A 2021 life-cycle assessment (LCA) of a municipal solid waste (MSW) incineration power plant in Yongcheng, China concluded that incineration has a lower normalized comprehensive environmental impact than local landfill and coal-fired power generation, but the authors showed that this ranking is not yet robust: it was computed with an incomplete foreground inventory (wastewater-treatment chemicals omitted), continental-average background database profiles, an unresolved biogenic-carbon accounting convention under which including combustion CO2 from biogenic waste can reverse the incineration-versus-landfill ranking, and a single grate-furnace plant and city-specific waste composition. The open problem is to determine, under defensible and localized LCA methodology, whether and under what conditions MSW incineration power generation in China is environmentally preferable to landfill and coal power — that is, to complete the inventory, replace generic background data with localized life-cycle inventories, resolve the sensitivity of the ranking to the treatment of biogenic CO2, and test the ranking across incineration technologies and waste compositions.

Background

Municipal solid waste (MSW) incineration with energy recovery has expanded rapidly in China, and life-cycle assessment (LCA) is the standard tool for judging whether it is environmentally preferable to the alternatives it displaces — sanitary landfill and coal-fired power generation. In LCA (standardized by ISO 14040/14044), all inputs and emissions of a product system are compiled into a life-cycle inventory (LCI) and translated into impact categories such as global warming potential (GWP, in kg CO2-eq), acidification potential, eutrophication (nutrient over-enrichment of water bodies), and human toxicity; category results can be normalized (each expressed relative to a common reference scale) and weighted into a single comprehensive score, a step that involves value-laden choices. Compared systems are evaluated on a functional unit — the quantified reference service each system must deliver, here 1 tonne of wet MSW treated or 1 kWh of electricity generated. Background data (electricity, coal, transport, materials) typically come from commercial databases such as GaBi, whose regional profiles are often continental or national averages rather than site-specific. A central methodological difficulty for waste incineration is the split between fossil carbon (plastics, textiles) and biogenic carbon (food, paper, yard waste): following the practice of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) national greenhouse-gas inventories, CO2 from combusting short-lived biogenic carbon is conventionally set to zero in the waste sector, but this convention is a modelling decision, not a physical fact, and alternatives — counting biogenic CO2 net of regrowth uptake, the −1/+1 method (crediting carbon uptake as −1 and its later re-emission as +1), GWPbio (a correction factor applied to biogenic CO2 for the delay between emission and re-uptake), or dynamic LCA (weighting emissions by their actual timing relative to a chosen time horizon) — can give materially different results. That this choice can decide the comparison was known before: Jeswani et al. (2013) showed the UK incineration-versus-landfill carbon footprint ranking is sensitive to waste composition, displaced electricity, and landfill-gas recovery. Liu et al. (2021) applied an eight-category LCA with normalization and weighting to the Yongcheng grate-furnace MSW incineration power plant (Henan, China) and compared it, per tonne of wet MSW and per kWh, with the local landfill and a reference coal-fired plant. Treating biogenic CO2 as zero, they found GWP = 6.43 kg CO2-eq per tonne, a comprehensive score of 6.32×10⁻¹² for incineration versus 1.87×10⁻¹¹ for landfill (per tonne) and 2.98×10⁻¹⁴ for incineration versus 3.14×10⁻¹³ for coal-fired power (per kWh), with human toxicity and acidification contributing 72.8% of the single score. However, the authors themselves flagged four unresolved limitations that qualify the ranking: (1) the chemicals dosed in the plant's wastewater treatment were excluded from the inventory; (2) background data came from generic GaBi v.8.7 profiles (e.g., a continental 'hard coal in China' dataset) rather than localized inventories; (3) the biogenic-carbon treatment was left as an unresolved methodological decision — the paper notes that if CO2 of biological origin from incineration is included, the incineration GWP and comprehensive score can exceed those of landfill; and (4) because the main commercial incineration furnace types — the grate furnace (waste burns while moving along a metal grate), the fluidized bed (waste burns suspended in an upward air jet), and the rotary kiln (waste burns inside a slowly rotating inclined cylinder) — together with local waste composition and auxiliary-fuel use substantially change emissions, the single-site results cannot be transferred to other cities without case-specific inventories and sensitivity analysis.

