IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/enp/wpaper/eprg0802.html

Hot Issue and Burning Options in Waste Management: A Social Cost Benefit Analysis of Waste-to-Energy in the UK

Author

Listed:
  • Jamasb T.

  • Kiamil H
  • Nepal R.

Abstract

The growing stream of municipal solid waste requires a sustainable waste management strategy. Meanwhile, addressing climate change and security of energy supply concerns require increased use of low-carbon and domestic sources of energy. This paper assesses the economic and policy aspects of waste management options focusing on waste to energy (WtE). We conclude that high levels of WtE and recycling are compatible as waste treatment options. We also present a social cost-benefit analysis of waste management scenarios for the UK focusing on specific waste management targets and carbon price. The results indicate that meeting the waste management targets of the EU Directive are socially more cost effective than the current practice. The cost effectiveness improves substantially with higher carbon prices. The findings show that WtE can be an important part of both waste management strategy and renewable energy policy. However, achieving the full potential of WtE requires development of heat delivery networks.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Jamasb T. & Kiamil H & Nepal R., 2008. "Hot Issue and Burning Options in Waste Management: A Social Cost Benefit Analysis of Waste-to-Energy in the UK," Working Papers EPRG 0802, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    • Handle: RePEc:enp:wpaper:eprg0802
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/eprg-wp0802.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • Q01 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - General - - - Sustainable Development
    • Q28 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Government Policy
    • Q42 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Alternative Energy Sources

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:enp:wpaper:eprg0802. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Ruth Newman (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/jicamuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.