At Geminor, we’ve worked in this flow for years. I’ve seen how the UK’s excess waste has supported plants across the Nordics, the Netherlands, and Germany. However, with a sharp increase in treatment capacity, more waste will be handled domestically. Depending on seasonal and market dynamics, there may be periods when imports are needed to maintain operational efficiency in UK facilities.
This evolution could be felt beyond UK borders. Operators in Northern Europe that previously depended on British RDF may begin looking toward Southern and Eastern Europe, where up to 100 million tonnes of waste are still landfilled annually. Yet accessing these markets is not straightforward. Infrastructure constraints, transport costs, regulatory variation, and compliance challenges all add layers of complexity that must be navigated.
Meanwhile, the UK still landfills around 7 million tonnes of waste yearly. However, a key question remains: How much of that landfilled waste is suitable and economically viable for energy recovery? EfW plants are designed for low-calorific household and commercial waste streams. If the quality being landfilled today is suited for modern EfW plants, it could be treated domestically or exported, depending on the volumes available. Understanding this is essential for aligning capacity, infrastructure, and long-term waste strategies.
In the UK, as in other parts of Europe, the push for circularity is accelerating with the rollout of new EfW capacity—reshaping residual waste and complicating operations. As source separation, mechanical sorting, and advanced recycling technologies improve, more high-value materials are removed upstream, typically leaving a less consistent, lower-calorific waste stream for incineration. At Geminor, we’re observing increased interest in Carbon Capture technologies, particularly for biogenic waste streams with negative emissions potential. However, these technologies' effectiveness and economic viability partly depend on stable feedstock and predictable biogenic carbon content, which may become increasingly variable as sorting advances. This variability could directly impact plant efficiency and complicate long-term planning for carbon capture infrastructure.
These operational shifts highlight the growing need for policy alignment. The UK is exploring its own carbon tax or emissions trading scheme. Still, if this diverges from the EU ETS, it could disrupt cross-border investments in energy recovery infrastructure, Carbon Capture Storage (CCS) deployment, and broader circular economy systems. Introducing CCS may also lead to significantly higher gate fees for waste deliveries due to higher capital and operating costs—posing financial challenges for municipal and inter-municipal companies already operating under budget constraints. For many, the viability of adopting CCS may depend on developing carbon dioxide removal (CDR) frameworks, where negative emissions—particularly from biogenic sources—can generate tradable carbon credits. If recognised in future regulatory systems, these credits could play a key role in offsetting costs and supporting scalable decarbonisation in the sector.
Recognising these shifting dynamics underscores the necessity of harmonised practices across borders. As national waste systems evolve independently, the demand grows for shared standards: consistent waste documentation, cohesive TFS legislation, a clear application of the polluter-pays principle, and aligned carbon accounting. Without this, Europe risks fragmentation just when coordinated action is most critical.
Ultimately, EfW will continue to play an essential role in Europe's circular economy, particularly for non-recyclable waste. However, successfully managing the UK’s transition will require more than capacity alone. It demands joined-up thinking across markets, technologies, and policies to build a more resilient and integrated European waste system.
