The Rise of Alternative Engineered Fuels: Trash That Powers Industry.

What if your waste stream held the key to meeting sustainability goals and reducing fuel costs? Alternative Engineered Fuels (AEFs) are turning unrecyclable trash into a cleaner energy source—and manufacturers are taking notice.

As sustainability pressures mount, U.S. manufacturing companies are rethinking how they handle waste. One innovative solution is Alternative Engineered Fuels (AEFs) – a fuel literally made from trash. Instead of paying to dump waste in landfills (or simply burning it in incinerators), manufacturers can convert certain non-recyclable wastes into a valuable alternative fuel that powers industrial processes. This approach not only diverts tons of waste from landfills, but also helps meet environmental, social, and governance (ESG) goals by cutting greenhouse emissions and reducing reliance on fossil fuels. Before diving into what AEFs are and how they’re made, let’s contrast this fuel-from-trash approach with the traditional ways of dealing with waste: landfilling and incineration.

Landfilling vs. AEF: From Methane Problems to Sustainable Solutions

Landfilling has long been the default for disposing of industrial waste – bury it and forget it. But today we know that “forgetting it” is not so simple. As waste breaks down anaerobically in a landfill, it produces landfill gas rich in methane, a greenhouse gas at least 28 times more potent than CO₂. In fact, municipal solid waste landfills are the third-largest source of human-related methane emissions in the U.S., accounting for about 14.4% of all methane emissions in 2022. That methane leaking from landfills has a massive climate impact – equivalent to the emissions from over 24 million cars running for a year. Even with gas capture systems, a significant portion of methane often escapes into the atmosphere, representing not just a climate threat but also a lost energy opportunity.

Beyond methane, landfills come with other environmental costs. They consume huge tracts of land and can pose long-term risks such as leachate contamination of groundwater and persistent odors affecting nearby communities. Plus, burying waste squanders its potential value. The U.S. sent more than 146 million tons of municipal solid waste to landfills in 2018 – material that could, in many cases, be repurposed or converted to energy rather than left to decompose.

AEF processes convert non-recyclable industrial and post-consumer waste into a solid fuel that can be burned cleanly.

Alternative Engineered Fuel (AEF) offers a starkly different outcome for that same “unusable” waste. Instead of piling up garbage mountains, AEF processes convert non-recyclable industrial and post-consumer waste into a solid fuel that can be burned cleanly in industrial facilities. By transforming trash into a fuel, AEFs prevent the formation of methane altogether – there’s no anaerobic rotting, since the waste isn’t landfilled. That means avoided methane emissions and a direct reduction in climate impact. Some AEFs are even considered carbon-neutral or carbon-negative because they avoid methane and displace fossil fuels. In other words, when a manufacturer’s waste is converted to AEF and used in place of coal or natural gas, the net greenhouse gas emissions can be significantly lower than either landfilling or using traditional fuels.

To put it simply: landfilling waste creates long-term liabilities and methane pollution, whereas AEF turns waste into a usable resource. Instead of paying ~$50–60 per ton in landfill tipping fees to create future methane, companies can invest in processing waste into AEF and use or sell it as a sustainable fuel. This helps companies achieve “landfill-free” operations while also contributing to their renewable energy and emissions-reduction targets. It’s a classic win-win: less waste buried in the ground, and more value extracted from the trash we produce.

AEF vs. Incineration: Clean Energy Recovery without the Ash Burden

If converting waste to energy is the goal, traditional incineration (municipal waste combustors or “waste-to-energy” plants) is another route. Incinerators burn waste to reduce its volume and generate electricity or steam. Modern waste-to-energy facilities do prevent methane by destroying waste quickly, and they can recover some energy (a typical plant generates about 550 kWh of electricity per ton of waste burned). Incineration has helped many communities cut landfill volumes; mass-burn facilities can reduce waste volume by ~87%. However, this approach comes with its own challenges and drawbacks – especially when compared to AEF solutions.

