DNCC’s waste incinerator plan hardly seems viable

Neither incinerators nor waste to energy (WtE) are new ideas. The proposed 42.5 MW Dhaka North WtE project has been in the pipeline for years. However, a formal investment agreement for the project was signed by the Dhaka North City Corporation (DNCC) in 2021, to be built by the China Machinery Engineering Corporation (CMEC). The project is being backed by multilateral development bank finance, namely from the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the New Development Bank (NDB) �" colloquially known as the BRICS Bank. 

On the surface, WtE seems like a win-win concept �" you reduce landfill waste by several orders of magnitude while generating electricity from otherwise discarded resources �" a cornerstone of building a circular economy where resources are not wasted at the end of a product’s lifecycle. And several technologies for this exist �" ranging from pyrolysis (a thermodynamic process of breaking down waste in an oxygen free environment into fuels) to anaerobic digestion or gasification. However, for the purposes and scope of this article, the focus is on incineration �" the almost crude process of burning down municipal waste while converting the generated heat into energy. If the goal is reducing landfill waste, there is little room to question its effectiveness as it can burn down 95% of waste volume. However, this comes with some drastic downsides. 

Firstly, is the economic argument �" this is after all producing energy that will be bought and distributed by the state utility. And herein lies the first problem �" incinerators are prohibitively expensive. The Dhaka North WtE plant is estimated to cost BDT 5745 crore �" an eye watering bill that could instead have been used to install ten times as much solar energy. The electricity produced by the Dhaka North WtE will cost roughly BDT 20-25 per unit, far greater than any other fuel source creating a financial pressure on the state. 

Furthermore, the structure of the agreement ensures a fine of USD 50 for every ton of waste shortfall from the strict quota of 3000 tonnes of waste to be supplied daily. DNCC currently supposedly collects about 2750 tonnes of waste each day meaning that its waste collection for the incinerator would have to increase otherwise it would be financially liable. In a roundabout and perverse way, this defeats the spirit of true circularity amidst the waste crisis as it incentivises maintaining a supply of consumption and waste to avoid the financial penalties of this agreement, yet true circularity would have meant prioritising recycling, composting, reuse and ultimately, reducing the generation of waste. But instead, citizens must now keep consuming to feed the beast lest public finance is penalised for conscientiously reducing our waste. 

The bigger elephant in the room is the air pollution caused by incinerators. Waste incinerators release harmful toxic particulate matter such as PM 2.5, heavy metals such as mercury and lead, dioxins and “forever chemicals” (PFAS) into the air. In a city that is already struggling to breathe under the weight of air pollution, one has to question whether this tradeoff for reducing landfill volume for a meagre amount of expensive energy is worth the exacerbation of a public health catastrophe. Dhaka consistently ranks as one of the worst polluted cities in the world, and its PM 2.5 levels often exceed WHO standards by ten times. Open waste burning is often cited as one of the primary causes of air pollution, especially in the dry winter months and is a symptom of the lacklustre waste management system of the city. The proposal becomes to burn It in a chimney instead �" hardly a solution. While scrubbing technologies and filters can help mitigate the emissions, the resulting fly ash and bottom ash can leach into groundwater and soil if not properly managed. Furthermore, burning plastics which are made of fossil fuels, emits large amounts of CO2. In the United States, WtE incinerators produce more CO2 emissions per kilowatt-hour than coal power plants. According to environmental watchdog group, Urgewald, the DNCC WtE plant would produce 8.3 million tonnes of greenhouse gases over a 25 year lifespan. 

The government has also decided to reduce its standards by reducing the required incineration temperature from 1000 degrees to 850 degrees Celsius, significantly increasing the risk of incomplete combustion and toxic byproduct release, seemingly for the benefit of the contractors. It is also worth noting that Dhaka’s lack of source waste segregation means that the type of high calorific waste most suitable for incinerators are often contaminated due to mixing with other types of waste �" resulting in “wet” waste that is not ideal for an incinerator. 

Globally, there is a strong movement against the propagation of incinerators, highlighting similar concerns. Across Europe and the UK, there have been initiatives to place carbon taxes on waste incinerators with a recent announcement that the European Union will bring incinerators into its Emissions Trading System (ETS) aiming to price in the cost of CO2 emissions to incineration and encouraging reuse, material recovery and limiting waste generation. Some 500 WtE plants operate across the EU today, and while originally marketed as a cleaner source of energy while tackling overfilled landfills, these have now become a headache. Germany has imposed a carbon tax on incinerators. There have also been concerns that as recycling technologies improve and citizens become more aware of reducing waste generation, these expensive infrastructure projects end up as stranded assets and local governments remain on the hook for paying off the expensive capital costs. 

But Europe is often a bad example for comparing to the realities in Bangladesh where waste is overflowing and landfills are struggling for capacity. Better examples of why incineration is not the golden ticket to our problems lie in our neighbouring country of India.

The first WtE plant in India was set up in 1987 and shut down within 20 days because the garbage to be burned lacked the “calorific value” required to generate power. India today has some 30 WtE plants and half of them lie dysfunctional due to the same issue �" the characteristics of the waste supplied and the lack of economic viability. Residents around Delhi’s OkhlaWtE plant have reported a drastic change in pollution levels since 2012 when the plant was inaugurated saying with complaints of foul smell and air pollution.

The Okhla plant was supposed to set up a brick kiln to handle the ash produced, yet to this day, not a single brick has been produced. In Chennai, at the end of 2025, the Manali incinerator was closed down after sustained public opposition and the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board confirmed the presence of toxic heavy metals in bottom ash with contamination levels at 360 times the permissible limit. A 20 day protest by residents shelved a proposed project in Noida. 

The hidden equation in all this is the fact that in advanced economies, incinerators are increasingly saturated and discouraged as recycling, reuse and reductions take hold. Thus the Global South becomes the new expansion market. But why should technologies deemed dangerous for people in advanced economies be acceptable for us in developing countries? Landfill capacity is a dire concern, we can all admit this and waste to energy as a concept is not one to dismiss. However, with the realities of Bangladesh, the imperfections of our waste management system, and the crisis at hand for millions of residents suffering from unchecked pollution, a giant furnace generating overpriced energy is not going to be the comprehensive solution that Dhaka residents deserve.