Report on the impact of R1 climate correction factor on the Waste-to-Energy (WtE) plants based on data provided by Member States.
Date: 2014-09-15
Institutions: Institute for Energy and Transport
Subjects: EU Member State, EU environmental policy, adaptation to climate change, data processing, directive (EU), energy policy, research report, waste management

Report on the impact of R1 climate correction 
factor on the Waste-to-Energy (WtE) plants 
based on data provided by Member States  

Hrvoje Medarac, Nicolae Scarlat 

Fabio Monforti-Ferrario, Katalin Bódis 

2 0 1 4  

Report EUR 26720 EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
European Commission 

Joint Research Centre 

Institute for Energy and Transport  

Contact information 

Hrvoje Medarac and Nicolae Scarlat 

Joint Research Centre, Institute for Energy and Transport 

Via E. Fermi, 2749  I-21027. Ispra (VA), Italy 

E-mail: Hrvoje.Medarac@ec.europa.eu, Nicoale.Scarlat@ec.europa.eu 

http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/remea/ 

Legal Notice 

This publication is a Science and Policy Report by the Joint Research Centre, the European Commission’s in-house science 
service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policy-making process. The scientific output 
expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person 
acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of this publication. 

All images © European Union 2014,  

JRC90270 

EUR 26720 EN 

ISBN 978-92-79-39133-0 (PDF) 

ISBN 978-92-79-39134-7 (print) 

ISSN 1831-9424 (online) 

ISSN 1018-5593 (print) 

doi: 10.2790/28629 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2014 

© European Union, 2014 

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

Abstract 

Data on Waste to Energy plants provided by EU Member States are analysed and the consequences of different values 
and formulations for the climate correction factor to be applied to the R1 formula following the Directive 2008/98/EC are 
assessed.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Report on the impact of R1 climate 
correction factor on the Waste-to-Energy 
(WtE) plants based on data provided by 
Member States 

1  Background 

This  report  was  prepared  according  to  the  conclusions  of  the  Meeting  of  the  Committee  for  the 
adaptation  to  scientific  and  technical  progress  and  implementation  of  the  Directives  on  waste 
established under article 39 of Directive 2008/98/EC (Waste Framework Directive- WFD) which took 
place in Brussels on 18th October 2013. 

Within  the  conclusion  of  the  meeting,  Member  States  were  asked  to  provide  data  for  all  of  their 
Waste-to-energy plants (WtE) which are eligible for the application of R1 formula for the purpose of 
completing the analysis of the impact of various options for the climate correction factor carried over 
based  on  conclusions  from  technical  meetings  organized  by  DG  JRC  and  DG  ENV  in  July  and 
September 2013. Member states were asked to provide data on R1 value, type of plant (Electricity 
only, Heat only and Combined Heat and Power-CHP), size and location or HDD for each eligible plant 
located  in  their  territory.  The  deadline  for  providing  the  data  by  Member  States  was  set  to 
30th November  2013.  Waste  to  Energy  State  of  the  Art  Report  prepared  by  the  International  Solid 
Waste Association (ISWA)1 was used as a benchmark for the number of plants for which the data was 
delivered. 

2  Data quality 

The response from Member States within the initial deadline was very limited and partial data were 
received  for  only  56  plants  from 9  out  of  28 Member  States  and  complete  data  were  received  for 
only 31 plants from 6 out of these 9 Member States. In order to ensure the collection of data in the 
amount which would be needed to make the analysis, a reminder was sent to Member States and a 
new deadline was proposed to submit the missing data by end January 2014.  

By  middle  March  2014,  complete  data  were  delivered  by  24  Member  States.  Germany,  Slovenia, 
Sweden and UK delivered partial data meaning that data were delivered for just a small number of 

1 ISWA - International Solid Waste Association. Waste to Energy State of the Art Report Statistics 6th Edition, August 2012, 
Revision November 2013. Available on-line on www.iswa.org  

1 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
plants or the data were not accurate enough. The Figure 2.1 provides an overview of the quality of 
data which were provided by Member States. In the case of Sweden, it is important to mention that 
according to information available, 34 plants produce energy and use untreated MSW as fuel. From 
the ruling by the Court in the Gävle Case (C-251/07) follows that all the units at these 34 plants are to 
be  regarded as co-incineration plants  and 38 plants produce  energy  and use waste as fuels but  do 
not use untreated MSW as fuel. 

Figure 2.1: Data provided by Member States 

According  to  the  data  received,  in  EU  there  are 425  plants  on  which  R1  formula  could  be  applied. 
Complete2 data were delivered for 240 plants which represents 56% of all plants.  

The number of plants included in the analysis increases to 316, which represents 74% of all plants, 
considering the plants for which incomplete data were delivered, but still allowing such evaluation. 
The Figure 2.2 shows the number of plants for which at least partial data were delivered and number 
of plants for which no data was delivered by Member States. 

From  the  Figure  2.2  it  is  visible  that  almost  30%  of  all  European  WtE  plants  are  located  in  France 
(126). Germany follows with 79 plants (18.6%), Italy with 53 (12.5%), Sweden with 38 (8.9%), UK with 
30 (7%), Denmark with 27 (6.4%), Belgium with 16 (3.8%), The Netherlands 14, Austria 11 and Spain 
10 plants. Other Member States have less than 10 plants installed. A number of New Member States 
do not have any WtE plants (Bulgaria, Croatia, Latvia, Poland and Romania), as well as Greece.  

2 Here “complete” is meant in the sense that all the data listed in Section 1 were provided for at least one reference year  

2 

 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 2.2: Number of WtE plants by Member States 

As two member states have provided data for R1 values for two consecutive years, 2011 and 2012, 
for reasons of uniformity, only the data for 2012 have been considered in this analysis. Nevertheless 
this even partial data set has evidenced a non-negligible inter-annual R1 variability, broadly ranging 
between ±5% and ± 10% on average.  

For this reason, a general warning about the interpretation of the results of the following analysis has 
to  be  stated,  as  these  results  regard  the  situation  for  the  specific  time  slice  for  which  data  were 
provided. Given the demonstrated variability of R1 values in different, even consecutive, years, these 
results, including the numbers of plants and the plant cumulative capacity expected to change status 
under  the  different  options  reported  in  Chapter  4,  could  be  not  fully  consistent  with  the  actual 
situation in years different to the baseline considered here.  

3  Current status of European WtE plants 

The total annual incineration capacity for the incineration of Municipal Solid Waste in Member States 
depends on waste management strategies and ranges from 0 in countries with no WtE plants, up to 
more than 600 kg/capita in Denmark and around 500 kg/capita in The Netherlands and Sweden (see 
Figure 3.1). 

As it can be seen from the Figure 3.1, western countries have larger capacities than eastern countries 
which are still at the beginning of the usage of energy from waste. The following analysis shows the 
current status of WtE plants according to the data which were delivered by EU Member States. 

3 

 
 
Figure 3.1: Waste Incineration Capacities by Member States 

3.1  Size of European WtE plants 

European  WtE  plants  are  located  in  areas  between  612  and  5209  Heating  Degree  Days  (HDD 
hereafter)3. The size (or capacity) of the plants, all plants considered, ranges from 9 000 to 1 300 000 
tonnes of waste possible to be processed per year with an average value of around 200 000 t/year. 
The relation between the size of European WtE plants and HDD is presented in Figure 3.2. 

Figure  3.2  shows  that  most  of  plants  are  located  in  intermediate  climate  area  (between  2150  and 
3350 HDD). In warmer climate conditions (HDD < 2150) mainly electricity only (EO) plants are present 
while in colder areas (HDD > 3350) only CHP and heat only (HO) plants are found. Despite of the data 
scattering, all trend lines relating the size of WtE plants to HDD are decreasing with the increase of 
HDD, meaning that in warmer areas WtE plants tend to be larger than in colder areas regardless the 
type of the plant (Electricity only, Heat only and Combined Heat and Power). 

3 Eurostat defined the following method for the calculation of heating degree days (HDD): (18 °C - Tm) x d if Tm is lower 
than or equal to 15 °C (heating threshold) and are nil if Tm is greater than 15 °C, here Tm is the mean (Tmin + Tmax / 2) 
outdoor temperature over a period of d days. Calculations are to be executed on a daily basis (d=1), added up to a calendar 
month 
(Eurostat, 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_SDDS/EN/nrg_esdgr_esms.htm#unit_measure1392278670627) 

to  a  year-  and  published 

for  each  Member  State 

subsequently 

separately. 

-and 

4 

 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 3.2: Size of European WtE plants in relation to HDD 

Statistical evidence also shows that CHP plants are located in colder areas, between 1893 and 4807 
HDD.  The  size  of  CHP  plants  ranges  from  31  000  to  1  300  000  tonnes  of  waste  per  year  with  an 
average value of round 240 000 t/year. The largest plant is located in a point with 2623 HDD. 

Electricity only plants are located in warmer areas, between 612 and 2950 HDD. The size of electricity 
only plants ranges from 31 000 to 732 000 tonnes of waste per year with an average value of round 
170 000 t/year. The largest plant is located in a point 1062 HDD. 