One major difference is residual ash. Burning solid waste in an incinerator leaves behind a significant amount of ash that still requires disposal. 15–25% of the original waste’s weight remains as ash after incineration, including both bottom ash and fly ash. For every 100 tons burned, roughly 15–25 tons of ash are produced, and this ash typically must be landfilled in special, lined facilities. Fly ash in particular can contain concentrated toxins (dioxins, heavy metals, etc.), making its disposal critical and costly. In contrast, when waste is converted to AEF and used in cement kilns or similar industrial processes, virtually no residual ash goes to landfill. In cement manufacturing, for instance, the inorganic ash content of the fuel becomes incorporated into the cement clinker (the intermediate product of cement) – essentially the ash becomes part of the product instead of a waste byproduct. This co-processing means AEF can achieve zero leftover waste in certain applications, a stark improvement over incineration’s ash which still ends up in a landfill.

Another key difference is energy efficiency and recovery. Incinerators are primarily designed to destroy waste, with energy recovery as a secondary benefit (hence relatively moderate electricity output per ton). In contrast, AEF leverages existing industrial systems (like cement kilns, lime kilns, boilers) that need fuel for their operations. These systems harness the full calorific value of the waste-derived fuel directly in manufacturing processes. A cement kiln running on AEF is substituting what would have been coal or natural gas – meaning the energy from waste is put to productive use making clinker, with high thermal efficiency and no need to generate electricity in between. Essentially, AEF enables waste-to-energy with a purpose: powering industrial production, not just producing power for the grid. This often translates to higher overall energy utilization from the waste.

Emissions control is another consideration. Modern waste incinerators are equipped with pollution control (to meet strict EPA standards for particulate matter, acid gases, mercury, etc.), but they can still be sources of NOx and other pollutants that require careful regulation. AEF usage in facilities like cement kilns also requires emissions controls, but those kilns operate at extremely high temperatures (often >1,400°C) and have long residence times, which can actually destroy organic pollutants more completely. The alkaline environment inside a cement kiln can neutralize acidic gases, and any ash gets embedded in the product, reducing risks of leaching. Studies note that the combination of simultaneous energy recovery and material recycling is unique to co-processing in cement kilns. In short, using AEF in the right industrial setting can yield cleaner outcomes with fewer waste byproducts than mass-burn incineration.

AEF in the Waste Hierarchy

It’s useful to put these options in context of the EPA’s waste management hierarchy. The hierarchy prioritizes reducing and reusing waste first, then recycling and composting, followed by energy recovery, and lastly disposal (landfilling) as the least preferred option. AEF fits into the “energy recovery” tier of this hierarchy – alongside approaches like waste-to-energy incineration – but arguably in a more resource-efficient way. Before resorting to AEF, manufacturers should of course minimize waste generation and recycle what can be recycled. AEF doesn’t compete with recycling; it targets the non-recyclable fraction. By converting that last residual waste into fuel, AEF complements recycling and keeps companies away from the bottom rung (landfill disposal). In fact, many companies striving for “Zero Waste to Landfill”certifications use a combination of aggressive recycling and alternative fuel programs. AEF becomes the outlet for those hard-to-recycle materials that would otherwise drag down landfill-free goals. Compared to standard incineration, AEF typically offers better integration into industrial processes and higher value recovery (since you’re replacing virgin fuel). So within the energy recovery category, AEF can be seen as an advanced, more sustainable strategy that aligns well with circular economy principles.

What Are Alternative Engineered Fuels (AEFs) and How Are They Made?

Now that we’ve highlighted why AEF is a game-changer versus landfilling or incineration, let’s define it more clearly. Alternative Engineered Fuel (AEF) is a sustainable fuel made from non-recyclable waste materials that have been processed and engineered to meet specific energy and emissions criteria. In simpler terms, it’s taking the “trash” that you cannot economically recycle – think soiled paper, mixed plastics, packaging residues, textiles, certain industrial sludges, etc. – and turning it into a solid fuel (sometimes in the form of fluff, shreds, or pellets). This fuel is designed to be a substitute for fossil fuels like coal, oil, or natural gas in high-energy industrial applications. Cement and lime manufacturing are major users of AEF, as are some power plants, industrial boilers, pulp and paper mills, and even large university heating systems. By using AEF, these end-users can reduce landfill waste and lower their carbon footprint while still meeting their energy needs.

