmental justice activists.
The Woodlawn Energy from Waste plant is one of the proposed facilities. It is 50 kilometers north of Canberra and intends to process 380,000 tonnes of other people’s rubbish annually. Upon completion and operation, this facility will generate enough clean, renewable electricity to supply an estimated 40,000 homes. In a recent article, Richard Kirkman, CEO of Veolia Australia and New Zealand made the case for supporting efficient waste management infrastructure.
“The bottom line is we have to have infrastructure for waste because everybody produces some,” – Richard Kirkman.
Growing Demand for Energy from Waste Facilities
The expansion of energy from waste plants across Australia reflects a growing recognition of the need for sustainable waste management practices. Meanwhile in Victoria, planners are advancing six energy from waste plants. At the same time, New South Wales is about to add two, and Queensland will add one. The Kwinana plant in Perth represented Australia’s maiden venture into this kind of energy production, which opened officially in 2024.
Four interrelated factors compel the creation of such facilities. The increasing quantity of municipal solid waste and the pressure to decrease dependence on landfilling are important motivators. Mr. Kirkman mentioned that more than a million tonnes of garbage come by train to Woodlawn every year. This growing influx underscores the urgency for a robust system to convert what would otherwise contribute to landfill emissions into usable energy.
“We have to reduce the methane we emit from landfills, and it’s proven that [energy from waste] is better. That’s why it’s public policy,” – Richard Kirkman.
Sceptics argue that the environmental consequences of such plants are negative, especially in terms of CO2 emissions related to waste incineration. According to critics, energy from waste is a temporary remedy at best. It misses the mark by not addressing the underlying issues of waste production and recycling.
Community Perspectives and Concerns
MetroVancouver Residents have long raised concerns about the planned energy from waste facilities. Jill Nambu is a resident of Hampton Park, Melbourne. She said she was terrified about the health dangers of living next to those plants.
“It makes me want to cry,” – Jill Nambu.
Nambu’s feelings reflect a greater apprehension pervading these communities, those who continue to pay the price for bad waste disposal decisions. Critics like Paige Davis have pointed out that while incinerators are barred in Sydney due to health risks, regional areas may be forced to accept these facilities without sufficient consideration for their safety and well-being.
“The NSW government has decided from a precautionary principle that incinerators can’t be built in Sydney because of the risk to human health and the environment. What about us? Why don’t we count?” – Paige Davis.
Another visible opponent, Tom Martin called out the idea of moving waste from around the region to burn it in incinerators near populated areas. He opines that this “carte blanche” strategy disregards the basic needs and overall rights of residents living within these expanded borders. Consequently, it continues to treat them as “second-class citizens.”
“To then turn and just go, ‘We’re going to drag (rubbish) to regional NSW and (burn) it here’ is a complete disregard for these people,” – Tom Martin.
Lessons from Denmark’s Experience
Denmark’s extensive network of energy from waste facilities can be a positive example for Australia. The Scandinavian country has successfully integrated these plants into its energy production framework, providing both electricity and heating to its citizens. The Amager Bakke plant in Copenhagen, Denmark, shown above, is perhaps the world’s leading example of design ingenuity combined with waste-to-energy functionality.
Practical waste management practices, such as zero waste solutions, from Ms. Madsen’s home country of Denmark. She commended the country for its long record of keeping a net import of waste for burning from countries such as Germany and Italy. This model is not only unsustainable, but it is unethical to import waste.
“There is a net import in Denmark of waste for incineration. Primarily from Germany, the UK and Italy,” – Ms Madsen.
She noted that although Denmark is at the top of the heap, it too must change its story about waste. The goal now is more on minimizing net CO2 emissions associated with incineration, including lifecycle impacts.
“There’s really a growing focus on the CO2 emissions that come from waste incineration,” – Ms Madsen.