Heat only plants are also located in colder areas between 1869 and 5209 HDD. The size of heat only 
plants  ranges  from  9 000  to  1  000  000  tonnes  of  waste  per  year  with  an  average  value  of  round 
140 000 t/year.  This shows that, generally, heat plants  are smaller  than  all other types of plants in 
terms of both minimum and average plant capacity. The largest heat only plant is located in a point 
with 2645 HDD. 

The Waste Incineration BREF document4 shows that the specific electricity self-consumption of a WtE 
plant  depends  on  the  plant  capacity,  with  smaller  plants  showing  higher  specific  energy 
consumption.  Plant  size  has  also  a  great  influence  upon  the  economic  viability  of  the  plant,  with 
small installations having higher cost per unit of waste treated than larger installations. The CEWEP 

4  European  Commission's  Reference  Document  on  the  Best  Available  Techniques  for  Waste  Incineration,  August  2006. 
Available on-line on http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference/wi.html.  

5 

 
 
 
                                                           
Energy  Report  III5  provides  statistical  evidence  that  small  plants  show  also  a  lower  efficiency  in 
comparison with larger ones. According to this report, the average R1 value for plants with capacity 
smaller  than  100.000  t/year  is  0.63,  while  for  plants  between  100.000  and  250.000  t/year  R1 
averages to 0.7 and for plants with the capacity of more than 250.000 t/year the average R1 is 0.77. 
Nevertheless,  even  if  plant  size  has  an  unquestionable  influence  on  the  efficiency  of  the  plant, 
efficiency is not the only driver in dimensioning a plant. On the contrary, plant size  strongly depends 
on local circumstances such as population density and the local strategy for achieving the principles 
of  self-sufficiency  and  proximity  treatment  of  waste.  Moreover,  being  often  located  in  sparsely 
populated  places,  small  plants  also  often  suffer  from  lacking  or  restricted  opportunities  to  export 
heat, as it is not always economically feasible to build District Heating networks.  

3.2  R1 value of European WtE plants 

The  Waste  Framework  Directive  2008/98/EC  (WFD),  defines  an  energy  efficiency  criterion,  often 
referred to as the "R1 criterion" or the "R1 formula", which sets the condition for a municipal solid 
waste incineration facility to be considered as a Recovery operation (R1, Annex  II) or as a Disposal 
operation (D10, Annex I). The R1 formula is the following:  

     (       )
       (       )

where  

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

the threshold value is 0.6 for existing plants and 0.65 for new plants (i.e. a plant that started 
to be operational after 31/12/2008).  

Ep: annual energy produced as heat or electricity. It is calculated with energy in the form of 
electricity being multiplied by 2.6 and heat produced for commercial use multiplied by 1.1; 

Ef: annual energy input to the system from fuels contributing to the production of steam; 

Ei: annual energy imported excluding Ew and Ef; 

Ew: annual energy contained in the treated waste. 

The main objective of the R1 formula is to promote the efficient use of energy from waste in Waste 
to  Energy  (WtE)  plants.  It  takes  into  account  the  plant’s  effectiveness  in  recovering  the  energy 
contained  in  waste  but  also  the  effective  uses  of  energy  as  electricity,  heating  and  cooling  or 
processing steam for industry.  

The  Article  38.1  of  the  Waste  Framework  Directive  provides  that  regarding  the  R1  formula,  local 
climatic  conditions  may  be  taken  into  account,  such  as  the  severity  of  the  cold  and  the  need  for 
heating insofar as they influence the amounts of energy that can be technically used or produced in 
the form of electricity, heating, cooling or processing steam.  

5 Reimann, D. O. (2012) CEWEP Energy Report III (Status 2007-2010) Results of Specific Data for Energy, R1 Plant Efficiency 
Factor and NCV of 314 European Waste-to-Energy (WtE) Plants, CEWEP, Bamberg, Germany, December 2012. Available on-
line on http://www.cewep.eu/m_1069.  

6 

 
            
                                                           
Various  climate  conditions  exist  in  Europe  (see  Figure  3.3).  The  effect  of  climate  on  electricity 
production has been quantified through a relation between ambient air temperature and electricity 
generation and a correlation has been established between the observed and prospective heating or 
cooling  demand  in  various  regions  and  their  Heating  Degree  Days  (HDDs).  Eurostat  provides  long 
term (30 year) HDDs and JRC can provide interpolated data for any location in the EU based on own 
meteorological  model  for  the  spatial 
interpolation  of  temperature  data  on  a  finer  grid 
(50 km x 50 km). 

Figure 3.3: Köppen-Geiger climate classification map of Europe 

There is proven technical evidence that temperature influences electricity production in reference to 
the  electricity  generated  by  a  theoretical  Waste-to-Energy  plant  cooled  all  year  long  by  air  at  a 
constant  temperature  of  10°C.  Nevertheless,  the  direct  effect  of  air  temperature  on  the 
thermodynamics of the plant is not the only climate-related impact and the efficiency of a WtE plant 
can be much more undermined by the lack of external heat demand than by the physical reduction 
of electricity production.  

Cold climates can provide a substantial and long-lasting heating demand in buildings, often met by 
District Heating networks, calling for a significant supply of waste originated heat. Warmer locations 
imply smaller demands in heating and for District Heating networks, if available, leaving WtE plants 
with  little  or  no  use  for  their  heat.  When  available,  industrial  heat  demand  provides  a  favourable 
opportunity  because  the  industrial  heat  use  is  regular  and  evenly  distributed  over  the  year. 
Nevertheless,  the  plant  location,  along  with  lingering  contractual  uncertainties,  often  limits  the 
industrial heat use, thus making it unattractive to investors. WtE plants located in regions with large 
heating  demand  seem  to  benefit  from  the  double  opportunity  for  the  use  of  industrial  heat  and 
heating in buildings, and plants in regions with weak or insignificant heating needs for which the only 
opportunity is the use of industrial heat. 

7 

 
 
 
3.2.1  Electricity generation according to climate conditions 

The production of electricity by a steam turbine  depends in particular on the enthalpy drop in the 
turbine  and  higher  air  temperatures  have  a  negative  impact  on  energy  efficiency.  A  climate 
correction  factor  taking  into  account  the  electricity  generation  ‘handicap’  is  therefore  needed  to 
maintain a level playing field among European WtE plants.  

The impact of higher temperatures on electricity production was calculated with accuracy by using 
hour-by-hour  data.  This  “handicap”  is  expressed  in  reference  to  the  electricity  generated  by  a 
theoretical WtE plant cooled all year long by air at a constant temperature of 10°C. It is possible to 
(indirectly)  correlate  the  ‘handicap’  with  this  yearly  average  temperature  as  well  as  with  HDDs.  A 
mathematical correlated function was established to approximate the accurate calculated values and 
the HDDs.  

3.2.2  Heat demand according to climate conditions 

When possible, it is valuable to export heat or process steam from a WtE plant, as it improves the 
overall energy efficiency and economic performances of the plant. As explained above, cold climates 
provide  a  substantial  and  long-lasting  heat  demand  in  buildings,  often  met  by  District  Heating 
networks,  besides  the  opportunity  for  selling  industrial  heat. Temperate  and warm  locations  imply 
smaller  demand  for  heating,  hence  affecting  the  possibilities  for  a  plant  to  export  heat.  A  synergy 
with  industrial  heat  customers  constitutes  a  favourable  situation,  as  industry  could  have  large 
consumption,  mostly  constant  around  the  year.  However,  it  is  not  always  possible  to  ensure 
industrial  demand  extensively.  Industrial  infrastructures  are  sometimes  located  in  the  vicinity  of 
areas  with  high  population  densities,  where  building  a  WtE  plant  may  face  public  unacceptance. 
Moreover,  many  industries  have  their  own  heat  supply  facilities  not  necessarily  based  on  waste 
incineration 

Due  to  the  equivalence  (multiplication)  factors  (1.1  and  2.6  respectively)  in  the  R1  formula,  which 
compare produced heat and produced electricity to primary fuels R1 formula is more favourable to 
heat than to electricity generation. This is because the calculation of multiplication factors assumes 
implicitly an efficiency of electricity production of 38.5% (1/2.6) and the efficiency of heat production 
of 90.9% (1/1.1). Such efficiency of electricity production is attainable with other technologies (such 
as coal, oil or gas) but seems clearly to be too high for a waste incineration plant. Since the impact of 
climate  on  heat  demand  and  on  the  R1  value  is  much  more  important  than  it  is  on  electricity 
production, a climate correction factor that could help in taking into account the differences in heat 
demand is therefore needed so as to maintain a level playing field among European WtE plants.  

3.2.3  Cooling according to climate conditions 

The  local  production  of  cold  from  heat  provided  by  a  District  Heating  network  can  be  of  interest 
when  this  network  already  exists.  However,  the  cooling  demand  is  usually  much  shorter  in  time 
(around 3 months per year) than the heating demand (6 to 8 months). This makes building a District 
Cooling network less attractive when there is no parallel demand for heat. On the contrary, the long-
lasting  cooling  demand  for  industrial  use  (food  preservation,  computer  cooling,  etc.)  shows  similar 
features everywhere in Europe. 