How are AEFs created? The process typically involves several steps to ensure the fuel is consistent, safe, and efficient:

1. Waste Profiling and Collection: The journey starts with identifying suitable waste streams. Industrial waste generators (factories, distribution centers, etc.) audit their waste to pinpoint non-hazardous, non-recyclable materials that have usable energy content. For example, thin film plastics, packaging scraps, foam, textiles, rubber, and contaminated paper that can’t be recycled are prime candidates. Waste is collected and sorted to remove any materials that truly should go to recycling or require special disposal.
2. Pre-Processing and Contaminant Removal: Next, the selected waste materials are pre-processed. This can include removing metals (using magnets or eddy currents), extracting chlorine-containing plastics like PVC (to reduce halogens), and treating any moisture or odor issues. The goal is to eliminate components that could cause excessive pollution (e.g. certain chemicals or heavy metals) and to prepare a relatively homogeneous feedstock.
3. Shredding and Blending: The waste is then shredded and homogenized into a fuel product. Typically, the material is chopped into a uniform particle size and sometimes pelletized. Blending may occur to balance the fuel’s characteristics – for instance, mixing higher-calorific plastic with lower-calorific paper to achieve a target energy value. The engineered fuel might end up as a fluff (shredded refuse-derived fuel) or densified into pellets or briquettes. The end product is designed to meet certain specifications: a target BTU value (energy content), limited moisture, and low levels of problematic elements like chlorine or sulfur. This ensures that when burned, the AEF will provide reliable energy and comply with emissions limits.
4. Quality Control and Delivery: Before the AEF is shipped out, it undergoes quality checks. Labs may test samples for energy content (e.g. 20–28 GJ/ton for a high-grade fuel), moisture percentage, ash content, and the absence of hazardous constituents. Only after passing QA does the fuel get dispatched – often to a nearby cement kiln or industrial furnace configured to use alternative fuels. The AEF is then co-fired alongside or in place of traditional fuels.

Throughout this process, careful engineering is what differentiates AEF from just “burning trash.” The fuel is customized to the end-user’s needs and regulatory requirements. For example, a cement kiln might require a certain particle size and BTU value for the feed to not disrupt its operations, and an engineered fuel provider will tailor the product accordingly. By the time the waste has become AEF, it’s no longer random garbage but a specification-gradefuel. This distinction is important: under EPA rules, many processed waste-derived fuels can be classified as non-waste fuel products (via the Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials rule) so long as they meet legitimacy criteria (managed as a commodity, stable composition, meaningful heating value, etc.). This means AEF can often be used in industrial boilers and kilns without the facility being labeled a waste incinerator, simplifying permitting as long as emissions standards are met.

Benefits of AEF: Reducing Environmental Impact and Advancing ESG Goals

Adopting Alternative Engineered Fuels yields a host of benefits for both the environment and businesses – especially manufacturing companies with sustainability targets. Here are some of the key advantages, backed by data:

