Can waste-to-energy plants significantly reduce landfill volume?

How much can WtE actually shrink landfills?

Waste-to-energy plants, especially incineration, can reduce the volume of municipal solid waste by up to 90%, leaving only inert ash that takes up far less space in a landfill [1]. This is a massive reduction compared to sending raw waste directly to a dump. For instance, a study in Cambodia found that incineration of municipal waste could generate 793 to 1626 GWh of electricity per year while simultaneously diverting nearly all of that waste from landfills [2]. The leftover ash is about 10% of the original volume, meaning one landfill cell can last ten times longer if waste is first processed through a WtE plant.

However, the volume reduction is not uniform. In Muscat, Oman, researchers found that about 50% of landfill waste by weight was recyclable, and the waste had high moisture content (21.5–43.3%), which lowers the energy efficiency of incineration and can reduce the volume reduction if the waste doesn't burn well [3]. So while WtE can dramatically cut landfill volume, the actual reduction depends on how dry and combustible the waste is.

Which WtE technology cuts landfill volume the most?

Incineration is the most effective technology for reducing landfill volume because it burns waste to ash, leaving only about 10% of the original mass [1][2]. In contrast, anaerobic digestion (AD) and landfill gas (LFG) recovery do not reduce volume as much because they only process the organic fraction of waste, leaving the rest (plastics, metals, glass) to still be landfilled. The Cambodia study showed that incineration produced the highest energy output (793–1626 GWh/year) and was economically feasible with a payback period of 8.36 years, while AD had a negative net present value and took over 20 years to break even [2]. So for sheer volume reduction, incineration is the clear winner.

That said, AD and LFG recovery have other environmental benefits. AD saved about 133,784 tonnes of CO2-equivalent per year in Cambodia, making it the best option for climate impact [2]. And LFG recovery can turn landfill gas into renewable natural gas for vehicles, as shown in a Turkish study where converting 50 diesel buses to compressed natural gas from landfill gas cut CO2 emissions by 950,625 kg per year [5]. But if your primary goal is to shrink the landfill pile, incineration is the most direct route.

What are the catches? Pollution, ash, and waste quality

WtE plants are not a silver bullet. They produce air pollutants—like dioxins, heavy metals, and particulate matter—that require expensive control systems [1]. A review of Indian WtE plants noted that improper waste segregation (mixing wet food waste with dry combustibles) lowers the heating value of the waste, making combustion less efficient and increasing pollution per unit of energy [1]. In India, where wet waste is a high proportion of municipal solid waste, this is a major barrier.

Also, the ash left after incineration is often hazardous because it contains concentrated heavy metals. A 2022 study showed that this fly ash can be stabilized with phosphoric acid to meet U.S. safety standards for landfill disposal or even used as a cement substitute (up to 25% replacement without losing strength) [6]. So while WtE reduces landfill volume, the ash still needs careful management—either sent to a special hazardous waste landfill or recycled into construction materials. Finally, a 2025 life-cycle assessment found that while WtE improves primary energy demand, it has higher global warming potential and ecotoxicity compared to strategies that recycle materials from landfills [4]. So the net environmental benefit depends on local conditions and whether the energy replaces fossil fuels.

Sources used in this answer

Related research questions