8 

 
Cold is more difficult to transport on long distances than heat, because the temperature gradient is 
smaller in cold networks than in heat distribution. WtE plants are rarely located in places where the 
demand  for  cooling  (and/or  heating)  is  high  (high  population  density  areas).  Higher  initial  capital 
expenditure,  coupled  with  much  smaller  demand  for  Cooling  than  for  Heating  networks,  have 
prevented so far the development of large District Cooling networks. The conclusion of the analysis 
of the cooling demand situation in Europe was that cooling demand is still small if not negligible and 
could be ignored in designing a correction factor.  

3.2.4  Climatic zones  

Europe  features  3  broad  climatic  zones  (warm,  temperate,  cold),  which  have  been  identified 
depending on the heating demand and subsequently by HDDs (Figure 3.4). The limits between these 
three zones were set in the ESWET study6 based on the HDD values: 3350 between the North Eastern 
zone  and  the  Intermediate  one,  2150  between  this  one  and  the  Southern  Europe  one.  These 
thresholds identify three main zones within Europe as shown in the Figure 3.4: 

• 

• 

• 

North Eastern Europe features cold climate that provides optimal conditions for the use 
of  energy  for  heating.  District  Heating  systems  are  well  developed  to  provide  heat  to 
buildings,  as  result  of  higher  heating  demand  and  planning  decision.  No  climate 
correction factor is needed for this area.  
Intermediate  zone:  features  moderate  climate  conditions,  where  heating  demand  is 
limited both in quantity and time, affecting proportionally the electricity production and 
the  opportunities  to  export  heat.  A  correction  factor  is  needed  to  cope  with  the 
electricity  production  reduction  due  to  temperature,  and  to  compensate  the  smaller 
heating demand. 
Southern  Europe:  features  a  warm  climate,  physically  hampering  the  electricity 
production and low heating demand, which is an impediment to heat export for heating 
and  to  develop  District  Heating  networks.  A  correction  factor  is  needed  to  take  into 
account unfavourable electricity production conditions and the lack of heat demand. 

The Figure 3.4 also shows the locations and types of WtE plants for which the data were delivered. It 
is  important  to  mention  that  this  map  was  prepared  only  for  visualisation  purposes  and  does  not 
represent the  official basis for calculation of HDD value  in specific  locations.  The  presented map is 
the  HDD  values  based  on  the  ECHAM5  Global  Circulation  Model  and  HIRHAM5  Regional  Climate 
Model from the Danish Meteorological Institute for the period 2010-20407. Moreover, in the cases of 
France  and Germany,  the data delivered did not  allow  identification of plant  locations and for this 
reason in these two Member States plants locations have to be considered approximated.  

6 ESWET, Energy recovery efficiency in Municipal Solid Waste-to-Energy plants in relation to local climate conditions, 2012. 
7  Hiederer,  R.,  2012,  Processing  Indices  of  Change  and  Extremes  from  Regional  Climate  Change  Data.  Luxembourg: 
Publications Office of the European Union. EUR 25339 EN. 29pp. ISBN 978-92-79-24994-5, doi: 10.2788/27516. 

9 

 
                                                           
Figure 3.4: Three zones according to HDDs and WtE plants in Europe 

3.2.5  Analysis of R1 values 

The  analysis of  the  data  delivered  shows  that  out  of  the  316  plants  included  in  the  evaluation,  46 
plants are located in the Southern European warmer area, 252 plants are located in Central Europe 
(the intermediary zone), and 18 plants are located in North-Eastern Europe, in colder area according 
to the HDD classification.  

The Table 3.1 shows the total number of WtE plants for which the data were delivered. As it can be 
seen, most of the analysed plants are located in central Europe and almost half of all the analysed 
WtE plants consist in CHP plants located in Central Europe.  

10 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 3.1: Total number of WtE plants  

The  Table  3.2 represents  the  number  of  present  R1 plants, i.e., plants  already qualifying as energy 
recovery plant without any correction factor. If comparing Table 3.1 and Table 3.2 it can be seen that 
in  North-Eastern  Europe,  all  plants  for  which  the  information  was  received  are  already  R1 
independently to the type of the plant. More than 85% of CHP plants reach R1 value independently 
of the location, but only 60% of the CHP plants are R1 plants in Southern Europe and 86% in Central 
Europe. Only a quarter of electricity only plants in Southern Europe reach the R1 threshold and 40% 
in Central Europe. Only 40% of the heat plants reach the R1 threshold in Southern Europe and only 
54% in Central Europe area. 

Table 3.2: Number of R1 plants 

The  Table  3.3  represents  the  number  of  D10  plants,  i.e.,  plants  not  currently  qualifying  for  energy 
recovery  and  it  shows  that  more  than  2/3  of  the  plants  which  will  be  interested  by  the  climate 
correction  factor  are  in  Central  Europe  and  regarding  the  type,  more  than  60%  of  D10  plants  are 
electricity only plants. The distribution of CHP and heat only D10 plants is similar, round 20% each. 

Table 3.3: Number of D10 plants 

The  value  of  R1  formula,  when  all  plants  are  taken  into  account,  ranges  from  -0.14  to  1.47  with 
average  value  of  0.67.  The  relation  between  the  value  of  R1  formula  of  European  WtE  plants  and 
HDD is presented in Figure 3.5. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.5: Value of R1 formula of European WtE plants in relation to HDD 

From the Figure 3.5 it is visible that the all trendlines show an increase of R1 value with the increase 
of HDD which means that R1 value is higher in colder areas. The extremely low R1 values  reported 
can be explained both by an old, outdated technology which is used or even by the fact that some of 
these  plants  were  designed  with  the  main  purpose  of  waste  incineration  rather  than  energy 
recovery.  

The values of R1 formula of CHP plants range from 0.11 to 1.47 with an average value of 0.78. The 
CHP plant with the highest R1 value is located in a point with 4059 HDD and this plant has the highest 
R1 value among all WtE plants. The values of R1 formula of electricity only plants range from 0.03 to 
0.94 with an average value of 0.51. The electricity only plant with the highest R1 value is located in a 
point  with  2715  HDD.  A  significant  number  of  electricity  only  plants  have  an  R1  factor  above  the 
threshold, even in the warmer area in Southern Europe.  

The values of R1 formula of heat only plants range from -0.14 to 1.06 with average value of 0.61 and 
the trend line increases with the increase of HDD. The heat only plant with the highest R1 value is 
located at the location with 3278 HDD. A large number of heat only plants have R1 values well below 
the threshold, although it is expected that heat only plants should be able to reach this threshold, if 
they are in the category of Best Available Technologies (BAT).  

It  can  be  noticed  that  some  electricity  only  plants  have  higher  R1  factor  than  some  CHP  plants, 
although it is expected CHP plants to perform better than electricity only plants. This fact reflects the 

12 

 
 
 
differences  in  the  specific  plant  performances  related  to  the  technology  level  of  that  plants  and 
operating mode.  

The Table 3.4 shows the average R1 value based on location and type of the plant. As it can be seen 
from this table, when looking at average values by European climate conditions, the average R1 value 
in southern Europe is 0.49, in central Europe 0.68 and in North- Eastern Europe 1.01.  

Table 3.4: Average R1 values according to location and type of the plant 

When taking into the consideration the type of the plant, it is clearly visible that the lowest average 
value  of 0.46  is  reached  in  heat  only  plants  in  Southern  Europe  while  electricity  only  plants  in  the 
same area have similar average value of 0.48. But it is also visible that even CHP plants in the same 
area hardly meet R1 criteria with an average R1 value of 0.58. Electricity only and heat only plants 
face problems of meeting R1 threshold even in Central Europe, where the  average R1 factor is just 
below the threshold. 

3.3  Relations between the size and R1 value of European WtE plants 

When looking at  trendlines of R1 values and the size  of plant  in relation to HDD,  it can be  noticed 
that in all cases R1 values increase with the increase of HDD. Figure 3.6 shows on the contrary the 
relation between plant size and R1 values.  

This figure shows that, in general, despite the large scattering of data, the R1 value of a WtE plant 
tends  to  increase  with  size.  More  in  detail,  in  the  case  of  the  CHP  plant,  when  looking  at  the 
trendline, the R1 value is almost constant, round 0.8, with a loose dependency on the size, while in 
the  cases  of  heat  only  and  electricity  only  plants  the  R1  value  increases  more  clearly  with  the 
increase  of  plant  capacity.  However,  the  fact  that  the  figure  reveals  a  large  scattering  of  data  and 
that values of R2 are very small has to be underlined.  

The plant with the highest R1 value of all is a CHP plant with the size of around 100 000 t/year, which 
shows a strong influence of technology and operating conditions too. On the other hand, in the case 
of heat only plants, the plant with the biggest size also has the highest R1 value, while in the case of 
electricity only plants the plant with the highest R1 value is also one of the biggest plants of this type. 
Thus, the data show a clear dependence of the plant size on the R1 factor for the electricity only and 
heat only plants, while this dependence is loose for CHP plants.  