• Major Waste Diversion and Landfill Reduction: Every ton of waste converted to AEF is a ton not buried in a landfill. This directly shrinks a company’s environmental footprint. For instance, Lafarge’s Richmond cement plant in Canada implemented an AEF system that replaces up to 50% of its fossil fuel use with waste-derived fuel, diverting 100,000 tons of waste from landfills annually. Across the industry, such efforts add up: one environmental solutions company (VLS) reports its programs have already diverted over 1 million tons per year of industrial waste from landfills by turning it into fuel. For manufacturers pursuing landfill-free operations, AEF is a practical strategy to handle the “last bits” of waste that can’t be recycled, ensuring those residues become useful rather than dead-end trash.
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cuts: Using AEF can significantly lower net GHG emissions in multiple ways. First, as discussed, avoiding landfill methane is huge – preventing methane release can yield an immediate climate benefit. Second, when AEF displaces fossil fuels like coal, it reduces the CO₂ emissions that would have come from burning those fossil fuels. Many wastes have biogenic content (paper, wood, natural fibers), which is considered carbon-neutral when combusted (since that CO₂ was part of the recent biosphere carbon cycle). Even the plastic content in AEF, while fossil-derived, often produces less net CO₂ than coal because of differences in carbon intensity and energy efficiency of use. AEFs generally burn cleaner than coal, emitting lower levels of CO₂, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides for equivalent energy output. In some cases, when you account for avoided methane, AEFs can be carbon-neutral or even carbon-negative fuels. Consider that the U.S. cement industry has already reduced CO₂ emissions by 33% since 1975 partly through efficiency and fuel switching; increasing AEF use will push those emissions even lower by further substituting away from fossil fuels.
• Energy Recovery and Resource Efficiency: AEF exemplifies the concept of doing more with less. Instead of wasting the embedded energy in discards, we recover it to fuel industrial processes. This improves overall energy efficiency of our economy. It also conserves natural resources – every ton of AEF used is a reduction in coal or natural gas extraction. By maximizing use of waste as a resource, companies contribute to a more circular economy. Moreover, AEF often has a competitive energy content. For example, some engineered fuels can reach ~25 GJ/ton, comparable to bituminous coal. Harnessing this energy value means less reliance on virgin fuel sources and better energy security (especially when fuel prices are volatile).
• Cost Savings and Revenue Opportunities: Converting waste to AEF can make economic sense. Landfill tipping fees are rising in many regions (averaging about $57/ton in the U.S. for MSW in 2023, and much higher in some states). Companies are essentially paying to bury money when valuable materials go to landfill. While AEF processing has its own costs, these can be offset by avoiding disposal fees and sometimes by selling the fuel product. Cement plants and other end-users will pay for quality alternative fuel, creating a revenue stream for waste that previously was a pure cost center. In one example, a Midwestern university found that transitioning a coal boiler to run on 100% AEF saved on fuel costs and helped stabilize their energy budget. Even if an individual manufacturer doesn’t burn the fuel themselves, they might partner with an AEF provider to take their waste and provide a cost-neutral (or cheaper) service than hauling to a landfill. Additionally, using AEF helps avoid potential fines or regulatory costs associated with landfilling or improper waste disposal.
• Regulatory Compliance and ESG Credentials: Governments and stakeholders are increasingly pushing for waste reduction and climate action. Using AEF can help companies meet regulatory requirements and voluntary commitments. For example, many states have recycling and waste diversion goals; using AEF for the non-recyclable fraction helps meet those targets. If operating in a state with landfill bans for certain materials (like bans on landfilling organic waste or certain plastics), AEF provides a compliant outlet. On the climate front, incorporating alternative fuels can contribute to science-based emissions targets by reducing Scope 1 emissions (for the fuel user) and Scope 3 (for the waste generator). From an ESG perspective, companies adopting AEF can showcase a concrete action toward sustainability – this boosts brand reputation and satisfies investors focusing on environmental criteria. There’s a marketing angle too: being able to say “We turn our waste into a green fuel that powers industry” sends a powerful message of innovation and responsibility. It aligns with the circular economynarrative that resonates with communities and customers. Companies like Lafarge, mentioned above, or brands like Subaru (which achieved zero-waste-to-landfill in its manufacturing) rely on waste-to-fuel and similar strategies to hit those goals and tout their environmental stewardship.

In summary, AEF turns what was once an environmental and financial liability (waste) into an asset (fuel). It’s a direct contribution to multiple ESG pillars: environmental (less pollution, lower carbon), social (less community impact from landfills, more sustainable operations), and governance (proactive risk management and compliance). And importantly for the bottom line, it can be done in a cost-effective manner, especially as the market for alternative fuels grows.

Real-World Adoption: How AEF is Powering Industry (Case Studies)

AEFs are not just a theoretical idea – they’re already in use and expanding around the globe. Here are some examples and statistics that highlight how AEF is being implemented in practice:

