Widespread definitions of fuels such as RDF and SRF, reference the ‘production’ processes involved in generating these EfW resources. Yet, oddly, we still cannot call them products. Does this matter? Marcus Brew, our managing director recently shared his thoughts with EfW Net on the topic. If you missed it, catch up on the full article here…

The word ‘waste’ carries quite negative connotations. It is a relatively emotive term, naturally associated with materials that contain no value and shouldn’t have ever been produced in the first place. The latter point is of course true, and far greater effort is required, globally, to ensure more considered use of materials throughout the supply chain, so that the volume of ‘waste’ arisings starts to fall.

However, while environmental efforts are encouragingly mounting globally, it will require a vast amount of coordinated effort to tackle this monstrous prevention challenge and achieve anything close to zero waste – especially given the throwaway society we appear to have found ourselves living in, particularly in heavily developed parts of the world.

This is why the energy recovery stage of the waste hierarchy is so important. It is by no means a priority, but it does represent a valid option for materials, when they would otherwise be sent to landfill once all other routes have been exhausted.

So why is energy recovery still frowned upon by so many?

It’s only a word, isn’t it?

The online Cambridge dictionary defines the noun waste as: ‘unwanted matter or material of any type, especially what is left after useful substances or parts have been removed’. So, is it any wonder why members of the public still consider Energy from Waste plants as nothing but ‘dirty incinerators’?

We may only be talking about five letters here, but they matter – a lot.

Yes, in producing RDF or SRF, steps should have been taken to remove as many useful elements – valuable recyclates – as is technically, environmentally and economically practicable. But that doesn’t render RDF or SRF useless, as the definition perhaps implies. On the contrary, with clever and considered processing, we’re talking about highly important alternative fuels. 

As fossil fuels become increasingly depleted, RDF and SRF provide the population with an ever-more precious energy resource.  And when considering that approximately 50 percent of SRF material is renewable too, the fuels are arguably very useful indeed.

A different name?

So, if EfW terminology was to be ditched, what could RDF and SRF be called instead?

Years ago, Defra published classification guidance for ‘fuel producers’, yet fast forward to 2020 and – despite extensive ongoing debate – these producers still can’t claim to be manufacturing a product!

This seems a little odd, particularly when it comes to SRF, which is manufactured to a tightly-defined specification.

It is also a shame because if we look to other markets such as biomass fuel, its simple A-D grading system and greater recognition as a product, has undoubtedly aided its acceptance as an environmentally-sound energy creation process.

However, in truth, to classify RDF and SRF as ‘products’ may be a step too far. Some EU member states have continued to push back on end-of-waste status, fearful of the compliance implications, particularly when it comes to emissions and shipments. Others, on the other hand, have continued to argue the case for making the move, which shows that this is an important debate, yet one that is far from straightforward.

Perhaps – for RDF and SRF to make the same progress as biomass – concentrating on the word ‘fuel’ would go some way to gradually removing the stigma. It would also be great if we could start thinking of EfW plants as simply ‘energy plants’, like they do in Northern Europe, with RDF or SRF simply another input material to aid this generation process.

What then?

The fuels could be further categorised of course. Admittedly this would be no mean feat given many end users of RDF are still more concerned with tonnage and gate fees, than a quality standard.

But maybe the answer lies in a recovery standard instead. Similar to an ISO accreditation, it could be granted only when an alternative fuel production company achieves a number of quality benchmarks regarding their approach to storage, degree of recyclate extraction, on-site health and safety standards, and so on.

Of course, this would need policing – which wouldn’t be easy in an industry with already limited human resources – but overall this may not be a bad thing. None of this is intended to weaken regulatory compliance after all – it is designed to act as a step change that drives acceptance surrounding the true value of these fuels.