Problem Statement

Determine whether, and under what conditions, municipal solid waste (MSW) incineration power generation in China has a lower life-cycle environmental impact than sanitary landfill (per tonne of wet MSW treated) and coal-fired power generation (per kWh), in a comparison that is robust to the four uncertainty channels identified by Liu et al. (2021): (1) complete the life-cycle inventory by including the chemicals used in wastewater treatment — omitted from the source study's inventory of the Yongcheng plant — and quantify their effect on water-related impact categories and the aggregated single score; (2) replace continental- or national-average background-database profiles (e.g., the GaBi 'hard coal in China' dataset) with localized life-cycle inventories reflecting regional coal supply, transport, and electricity-grid characteristics, and quantify how this changes the comparative results; (3) resolve the sensitivity of the ranking to the treatment of CO2 from biogenic carbon in MSW combustion — the source sets it to zero following IPCC practice and notes that including it can reverse the incineration-versus-landfill ranking — and determine how the ranking depends on this choice and on the treatment of landfill carbon storage and methane timing, so that the conditions under which the ranking holds or reverses are explicit rather than concealed in an unexamined convention; and (4) test whether the ranking generalizes across incineration technologies (grate furnace, fluidized bed, rotary kiln), local MSW compositions, and auxiliary-fuel regimes through case-specific inventories and sensitivity analysis, rather than a single Yongcheng-type plant. The conclusion is a defensible one on the environmental preference among incineration, landfill, and coal power under Chinese conditions, which may be a conditional one, identifying the technologies, waste compositions, regional data, and accounting conventions under which each ordering holds or reverses, replacing the source study's single-site, convention-dependent result. In this comparison, environmental impact is assessed through the eight-category normalized and weighted comprehensive score of the source study's LCA framework together with the underlying category results (including GWP), so that ranking shifts driven by normalization and weighting choices remain visible; the landfill comparison is made per tonne of wet MSW treated and the coal comparison per kWh of electricity generated, with the system boundary, the allocation of the waste-treatment service, and any credit for displaced electricity applied consistently across the compared systems and stated explicitly.

References

  1. Donghui Liu, Shanshan Wang, Ruoyu Xue, Gengyu Gao, Ruiqin Zhang (2021) Life cycle assessment of environmental impact on municipal solid waste incineration power generation. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 28(46):65435–65446. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-021-15483-0, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15483-0
  2. Xiaoqu Han, Hongzhang Chang, Chuan Wang, Jun Tai, Sotirios Karellas, Junjie Yan, Lijie Song, Zhujie Bi (2023) Tracking the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of municipal solid waste incineration power plant: A case study in Shanghai. Journal of Cleaner Production 398:136635. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136635, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136635
  3. Stefan Füchsl, Josef Huber, Magnus Fröhling, Hubert Röder (2025) Balancing the green carbon cycle — Biogenic carbon within life cycle assessment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 30(10):2300–2313. DOI: 10.1007/s11367-025-02469-0, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-025-02469-0
  4. Yifei Ma, Pin-Jing He, Fan Lü, Hua Zhang (2024) Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Mitigation Strategies across the Life Cycle of Municipal Solid Waste Incineration Plants in China. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 12(24):9268–9278. DOI: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.4c02324, https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.4c02324
  5. Jiangwei Zhang, Ming Zhang, Junxiao Wei, Huan Li, Jianguo Liu (2025) Life cycle assessment of ultra-low emission technologies in China's MSW incineration plants. Waste Management 208:115155. DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2025.115155, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2025.115155
  6. Fangyi Li, Qi Zhang, Wu Xie, Zhen Shao, Jingjing Li (2026) Assessing the carbon reduction potential of municipal solid waste incineration at the county level in China. Resources, Environment and Sustainability 24:100310. DOI: 10.1016/j.resenv.2026.100310, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resenv.2026.100310
  7. Ling Tang, Jing Guo, Ruxing Wan, Min Jia, Jiabao Qu, Ling Li, Xin Bo (2023) Air pollutant emissions and reduction potentials from municipal solid waste incineration in China. Environmental Pollution 319:121021. DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2023.121021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2023.121021
  8. Harish K. Jeswani, Rachelle W. Smith, Adisa Azapagic (2013) Energy from waste: carbon footprint of incineration and landfill biogas in the UK. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 18(1):218–229. DOI: 10.1007/s11367-012-0441-8, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0441-8