• Europe Leads the Way: European industries, driven by high landfill costs and strict carbon policies, have widely embraced alternative fuels. The cement sector in particular has hit impressive milestones. As of the early 2010s, countries like Germany were sourcing about 65% of their cement kiln energy from alternative fuels, and the EU average has continued to climb. By 2023, thermal substitution rates (the percentage of fuel coming from alternatives) reached over 50% in many European and Japanese cement plants, whereas the U.S. lagged at ~15% on average. For instance, Poland went from virtually 0% to ~45% alternative fuel use in just a decade. This shift has been fueled by engineered waste fuels including refuse-derived fuel (RDF) made from municipal trash, commercial and industrial waste, and biomass. The high adoption in Europe demonstrates that AEF can reliably supply a significant portion of industrial energy needs, dramatically cutting fossil fuel consumption. European plants have reported millions of tons of CO₂ avoided thanks to these programs, and some facilities are targeting 70-90% alternative fuel use by 2030.
• North American Progress: In the U.S., AEF use is growing as companies catch up to global best practices. We already mentioned the University of Iowa case – their power plant converted a coal-fired boiler to run entirely on an engineered fuel made from pre-consumer paper and plastic waste, helping the campus move toward a coal-free goal while using up local industrial waste that would have been landfilled. In the private sector, cement giants like Holcim (LafargeHolcim) have started to invest heavily in alternative fuel infrastructure in North America. LafargeHolcim’s Richmond plant in Canada not only cut fossil fuel use by half with AEF (as noted earlier) but also installed systems to directly inject waste-derived fuels into the kiln. Another example is VLS Environmental Solutions in Texas, which in 2025 announced a new AEF processing facility specifically to serve manufacturers and cement kilns in the region. Strategically located near cement plants, this facility will take “hard-to-recycle” factory waste and turn it into fuel, supporting local industries in achieving Zero Landfill status. According to VLS, partnerships like these are already diverting over a million tons of waste yearly and the demand is growing. U.S. cement plants currently using alternative fuels tend to start around 5-20% substitution, but with new suppliers and technology, many are aiming for 30-50% in the coming years. The trend is clearly upward as companies realize both the sustainability and economic benefits.
• Asia and Beyond: Other regions are also turning to engineered fuels. In Japan, cement companies utilize over 50% alternative fuels on average, including a lot of waste plastics and biomass in their mix. This is partly driven by limited landfill space and policies encouraging waste-to-energy. In developing economies, co-processing waste in cement kilns is seen as a solution for municipal waste issues – for example, in India and Southeast Asia, pilot projects have used AEF to manage city waste while providing energy for industry. These international cases often involve public-private partnerships, since governments want to reduce open dumping and open burning, and industries want cheap fuel. One notable case: a cement plant in Rajasthan, India partnered with municipalities to take thousands of tons of dried sewage sludge and agricultural waste as fuel, solving a disposal problem and cutting coal use. In Scandinavia, countries like Sweden and Denmark divert the majority of their waste from landfills, with some of it recycled and a large portion converted to energy via both district heating incinerators and industrial fuels. The diversity of successful implementations – from university campuses to giant cement kilns – shows that AEF is versatile. It can scale to different sizes and be tailored to local waste streams.

The momentum behind AEF is also evident in corporate sustainability pledges. Major manufacturers in the automotive, consumer goods, and tech sectors have announced “landfill-free” facility goals and are seeking waste-to-fuel outlets for their unrecyclable byproducts. The growing availability of AEF services (through companies like iSustain, Reworld, VLS, and cement industry off-take agreements) means it’s becoming easier for even mid-sized manufacturers to participate. In essence, AEF is driving a new ecosystem where waste generators and fuel users form a circular supply chain – trash from one company becomes fuel for another. This is driving the future of sustainability: a connected loop that benefits both the economy and the environment.

Regulatory Considerations in the U.S.: What Manufacturers Should Know

Implementing an AEF program does require navigating some regulatory terrain, but it’s very achievable with the right approach. In the U.S., regulations ensure that burning waste-derived fuels doesn’t compromise air quality or public health. Here are a few key points on the regulatory front:

