Waste burning facilities generate millions of pounds of network support income
It has emerged that Energy-from-Waste (EfW) incineration plants operating in the United Kingdom have signed support contracts worth a total of £775 million under a program designed to ensure the stability of the country’s electricity grid. Environmental advocates describe this as an unnecessary subsidy granted to a highly carbon-intensive industry.
Capacity Market Debate: Why Are Polluting Plants Subsidized?
The payments are made through the UK’s Capacity Market mechanism. This system is designed to ensure security of supply by paying power plants to remain on standby during times of peak electricity demand. However, campaigners argue that waste incinerators already make substantial profits from gate fees and electricity sales, making these additional payments unnecessary. Shlomo Dowen from the campaign group UK Without Incineration Network (UKWIN) described the situation as “hundreds of millions of pounds in subsidies for burning waste,” stressing that these funds should instead be directed towards cleaner and more flexible technologies such as battery storage.
The High Carbon Footprint of Waste Incinerators
The criticism centers on the environmental impact of these plants. In 2022, waste incineration facilities in the UK emitted a total of 7.1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2). Roughly half of these emissions were reported to have come from burning fossil fuel-based plastics. This makes waste incinerators one of the country’s most carbon-intensive electricity generation sources, in direct conflict with renewable energy targets.
Government’s Defense and Future Regulations
The government defends the Capacity Market as a “technology-neutral” approach aimed at delivering reliable electricity supply at the lowest cost for consumers. Officials state that all eligible technologies can participate in the auctions, with the most competitive bids winning. They also add that waste incinerators will be included in the UK Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) from 2028, although this will not affect existing Capacity Market contracts.
Conclusion
The fact that waste incinerators in the UK, in addition to their profitable operations, receive millions of pounds in public support on the grounds of grid security has sparked serious controversy. This highlights the tension between, on one hand, the need to ensure energy supply security, and on the other, the goals of reducing carbon emissions and transitioning to clean energy.
This debate also carries important lessons for Turkey. Turkey has a similar ‘Capacity Mechanism’ designed to ensure supply security, and the question of which technologies should be supported is frequently raised. The UK case demonstrates how crucial it is to prevent indirect subsidies to high-emission technologies and instead channel funds into cleaner and more sustainable alternatives such as solar, wind, and battery storage—technologies that Turkey is also rapidly adopting.