13 

 
 
 
 
Figure 3.6: Value of R1 formula of European WtE plants in relation to size 

4  The  influence  of  various  options  of  climate  correction  factor  on 

values of R1 formula  

During  the  TAC  (Technical Adaptation  Committee) meeting of  1st  July  2011,  it was  announced  that 
the Commission was considering three options for a climate correction factor: one of zero correction, 
one  only  including  a  compensation  for  the  climatic  impact  on  the  electricity  production  and  one 
considering  the  impacts  of  climate  on  electricity  production  and  the  lack  of  heat  demand. 
Subsequently,  three  options  were  discussed  in  the  TAC  meeting  held  on  9th  July  2012  and  in  the 
Technical Working Group8 (TWG) meetings held on 2nd July 2013 and 17th September 2013 at the JRC 
premises in Ispra, Italy: 

  Option A addresses the climatic impact on the electricity production; 

  Option B cumulates the climatic impact on the electricity production as well as the impact of 

climate on production and heat demand. 

  Option  C  is  formulated  in  a  two-stage  process:  Option  B  for  a  period  of  time  (to  be 

determined) with a phase-out clause leading to the eventual application of Option A. 

8  The  main  objective  of  the  TWG  was  to  discuss  the  available  options  for  the  climate  correction  factor  and  to  provide 
information and acceptable technical proposals. The TWG included representation from stakeholders, including experts and 
representatives of Member States.  

14 

 
 
 
                                                           
1.12 

4.1  Definition of Options 

The footnote (*) in Annex II to the WFD provides that the R1 formula shall be applied in accordance 
with the reference document on Best Available Techniques (BAT) for waste incineration. The Waste 
Incineration BREF (WI-BREF, 2006) provides reference values for efficiencies which can be achieved 
when using BATs in the case of a Waste-to-Energy plant dedicated to the use of CHP and/or the heat 
and/or  steam  (BAT  61)  and  in  the  case  of  a  WtE  plant  not  in  conditions  to  export  much  heat  and 
dedicated to electricity generation (BAT 62).  

4.1.1  BAT 61 and BAT 62 

BAT  61  corresponds to  WtE  plants  for  the  use  of  CHP  and/or the  heat  and/or steam  which  export 
more than 1.9 MWh of energy per tonne of MSW (based on an average Net Calorific Value – NCV- of 
2.9  MWh/tonne).  Different  R1  values  correspond  to  the  BAT  61,  depending  on  whether  the  plant 
imports the electricity it needs (heat plant); produces only the electricity it needs; or produces more 
electricity and exports the surplus.  

BAT 62 corresponds to WtE plants which provide less than 1.9 MWh of energy per tonne of MSW and 
generate the electricity for internal demand or generate electricity in the range 0.4 to 0.65 MWh/t 
out of energy per tonne of MSW (based on a NCV of 2.9 MWh/tonne of MSW.  

According  to  the  ESWET  study9,  the  energy  export  value  given  in  BAT  61  corresponds  to  the  R1 
threshold  for  new  plants  (0.65)  in  the  worst  case  (i.e.  when  generating  only  heat)  and  can  be 
significantly higher when the plant generates electricity in addition to heat. On the other  hand, the 
whole  range  of  values  given  in  BAT  62  for  the  cases  of  pure  electricity  production  leads  to  the  R1 
value below the two R1 thresholds, between 0.36-0.58 as it is shown in the Figure 4.1.  

Source: ESWET Report 

Figure 4.1: R1 values corresponding to BAT 61 and BAT 62. 

9 ESWET, Energy recovery efficiency in Municipal Solid Waste-to-Energy plants in relation to local climate conditions, 2012. 

15 

 
 
                                                           
The reference energy efficiencies set by the Waste Incineration BREF give much higher R1 values for 
BAT  plants  dedicated  to  heat  than  for  plants  without  heat  export  and  dedicated  only  to electricity 
generation.  This  reflects  the  efficiency  of  energy  production  for  heat  only  and  CHP  plants,  on  one 
side,  and  electricity  only  plants  on  the  other  side.  In  order  to  compensate  for  the  lack  of  heat  in 
warm  areas,  it  was  considered  reasonable  to  propose  a  factor  based  on  the  ratio  between  the  R1 
values  corresponding  to  BAT  61  and  BAT  62  plants, while  maintaining  an  incentive  to  achieve  high 
efficiency of energy productionClimate appears as factor influencing the potential R1 value of a WtE 
plant. The technical and statistical data clearly shows that there is an uneven playing field at EU level 
in respect of the R1 formula and that, in spite of the equivalence factors already applicable, the R1 
formula is much more favourable to heat than to electricity.  

The R1 formula must in any case remain an incentive for operators to increase the overall efficiency 
of their plants and, in particular, to increase the heat export where possible. The climate factor must 
not  aim  at  fully  compensate  the  effect  of  lack  of  heat  demand  but  should  aim  at  making  the  R1 
formula workable in warmer areas, thus setting all European WtE plants on an equal footing.  

4.1.2  Option A  

In Option A, the formula is proposed to correct ONLY the impact on electricity generation. In this 
option, no low threshold is set for the electricity correction: the highest correction being therefore 
reached  in  a  theoretical  place  where  HDD  =  0.  The  maximum  correction  factor  is  1.05  for  the 
European  conditions.  The  climate  factor  for  electricity  would  compensate  the  differences  due  to 
climate  over  the  2  affected  zones  (Intermediate  and  Southern  Europe),  i.e.  in  areas  where 
HDD < 3350.  

Option A  
Proposal for a climate factor KClimateElec correcting ONLY the impact on electricity:  
KClimateElec = 1 if HDDlong term local > 3350  
KClimateElec = 1.1105 – 32.97 10-6 x HDD long term local if HDD long term local < 3350  

4.1.3  Option B  

In the Option B, a formula is proposed to correct the climate impact on electricity production and 
heat demand. This formula was built on the following principles:  

- 

- 

It should not aim at totally offsetting the handicap of plants generating electricity;  

The factor should have a ceiling, corresponding to maximum compensation for the situations 
where the heating demand is low and there are no opportunities to use industrial heat;  

-  Be appropriate and progressive to incentivise heat use whenever possible.  

Since BAT 61 and BAT 62 provide information on efficiencies which can be achieved when using Best 
Available Techniques, it was proposed to build the maximum climate correction factor on the ratio 
between the efficiency requested by BAT 61 (for WtE plants dedicated to the export of heat, worst 
case) and the efficiency recognised as BAT in a plant exporting electricity only. The resulting ratio is 
used  as  the  maximum  multiplicative  factor  used  in  the  hot  zone  (HDD  >  2150)  and  then  gradually 

16 

 
 
 
reduced to 1 as HDDs increase from 2150 to 3350, thus motivating export of heat as heat demand 
increases. The schematic representation of the options available is given in Figure 4.2.  

This  factor  cumulates  the  impact  of  the  two  issues  and  uses  the  local  long  term  average  HDD  as 
single input. The use of HDDs deals in an acceptable manner both with the ‘handicap’ on electricity 
production  and  the  reduced  or  lack  of  heat  demand.  Reference  data  are  available  in  official 
databases (Eurostat, JRC for interpolation). Three possibilities for the maximum multiplicative factor 
were discussed, based on the BAT61 and BAT62 reference values: 

  Option  B:  ratio  between  the  lowest  performances  of  BAT  61  and  the  average performances  of 

BAT62. The proposed maximum climate factor will then be 1.382.  

  Option B+: ratio between the lowest performances of BAT 61 and top performances of BAT62. 
The  proposed  maximum  climate  factor  will  then  be  1.12.  This  option  has  the  merit  that  is 
sounder, as being based only on the gap between the BAT61 and BAT 62, and thus compensating 
for the R1 factor in the two types of plants and leaving enough incentives for the use of heat.  

  Option  B++:  ratio  between  the  average  performances  of  BAT  61  and  average  performances  of 
BAT62.  The  proposed  maximum  climate  factor  will  then  be  1.66.  This  option  provides  a  high 
correction factor, which overcompensate for the climate correction leaving little or no incentives 
for the use of heat. 

