For years I have driven by the McDonough County landfill, now owned by Waste Management. I was impressed by the occasional night view created by the burning of methane gas being released from the decomposition of organic materials buried in the ground. I often kidded my friends that “Mount Brown” would be a great ski sloop, and the ski lodge could be heated with the methane gas that is currently being wasted. That memory recently triggered the question, Why aren’t Waste Management and other landfill operators contracting their methane for heating operations or electrical generation?” My research found that such an idea was not impossible. There is an excellent example of such a project in Sweden.
In fact, Sweden’s wastetoenergy system has been so efficient and so largescale that it imports waste from other countries because its incineration plants need a steady supply of burnable waste to generate heat and electricity. Sweden operates over 30 wastetoenergy (WtE) plants, which supply district heating to millions of homes. As a result, only about 1% of Swedish household waste goes to landfills, thanks to recycling, biological treatment, and energy recovery. The demand for waste for the WtE plants has led Sweden to import waste from other countries to keep these WtE plants running at full capacity.
Sweden’s recycling and wastetoenergy systems are highly optimized. As recycling rates increased and landfill use dropped, domestic waste volumes were no longer enough to keep WtE plants operating efficiently. Because these plants are part of Sweden’s national heating and electricity infrastructure, they require a consistent fuel supply, and imported waste fills that gap. In practical terms. Sweden pays for the transport of waste from neighboring countries (often Norway and the UK), while those countries pay Sweden to take the waste because landfilling is more expensive or restricted under EU rules. The arrangement is mutually beneficial.
Can the Swedish model of waste to energy work in America, particularly in the Midwest? The Midwest has some natural advantages such as a steady waste stream, cold winters that make district heating valuable, and strong municipal utility traditions. However, there are also major barriers.
Landfills are cheap, governance is not centralized, and there is plenty of public skepticism.
Why Sweden’s System Works but a Midwest System Might Be Prohibitive The Swedish model works because Sweden has high landfill taxes, strong national recycling mandates, district heating networks, centralized waste governance, and public commitment to environmental issues. Midwestern states (Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Indiana, Wisconsin, Minnesota) differ sharply from Sweden in several ways. Landfills are cheap and plentiful. As a result, the U.S. buries roughly 50% of household waste in landfills. This undermines the economic case for WtE, which relies on high landfill costs to make incineration financially attractive. In addition, most Midwestern cities, even Chicago, lack widespread district heating. Meaning, WtE plants would rely mostly on electricity sales, which reduces profitability. Additionally, the Midwest has thousands of municipal waste authorities, different state regulations, and no unified recycling or landfilltax policy. This fragmentation makes regional WtE planning difficult. To add to the issue is limited, but growing support, for protection of the environment.
What Would Need to Change for SwedishStyle Success in the Midwest?
To replicate Sweden’s model, the Midwest would need to increase landfill taxes or caps. Multicounty or multicity waste districts would need to be created. The districts could guarantee feedstock, finance WtE plants, and standardized recycling streams. Smallscale district heating (university campuses, hospital clusters, downtown cores) would dramatically improve WtE economics. Illinois, Iowa, and Minnesota could adopt renewable energy credits for WtE, recycling mandates, organics diversion policies, and wasteimport frameworks.
Conclusion
The Swedish model is technically feasible in the Midwest — but not economically or politically feasible under current conditions. If landfill economics and regional governance change, the Midwest could support several highly efficient WtE plants, especially near midsized cities like Peoria, Rockford, Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, and Madison.