Option B  

Proposal for a factor KClimateHeat&Elec correcting the impact on BOTH electricity production AND heat demand:  

KClimateHeat&Elec = 1 if HDDlong term local > 3350  

KClimateHeat&Elec = 1.382 if HDDlong term local < 2150  

KClimateHeat&Elec = - (0.382/1200) x HDDlong term local + 2.0665 when 2150 < HDDlong term local < 3350 

Option B + 

Proposal for a factor KClimateHeat&Elec correcting the impact on BOTH electricity production AND heat demand:  

KClimateHeat&Elec = 1 if HDDlong term local > 3350  

KClimateHeat&Elec = 1.12 if HDDlong term local < 2150  

KClimateHeat&Elec = - 0.0001 x HDDlong term local + 1.3350 when 2150 < HDDlong term local < 3350 

Option B ++ 
Proposal for a factor KClimateHeat&Elec correcting the impact on BOTH electricity production AND heat demand:  
KClimateHeat&Elec = 1 if HDDlong term local > 3350  
KClimateHeat&Elec = 1.66 if HDDlong term local < 2150  
KClimateHeat&Elec = - 0.00055 x HDDlong term local + 2.8425 when 2150 < HDDlong term local < 3350 

The  Figure  4.2  represents  the  proposed  climate  factors:  Option  A  addressing  only  the  electricity 
impact (line in blue), Option B, Option B+ and Option B++ addressing the heat AND electricity (line in 
green, red and light green). 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.2: Proposed options for climate correction factors 

4.1.4  Option C  

The Option C, consisting in the adoption of B for a first period of time, followed by the adoption of A 
option,  was  no  longer  taken  into  consideration  regarding  this  research  since  during  technical 
meetings  the  conclusions  were  made  that  this  option  would  require  higher  investment  costs  for 
existing WtE plants. 

4.2  Analysis  of  various  options  and  their  impact  on  R1  factor  of  existing 

plants 

The various options available were analysed and their impact was quantified on the R1 factor of the 
plants located in various climatic zones, based on the data received on 316 WtE plants. The Table 4.1 
shows the average R1 value based on  the location and type of the plant for the current status and 
various options addressed.  

Table 4.1: Average R1 values in present situation and after the Options applied 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
The Table 4.1 shows that in the case of the Option A the R1 threshold for the average WtE CHP plant 
would  be  already  met  in  all  European  climate  conditions,  but  the  average  R1  values  for  electricity 
only plants in all climate conditions and heat only plants in Southern Europe would not be at the level 
of  the  threshold.  In  Southern  Europe,  CHP  plants  would  show  an  average  R1  value  just  above  the 
threshold. In Central Europe, the R1 value would increase by a limited extent and on average, heat 
only plants would reach the R1 threshold. From the Figure 4.3 which shows calculated R1 values for 
European WtE plants in the case of the Option A it is evident that all trendlines still show an increase 
of  R1  values  with  the  increase  of  HDD  which  means  that  there  could  be  the  need  for  stronger 
correction. 

Figure 4.3: Calculated R1 values for European WtE plants in the case of the Option A 

In the case of the Option A the maximum correction would be 1.09 at the location of a little bit more 
than 600 HDD, the average R1 values for WtE plants would increase by an overall factor of 1.03; in 
the Southern Europe, the average R1 would increase by 1.05, in Central Europe it would increase by 
1.02.  In  Southern  Europe,  CHP  plants  would  pass,  on  average,  above  the  threshold.  In  Central 
Europe,  on  average,  CHP  plants  and  heat  only  plants  would  pass  above  the  R1  threshold  and 
electricity only plants would still be under the threshold. 

In the case of the Option B+ 1.12 the maximum correction would be 1.12 in Southern Europe while in 
Central Europe the correction factor would be 1.07 in average. The Figure 4.4 shows calculated R1 
values for European WtE plants in the case of the Option B+ 1.12: it is obvious that all trendlines still 
show the increase of R1 values with the increase of HDD which means that there could be a need for 
stronger correction. 

19 

 
 
 
Figure 4.4: Calculated R1 values for European WtE plants in the case of the Option B+ 1.12 

In the case of the Option B 1.38, on average, all plants would meet the R1 threshold independently to 
the  climate  zone  or  type  of  the  plant.  The  average  R1  values  for  WtE  plants  would  increase  by  a 
factor  of  1.23;  while  in  the  Southern  Europe,  the  average  R1  would  increase  by  1.38,  in  Central 
Europe would increase by 1.23. The Figure 4.5 shows calculated R1 values for European WtE plants in 
the case of the Option B 1.38.where the trendline for electricity only plants now shows a decrease of 
R1 values with the increase of HDD which means that this correction might already be too  high for 
electricity only plants. The trendlines for R1 factor for heat only and CHP plants still show an increase 
with the increase of HDD.  

In  the  cases  of  the  Option  B++  1.66,  all  plants  would  meet  on  average  the  R1  threshold 
independently to the climate zone or type of the plant. In this case, the average R1 values for WtE 
plants would increase by 1.39; while in the Southern Europe, the average R1 would increase by 1.66, 
in Central Europe  would increase by 1.40. The Figure 4.6  shows  calculated R1 values  for European 
WtE plants in the case of the Option B+ 1.66. 

From  the  Figure  4.6  it  is  obvious  that  the  trendline  for  electricity  only  plants  now  shows  a  strong 
decrease of R1 values with the increase of HDD. This proves that this correction is definitely too high 
for electricity only plants. In this case, the trendline for CHP plants is almost horizontal.  

20 

 
 
 
 
Figure 4.5: Calculated R1 values for European WtE plants in the case of the Option B 1.38 

Figure 4.6: Calculated R1 values for European WtE plants in the case of the Option B++ 1.66 

When  the  number  of  plants  reaching  the  R1  status  is  taken  into  consideration,  the  situation  is  as 
presented in the Table 4.2. 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 4.2: Number of D10 plants and number of plants changing status depending on Options 

As  it  is  visible  from  the  Table  4.2,  the  Option  A  changes  the  status  from  D10  to  R1  for  only  2 
electricity only plants in Central Europe. There would be no changes in the status of the WtE plants in 
other areas in Europe.  

In the case of the Option B+ 1.12, 18 plants would change the status: 5 CHP plants, 12 electricity only 
plants and 1 heat plant. Out of these 18 plants, 6 are in Southern Europe and 12 in Central Europe 
and there would be no change in the status of heat only plants in Southern Europe. 

In the case of the Option B 1.38, 47 plants from all categories would change the status: 9 CHP plants, 
31 electricity only plants and 7 heat plants. Out of these, 18 plants would be from Southern Europe 
and 29 from Central Europe. 

In the case of the Option B++ 1.66, 65 plants would change the status: 13 CHP plants, 44 electricity 
plants and 8 heat only plants; 25 plants would be from Southern Europe and 40 from Central Europe. 
The impact of Option B 1.38 and Option B++ 1.66 on heat plants would be almost the same, which 
means that 7 heat only plants would change status in Option B+ as compared to 8 heat only plants 
changing status in Option B++ have very low R1 factor. This is explained by the very low R1 factor of 
such heat only plants. 

The Figure 4.7 shows the number of plants which would change the status by plant type in cases of 
different options. 

The  Table  4.3  shows  the  percentage  of  plants  currently  classified  as  D10  per  climate  zones  and 
categories which would meet the thresholds in the new situation,  then changing status, depending 
on the options considered. 

22 

 
 
 
 
Figure 4.7: Number of D10 plants changing status by type for different options 

Table 4.3: Percentage of D10 plants changing status by Options 

The Option A would mean that only 2 % of all D10 plants will change status and 3% of all electricity 
only plants. About 5% of electricity only plants which are now D10 in Central Europe would change 
their status. All other plants in other areas would not be affected. 

If  the  Option  B+  1.12  was  chosen,  17%  of  all  D10  plants  would  change  status:  19%  of  plants  from 
Southern  Europe  and  16%  of  plants  from  Central  Europe.  Overall,  22%  of  CHP  plants,  18%  of 
electricity plants and 5% of heat plants which are D10 plants now would change status. About 50% of 
CHP  plants  in  Southern  Europe  and  19%  of  electricity  only  plants  which  are  all  D10  now  would 
change status. In Central Europe area, about 19% of CHP plants, 18% of electricity only plants and 6% 
of heat only plants which are D10 now would change status. 

With  the  Option  B  1.38,  the  impact  would  be  more  obvious:  44%  of  all  D10  plants  would  change 
status; 56% of plants from Southern Europe and 38% of plants from Central Europe. Overall, 39% of 
CHP plants, 47% of electricity plants and 37% of heat plants which are D10 plants now would change 
status. About 50% of D10 plants in Southern Europe and 59% of electricity only plants and 33% of the 
heat plants which are all D10 now would change status. In Central Europe area, about 38% of CHP 
plants, electricity only plants and heat only plants which are D10 now would change status.  

23 

 
 
 
 
 
Finally, if the  Option B 1.66 was chosen,  60% of all D10 plants would change status:  78% of plants 
from Southern Europe  and 53% of plants  from Central Europe. Overall, 57%  of CHP plants,  67% of 
electricity plants and 42% of heat plants which are all D10 plants now would change status. All CHP 
plants (100%) in Southern Europe, 81% of electricity only plants and 33% of the heat plants which are 
D10 now would change status. In Central Europe area, about 52% of CHP plants, 56% of electricity 
only plants and 44% of heat only plants which are D10 now would change status.  

The Figure 4.8 shows the percentage of D10 plants of certain type which would change the status in 
cases of different options.  

Figure 4.8: Percentage of D10 plants changing status by type for different options 

A similar analysis involving the installed capacity of plants changing status under a different option is 
reported in the Appendix. 

5  Positions of Member States 

The analysis of the climate correction factor which would be needed for all of the plants  to change 
their status shows that the range of the factor which would be needed would be between -46.98 and 
34.42. This shows extremely wide ranges for a correction factor which would be needed to reach the 
R1 threshold for certain plants and it also shows that there are D10 plants which were  not built for 
energy recovery but only for waste incineration and they have no possibilities to reach R1 threshold 
without major improvements.  

For a relevant analysis, to consider only plants which were built for energy recovery, 5% of extreme 
values (15 plants), were excluded from the analysis of the climate correction factor which would be 
needed by the plants in order to meet the R1 threshold. The first step in this analysis was to find out 
which would be the ratio 0.6/R1 which represents the needed correction if it was applied in the full 
amount on all locations (without considering the HDDs of each specific plant location). As the result 
of this analysis the diagram in the Figure 5.1 was made. 

24 

 
 
 
Figure 5.1: Needed CFF for all plants 

The diagram in the Figure 5.1 shows which plants would be below the lines for certain Options and 
thus would be  considered as energy recovery plants or R1  and which plants would stay above  and 
would be considered as waste incineration plants or D10.  

Since  in  intermediate  zone,  the  correction  for  the  Option  B  is  not  applied  in  the  full  amount  but 
decreases  from  the  defined  value  at  2150  HDD  to  1  at  3350  HDD,  the  calculation  of  real  climate 
correction  factor  for  the  Option  B  was  also  made.  With  excluding  5%  of  extremes  as  explained 
before, the needed climate correction factor for all plants stands now between 1 and 3.3. In this case 
the diagram which shows the exact values of climate correction factor for different coefficients in the 
case of the Option B is shown in the Figure 5.2: 

From the Figure 5.2 it is visible that plants which reach R1 value above 0.6 without correction and 
plants  which  are  in  North-Eastern  Europe  have  the  needed  climate  correction  factor  (CCF)  1.  For 
plants  in  Southern  Europe  which  do  not  meet  R1  value  without  correction,  the  needed  CCF  is 
calculated  as  ratio  0.6/R1.  And  in  the  end,  for  the  plants  in  Central  Europe  which  do  not  meet  R1 
value without correction, the needed CCF is calculated as the value for the Option B needed to reach 
the 0.6 threshold. 

25 

 
 
 
Figure 5.2: Needed CFF for all plants excluding 5% of extreme values 

The average climate correction factor for all plants to reach the R1 threshold would be for the case of 
the Option B with the correction value of 1.162. The average climate correction factor for CHP plants 
to reach the R1 threshold would be for the case of the Option B with the correction value of 1.069. 
The average climate correction factor for heat only plants to reach the R1 threshold would be in for 
the case of the Option B with the correction value of 1.236. The average climate correction factor for 
electricity  only  plants  to  reach  the  R1  threshold  would  be  for  the  case  of  the  Option  B  with  the 
correction value of 1.295. 

During  the  Meeting  of  the  Committee  for  the  adaptation  to  scientific  and  technical  progress  and 
implementation  of  the  Directives  on  waste  established  under  article  39  of  Directive  2008/98/EC 
which took  place in Brussels on 18th  October 2013, but  also in the e-mail exchange  and during the 
other meetings Member States gave their preferred positions on the options for climate correction 
factor (Figure 5.3).  

26 

 
 
 
Figure 5.3: Options for climate correction factor supported by Member States 

As it can be seen from the Figure 5.3, Southern countries (Portugal, Spain, France, Italy and Greece) 
asked for higher level of correction (Option B 1.38 or Option B++ 1.66), Northern countries (Belgium, 
Netherlands,  Germany,  Austria,  Denmark,  Finland  and  Sweden)  ask  for  lower  level  of  correction 
(Option A or Option B+  1.12), while  Eastern countries  and UK and Ireland do not  have  a preferred 
option yet. The Netherlands and Finland support the Option B+ 1.12 and stated that the value could 
be even higher, but not 1.38. 

If  the  positions  of  various  Member  States  and  the  number  of  plants  in  respective  countries  are 
considered, the share of WtE plants by position taken by Member States is shown in Figure 5.4.  

Regarding  the  installed  capacities  for  waste  incineration  by  Member  States,  the  share  of  installed 
capacities by position taken by Member States is shown in Figure 5.5. This figure shows that 55% of 
installed  capacities  come  from  Member  States  which  search  for  lower  correction  factor  and  33% 
from Member States which search for higher correction factor. 

27 

 
 
 
Figure 5.4: Number of WtE plants by the position taken by Member States 

Figure 5.5: Installed capacities (t/year) of WtE plants by the position taken by Member States 

When  looking  at  R1  plants,  the  Figure  5.6  shows  that  only  20%  of  R1  plants  come  from  Member 
States which ask for higher climate correction factor, while in the same time 3/4 of R1 plants come 
from Member States which ask for lower climate correction factor. The situation is almost the same 
when  comparing  the  size  of  R1  plants  for  which  the  data  was  delivered  as  it  is  shown  in  the 
Figure 5.7. 

28 

 
 
 
  
 
Figure 5.6: Number of R1 plants according to the position taken by Member States 

Figure 5.7: Installed capacities (t/year) of R1 plants according to the position taken by Member 
States 

On the other hand, when looking at the Figure 5.8, it is clearly visible that almost all D10 plants come 
from Member States which asked for higher climate correction factors and once again the situation is 
almost  the  same  when  comparing  the  size  of  D10  plants  for  which  the  data  was  delivered  as  it  is 
shown in the Figure 5.9. 

29 

 
 
 
  
 
Figure 5.8: Number of D10 plants according to position taken by Member States 

Figure 5.9: Installed capacities (t/year) of D10 plants according to position taken by Member States 

It is also important to mention that out of 4 Member States which provided partial data, two of them 
are among Member States which ask for low correction factor and two among Member States which 
still did not take any position. On the other hand, all Member States which ask for higher correction 
factor provided all or sufficient data for the purpose of the analysis. The data on size was delivered 
for more plants than the data on R1 values and HDD. 

30 

 
 
 
  
 
6  Additional considerations on statistical properties of R1 values for 

the European WtE plants 

Data provided have also allowed some additional analysis on the actual situation of the state of the 
art of technologies in WtE plants in Europe. More in detail, a statistical analysis was performed on 
the  overall  population  of  existing  WtE  plants  and  on  its  subpopulations  of  CHP  or  Heat  Only 
(CHP&HO) plants and electricity only (EO) plants, corresponding to technologies described by BAT 61 
and BAT 62 respectively. 

It  is  worth  mentioning  that,  as  Figures  3.4  and  3.5  show  and  as  it  was  already  discussed  in  the 
present  report,  CHP plants are almost  only  deployed in moderate and cold climate  areas while  EO 
plants are deployed only in warm and moderate climate areas in Europe and HO plants are deployed 
in moderate climate areas and to a lesser extent in warm and cold climate areas.  

Table 6.1 shows statistical descriptors of the R1 distributions for the whole WtE population and for 
the  two  subpopulations  of  Electricity  only  (EO)  and  CHP  and  Heat  Only  (CHP&HO)  plants,  while 
Figure 6.1 shows the full distribution of R1 values for the two data sets. As in the  Chapter 5, 5% of 
extreme values were excluded from the analysis.  

Table  6.1:  Statistical  descriptors  for  R1  distribution  for  all  plants,  CHP&HO  plants  and  EO  plants 

according to data received. 5 % extreme values have been excluded.  

Type 

All Plants 
EO 
CHP&H  

Average 
R1 
0.699 
0.539 
0.773 

Median 
R1 
0.660 
0.543 
0.750 

Mode 

0.66 
0.66 
0.84 

Standard 
Deviation 
0.238 
0.129 
0.240 

Variance 

n 

0.057 
0.017 
0.058 

301 
95 
206 

Figure 6.1: Distribution of R1 values for EO plants (green) and CHP&HO plants (red). 5 % extreme 
values have been excluded 

31 

 
 
 
 
Both  the  statistical  descriptors  and  the  visual  analysis  of  the  distributions  confirm  that  existing  EO 
plants  show a lower value for the  average, median and the modal R1 value compared to CHP&HO 
plants,  a  fact  that  it  is  well  evident  even  from  the  comparison  of  BAT  technologies  discussed  in 
Chapter 4.1.1 and for which an effect of geographical location has been demonstrated.  

For  further  analysis of R1 distributions,  some  key  percentile  values of  R1 of  both  EO  and  CHP&HO 
plants has been elaborated and shown in Table 6.2 and in Figure 6.2 in graphical format.  

Table  6.2:  R1  percentiles  values  defining  1/6,  1/3,  ½,  2/3  and  5/6  of  plants  for  both  EO  and 

CHP&HO plants.  5 % extreme values have been excluded. 

Percentiles10 
EO 
CHP&HO 

16.7% 
0.412 
0.600 

33.3% 
0.474 
0.664 

50.0% 
0.543 
0.750 

66.7% 
0.602 
0.830 

83.3% 
0.660 
0.999 

In  Table  6.3,  the  ratios  between  key  R1  percentile  values  have  been  computed.  It  is  interesting  to 
notice as the ratio between the 50th percentiles of the two distributions (in green) amounts to 1.38, 
while the higher percentiles of EO plants distribution have a lower ratio with the CHP distributions, 
(shown in red). These key numbers have been reported also in Figure 6.2 in order to allow a better 
explanation of their meaning.  

Table 6.3: Ratios between the percentiles defined in Table 6.2. 

Percentiles 

O
H
&
P
H
C

16.7% 
33.3% 
50.0% 
66.7% 
83.3% 

0.600 
0.664 
0.750 
0.830 
0.999 

Electricity Only 
16.7% 
0.412 
1.46 
1.61 
1.82 
2.01 
2.42 

33.3% 
0.474 
1.27 
1.40 
1.58 
1.75 
2.11 

50.0% 
0.543 
1.11 
1.22 
1.38 
1.53 
1.84 

66.7% 
0.602 
1.00 
1.10 
1.25 
1.38 
1.66 

83.3% 
0.660 
0.91 
1.01 
1.14 
1.26 
1.51 

This shows (Figure 6.2), a correction factor of 1.38 would potentially allow median existing EO plants 
to reach a R1 value at the same level as the median existing CHP&HO plant.11. In the case of applying 
lower correction factors, the analysis also shows that, for example, a correction factor of 1.25 would 
potentially allow only the top third of EO plants to reach a R1 value higher than the median CHP&HO 
plant, while a correction factor of 1.14 would potentially allow the top sixth of EO plants to reach an 
R1 value higher than the median CHP&HO plant.  

10 The X% percentile indicates that X% of plants have R1 smaller or equal to the given value. For instance, 66.7% (i.e. 2/3) of 
EO plants have R1<= 0.602 or 33.3% (1/3) of CHP&HO plants have R1 <= 0.74   
11 It has to be reminded that not all the R1 values of existing EO plants are expected to be corrected by the full 1.38 factor, 
as several of them are located in the intermediate climate area. Moreover, the R1 values of several CHP&HO plants, also 
located  in  the  intermediate  and  cold  climate  area,  are  also  expected  to  be  corrected  to  certain,  but  lower  extent.  Both 
these effects further assure that R1 distribution of EO plants will not be overcompensated in relation to CHP&HO plants. 

32 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 6.2: Percentile values of R1 distribution for CHP&HO plants (left) and EO plants (right). 
Ratios between median CHP&HO values and median, 2/3 and 5/6 percentiles of EO plants are also 
shown 

In other words, based on the statistical analysis of the current plants, correction factors in the range 
between 1.14 and 1.38 are expected to assure that only the “best” or “top” existing EO plants will be 
treated equally to the "typical" or "average" CHP&HO plant. This would still confirm an incentive for 
plants  builders  to  look  for  either  costumers  for  heat  production  or,  if  not  possible,  to  employ 
technology advanced enough to make their plants belonging to the top class of EO plants.  

7  Conclusions 

Based on the analysis reported the following conclusions were taken: 

 

  There is technical evidence that local conditions  “influence the amounts of energy that can 
technically  be  used  or  produced  in  the  form  of  electricity,  heating,  cooling  or  processing 
steam” as mentioned in Article 38 WDF.  
In order to level the playing field as much as possible within the EU, it is necessary to set up a 
climate factor taking into account the impact of climate conditions on R1 formula.  
It is reasonable to propose a factor based on the ratio between the R1 values corresponding 
to  BAT  61  and  BAT  62  plants,  while  maintaining  an  incentive  to  achieve  high  efficiency  of 
energy production. 

 

  This option adopted should be sound and not arbitrary and leaving enough incentive for the 

use of heat whenever possible.  

33 

 
 
 
Data availability 

1.  The data for this report were delivered by all Member States: 24 Member States delivered 
complete  or  sufficient  data,  while  4  Member  States  delivered  only  partial  data.  Germany 
delivered data which was not accurate enough to allow an analysis as detailed as the other 
countries,  while  Slovenia,  Sweden  and  UK  delivered  data  for  less  than  half  of  their  WtE 
plants. 

2.  At least partial data were delivered for 316 plants of which complete data was delivered for 

240 out of 425 WtE plants existing in Europe. 

3.  France  itself  has  almost  30%  of  all  European  WtE  plants  while  France,  Germany  and  Italy 

together have 60% of all European WtE plants. 

4.  According  to  the  data  available,  Member  States  with  the  highest  waste  incineration 
capacities  per  capita  in  Europe  like  Denmark,  Sweden  and  The  Netherlands  are  supporting 
lower correction factor, while France, the Member State with the highest number of plants 
and Italy, the third country according to number of plants, support higher correction factor. 

5.  The size of European WtE plants generally decreases with the increase of HDD  
6.  Almost 1/2 of WtE plants which were considered in the research are CHP plants from Central 

Europe. 

7.  80% of WtE plants which were considered in the research are located in Central Europe. 
8.  208 or around 2/3 of WtE plants  which  were  considered  in the research are R1 plants  and 
1/3  or  108  plants  are  D10  plants,  out  of  which  76  plants  are  from  Central  and  32  from 
Southern Europe. 

9.  The plants considered in this research located in Member States supporting higher correction 
factors and  in MS supporting  lower correction  are  almost  equal  in number.  Some Member 
States did not express any preference for any of the options. 

10. Almost  all  D10  plants  are  located  in  Member  States  supporting  higher  climate  correction 

factors. 

R1 factor of WtE plants and trends 

11. The calculation of R1 factor and the relation with BREF Incineration document referred to in 

the WFD shows that all BAT 61 plants should have a R1 factor above 0.60. 

12. The calculation of R1 factor and the relation with BREF Incineration document referred to in 

the WFD shows that the top of BAT 62 plants have a R1 factor below 0.60.  

13. More  than  85%  of  CHP  plants  currently  reach  R1  value  independently  of  the  location,  but 
only 60% of the CHP plants are R1 plants in Southern Europe and 86% in Central Europe.  
14. Only a quarter of electricity only plants in Southern Europe currently reach the R1 threshold 

and 40% in Central Europe.  

15. Only 40% of the  heat plants  currently  reach the R1 threshold in Southern Europe  and only 

54% in Central Europe climate area. 

16. A large number of heat only plants  show R1 values well below the threshold, although it is 

expected that heat only plants based on BAT should be able to reach this threshold. 

17. All trendlines  for  European WtE  plants shows  an  increase of R1 factor with the  increase  of 

HDD. 

18. Average  R1  value  for  all  WtE  plants  is  currently  below  the  0.6  threshold  only  in  Southern 

Europe. 

34 

 
19. In  the  case  of  CHP  plants  and  heat  only  plants  average  R1  value  is  currently  above  the 
threshold,  but  in  the  case  of  electricity  only  plants  average  R1  value  is  below  the  0.6 
threshold. 

20. More  than  2/3  of  the  plants  which  will  be  affected  by  the  climate  correction  factor  are  in 

Central Europe and more than 60% of D10 plants are electricity only plants. 

21. Some electricity only plants show higher R1 factor than some CHP plants, although it can be 

expected that CHP plants perform better than electricity only plants.  

22. The data available show an increase of the R1 value of heat only and electricity only plants 

with increasing size.  

23. The  data  dependence  of  R1  factor  from  the  size  for  CHP  plants  demonstrates  a  strong 

influence of technology and operating conditions too.  

24. As two Member States have provided data for R1 values for two consecutive years, a non-
negligible inter-annual variability in the R1 values, broadly ranging between ±5% and ± 10% 
on average has been notified. 

Impact of the climate correction factors 

25. Average  WtE  plant  in  Europe  would  need  a  correction  value  of  1.162  in  order  to  meet  R1 

threshold. 

26. Average CHP WtE plant in Europe would need a correction value of 1.069 in order to meet R1 

threshold. 

27. Average heat only WtE  plant  in Europe  would need a  correction value of 1.236 in order to 

meet R1 threshold. 

28. Average electricity only WtE plant in Europe would need a correction value of 1.295 in order 

to meet R1 threshold. 

29. The  statistical  analysis  of  existing  plants  shows  that  a  R1  correction  factor  of  1.38  would 

broadly equalize the medians of the current R1 distributions of EO and CHP&HO plants. 

30. A correction factor of 1.25 would potentially allow only the top third of EO plants to reach a 

R1 value higher than the median CHP&HO plant  

31. A correction factor of 1.14 would potentially allow only the top sixth of EO plants to reach an 

R1 value higher than the median CHP&HO plant.  

Impact of different options  

32. In the case of the Option A, only 2 plants will change the status  from D10 to R1 and these 

plants are electricity only plants from Central Europe. 

33. The  Option  A  would  mean  that  only  2%  of  all  plants  will  change  status  and  3%  of  all 

electricity only plants. All other plants in other areas would not be affected. 

34. In the case of the Option B+ 1.12, 18 plants would change the status and 2/3 of them would 

be electricity only plants. 

35. With  the  Option  B+  1.12,  17%  of  all  D10  plants  would  change  status.  Overall,  22%  of  CHP 
plants,  18%  of  electricity  plants  and  5%  of  heat  plants  which  are  D10  plants  now  would 
change status.  

36. In the case of the Option B 1.38, 47 plants would change the status and the average R1 value 

would be above 0.6 in all climate areas. 

35 

 
37. With  the  Option  B  1.38,  44%  of  all  D10  plants  would  change  status.  Overall,  39%  of  CHP 
plants, 47% of electricity plants and 37% of heat plants which are D10 plants would change 
status.  

38. In  the  case  of  the  Option  B++  1.66,  65  plants  would  change  the  status  and  almost  2/3  of 

them would be from Central Europe. 

39. With the Option B++ 1.66, 60% of all D10 plants would change status. Overall, 57% of CHP 
plants, 67% of electricity plants and 42% of heat plants which are all D10 plants now would 
change status.  

40. In  the  case  of  the  Option  B++  1.66,  climate  correction  would  clearly  over-compensate  the 
climate effect on the R1 values for WtE plants in favour of plants in warmer areas and leaving 
no incentives for higher energy recovery from waste. 

41. The  cumulate  capacity  of  current  D10  plants  for  which  data  were  reported  amounts  to 
11,692,544 t/year of which 3,213,660 t/year in CHP plants 7,287,444 t/year in electricity only 
plants  and  1,191,640  t/year  in  heat  only  plants.  In  the  Appendix  a  detailed  analysis  is 
reported  about  the  amount  of  waste  processing  capacity of current  D10  plants  that  would 
change status under the different options considered. 

42. In the case of the Option B 1.12, 23% of the capacity of D10 CHP and electricity only plants 

would change the status and 3% of the capacities of D10 heat only plants. 

43. In the case of the Option B 1.25, 46% of capacity of D10 electricity only plants would change 
the status, 32% of capacity from CHP plants and 33% of the capacity of D10 heat only plants. 
44. In  the  case  of  the  Option  B  1.38,  60%  of  the  capacity  of  D10  electricity  only  plants  would 
change the status, 37% of the capacity of CHP plants and 36% of the capacities of D10 heat 
only plants. 

45. In  the  case  of  the  Option  B  1.66,  79%  of  the  capacity  of  D10  electricity  only  plants  would 
change  the  status, 58% of the  capacity of CHP plants and 41% of the  capacity of heat  only 
plants. 

Based on this analysis, the suggestion for the climate correction factor for European Waste to Energy 
plants is the Option B with the coefficient between 1.12 and 1.38. The average value between these 
two technically justifiable options is 1.25. In this case, 37 plants would reach the R1 threshold, which 
represents 34% of all D10 plants.  

36 

 
 
 
 
8  Appendix:  Analysis  of  the  size  of  D10  plants  which  would  change 
the status in the case of different options of R1 climate correction 
factor 

The diagram in the Figure 8.1 shows the total incineration capacity (size) of the 316 plants for which 
data were provided. It has to be noted that Germany did not provide the exact data on the capacity, 
but as ranges. In this case, the central values of the declared ranges were used as best estimate for 
this analysis. 

Figure 8.1: Total waste incineration capacities of the plants which took part in the research (t/year) 

Out  of waste  incineration capacities  of 63.8 million  tonnes  for  which  data  have  been  provided, R1 
plants have a capacity of 52.1 million tonnes, while D10 plants have a total capacity of 11.7 million 
tonnes. 

The Figure 8.2 shows the declared capacities by types of plants (electricity only, CHP and heat only 
plants).  From  the  diagram  it  is  visible  that  most  of  capacities  come  from  CHP  plant,  followed  by 
electricity only plants in the case of WtE plants as a whole plants and only R1 plants. The heat only 
plants have the smallest total capacity of waste incineration. On the other hand, in the case of D10 
plants, most of capacities come from electricity only plants, which is followed by CHP and heat only 
plants. 

As the status of R1 plants is not expected to be affected by Climate Correction Factor (CCF), the rest 
of this analysis focuses on the changing status of D10 plants under different options for the Climate 
Correction Factor. The overall capacity of D10 plants reported equal to 11,692,544 t/year has been 
taken as the basis of the calculation.  

Figure  8.3  shows  the  total  size  of  D10  plants  that  would  change  the  status  depending  on  the  CCF 
option chosen, while Figure 8.4 shows the same quantities expressed in terms of percentage of the 
total size of D10 plants analysed.  

37 

 
 
 
Figure 8.2: Capacities of WtE plants which took part in the research by types 

In absolute terms, Figure 8.3 shows that the cumulated capacity of D10 plants that would change the 
status in the case of the Option A would amount to 0.3 million tonnes of waste per year. In the case 
of  the  Option  B-1.12  the  size  of  plants  which  would  change  the  status  would  reach  2.4  million 
tonnes, while in the case of the Option B-1.25 an incineration capacity of 4.7 million tonnes per year 
would  change  status.  In  the  case  of  the  Option  B-1.38  the  total  capacity  involved  would  reach  6 
million tonnes and in the case of the Option B-1.66 the total capacity would increase to 8.1 million 
tonnes out of the total 11.7 million tonnes per year of D10 installed capacity will change status.  

Figure 8.3: Size of D10 plants from the research which would change the status (t/year) 

In terms of percentage of installed capacity, as it can be seen from the Figure 8.4, in the case of the 
Option  A,  2%  of  the  overall  installed  capacity  of  D10  plants  would  change  the  status,  while  in  the 
case of the Option B-1.12 this share increases to 21%. With Option B-1.25 the share of the capacity of 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
D10 plants that would change the status reaches 41%; finally, with Option B-1.38 it increases to 51% 
and to 69% in the case of the Option B-1.66.  

Figure 8.4: Share of size of D10 plants which would change the status depending on the option 
chosen 

The Figure  8.5 provides  further insight  in the waste  incineration capacity of certain types of plants 
which would change the status by different options. The Figure shows that in the case of the Option 
B-1.12,  out  of  the  2.4  million  tonnes  per  year  of  D10  plants  which  would  change  the  status,  1.6 
million tonnes per year would come from electricity only plants and the rest would be CHP plants. In 
the similar way, it can be seen that the capacity of electricity only plants have the major part in the 
total capacity of all D10 plants which would change the status following all other Options. 

Figure 8.5: Size of D10 plants which would change the status by type 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
The Figure 8.6 shows the shares of D10 plants, by type, which would change the status. 

Figure 8.6: Share of size of D10 plants which would change the status by type 

The  Figure  8.6  shows  that  in  the  case  of  the  Option  A,  4%  of  the  capacity  of  D10  electricity  only 
plants would change the status and there will be no change for the CHP and heat only WtE plants.  

In the case of the Option B 1.12, 23% of the capacity of D10 CHP and electricity only plants would 
change the status and 3% of the capacities of D10 heat only plants. 

In  the  case  of  the  Option B  1.25,  46%  of  capacity off  D10 electricity  only  plants  would  change  the 
status, 32% of capacity from CHP plants and 33% of the capacity of f D10 heat only plants. 

In the case of the Option B 1.38, 60% of the capacity of D10 electricity only plants would change the 
status, 37% of the capacity of CHP plants and 36% of the capacities of D10 heat only plants. 

In the case of the Option B 1.66, 79% of the capacity of D10 electricity only plants would change the 
status, 58% of the capacity of CHP plants and 41% of the capacity of heat only plants. 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union 
Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 
(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed. 

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. 
It can be accessed through the Europa server  http://europa.eu. 

How to obtain EU publications 

Our publications are available from EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu), 
where you can place an order with the sales agent of your choice. 

The Publications Office has a worldwide network of sales agents. 
You can obtain their contact details by sending a fax to (352) 29 29-42758. 

European Commission 
EUR 26720 EN – Joint Research Centre – Institute for Energy and Transport 

Title: Report on the impact of R1 climate correction factor on the Waste-to-Energy (WtE) plants based on data 
provided by Member States 

Author(s): Hrvoje Medarac, Nicolae Scarlat, Fabio Monforti-Ferrario, Katalin Bódis 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union 

2014 – 44 pp. – 21.0 x 29.7 cm 

EUR – Scientific and Technical Research series – ISSN 1831-9424 (online), ISSN 1018-5593 (print) 

ISBN 978-92-79-39133-0 (PDF) 
ISBN 978-92-79-39134-7 (print) 

doi: 10.2790/28629 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
L
D
-
N
A
-
2
6
7
2
0
-
E
N
-
N

JRC Mission 

As the Commission’s  
in-house science service,  
the Joint Research Centre’s  
mission is to provide EU  
policies with independent,  
evidence-based scientific  
and technical support  
throughout the whole  
policy cycle. 

Working in close  
cooperation with policy  
Directorates-General,  
the JRC addresses key  
societal challenges while  
stimulating innovation  
through developing  
new methods, tools  
and standards, and sharing  
its know-how with  
the Member States,  
the scientific community  
and international partners. 

Serving society  
Stimulating innovation  
Supporting legislation 

doi: 10.2790/28629 

ISBN 978-92-79-39133-0