• Permitting for Fuel Users (e.g. Kilns and Boilers): Any facility intending to burn AEF will need to have the proper air permits. Cement kilns, power plants, or boilers usually operate under Clean Air Act permits (often Title V permits) that specify emissions limits. To use AEF, these permits might need a modification or specific approval from state environmental agencies. The authorities will look for proof that using the new fuel won’t cause exceedances of limits for pollutants like NOx, SO₂, CO, particulate matter, or hazardous air pollutants. In practice, companies often conduct a trial burn with emissions testing to demonstrate compliance. The good news is that many cement plants have already obtained such permits for various alternative fuels (e.g. tire-derived fuel, solvents, biomass). Regulators tend to support co-processing waste as long as emissions are controlled, since it aligns with waste reduction goals. However, permitting can be a lengthy process – studies have noted that in the U.S. it can be “long and complex” to get approvals for waste as fuel, requiring technical demonstrations and sometimes public hearings. Engaging early with regulators and the community is a best practice to streamline acceptance.
• Non-Hazardous vs. Hazardous Fuels: It’s crucial that AEF feedstocks are non-hazardous (under RCRA definitions) unless the facility is permitted as a hazardous waste combustor. Most AEF programs focus on non-hazardous industrial waste. The EPA’s Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM) rule provides criteria for when a secondary material (like scrap plastics, papers, etc.) burned for energy can be deemed a non-waste fuel. If the AEF meets those legitimacy criteria (sufficient heating value, managed as a commodity, contains contaminants at levels comparable to traditional fuels), then legally it’s not “solid waste” when burned. This is important because if it’s not considered a waste, the combustion unit is regulated under the usual boiler or kiln standards (CAA Section 112) rather than the stricter incinerator standards (CAA Section 129) that apply to burning solid waste. In short: get your fuel classified as a non-waste fuel when possible. This often hinges on demonstrating that the AEF is produced through a controlled process and is used as a regular fuel, not a dumping method. Materials like scrap tires, plastics, wood, and paper fluff can and have been categorized as non-waste fuels in many cases. Generators and fuel processors might need to maintain documentation of how the AEF is processed to meet these rules.
• State and Local Regulations: Different states have their own nuances. For example, California has strict emissions rules and may require additional review for any alternative fuel projects. Texas, on the other hand, has been actively supporting industrial fuel use of waste (as evidenced by the new plant in New Braunfels) and may have a more straightforward permitting path. Some states have renewable energy or waste diversion credits that AEF projects can qualify for. If AEF is used to generate electricity, renewable portfolio standards might even count it (some classify waste energy as renewable, at least the biogenic portion). It’s also worth noting that if your manufacturing site is sending waste off-site to be processed into fuel, you should ensure the waste hauler or AEF facility has the proper solid waste processing permits. In many cases, the AEF production facility will be permitted as a materials recovery or processing facility rather than a disposal site.
• Community and Environmental Justice Considerations: Incineration projects in the past have sometimes met with public opposition due to concerns about air pollution. AEF projects can face similar scrutiny if not properly communicated. It’s important to highlight differences: AEF uses advanced pollution controls and often is implemented in existing industrial plants (not new smokestacks in someone’s backyard). Still, engaging the community, being transparent about emissions data, and clarifying the benefits (less landfill, overall emissions reduction) will ease the path. For example, when a Midwest cement plant expanded to use engineered fuels, they held public info sessions to explain how emissions would remain within permitted limits and how it would benefit the local environment by reducing landfill use. This kind of outreach can preempt opposition and build support for sustainability initiatives.

In summary, the regulatory landscape is navigable: with proper processing, testing, and permitting, AEF use is fully allowed in the U.S. Many companies have done it successfully. Manufacturers looking to supply their waste for AEF or to use AEF as a fuel should involve their environmental compliance teams early and possibly consult with experts or partners who have done similar projects. The result, if done right, is a fully permitted, legal operation that turns waste into energy – a far better fate than adding to landfill methane or shipping waste overseas.

Comparing Landfilling, Incineration, and AEF – Key Metrics

To crystallize the differences among traditional landfilling, conventional waste incineration, and Alternative Engineered Fuel, the table below compares these options on critical factors like emissions, energy recovery, residual waste, cost, and overall environmental impact:

Aspect	Landfilling (Disposal)	Incineration (Waste-to-Energy)	Alternative Engineered Fuel (AEF)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions	High: Generates methane as waste decomposes. U.S. landfills emit ~14% of national methane (a potent GHG). Even with gas capture, significant methane can escape, greatly warming the climate.	Moderate: Avoids methane by immediate combustion, but releases CO₂ from waste (some biogenic, some fossil). Net GHG impact is lower than landfilling. However, burning plastics does produce fossil CO₂. Overall better than landfill for climate, especially if energy displaces fossil power.	Low (Best): Avoids landfill methane entirely. CO₂ emissions when burned are partly biogenic and displace fossil fuel use, yielding net reductions in GHG. AEF often emits less CO₂ and pollutants than coal for equivalent energy. Some AEF systems can be carbon-neutral or negative due to methane avoidance.
Energy Recovery	Very Low: Landfill gas can be captured for energy, but roughly half or more of methane often escapes or is flared. Overall energy utilization of the waste is poor. (Landfill gas-to-energy exists but efficiency is low and only at larger sites.)	Moderate: Combustion heat is used to produce electricity (~550 kWh/ton on average) and sometimes steam for district heating. This recovers a portion of the waste’s energy. However, conversion to electricity loses some efficiency (heat-to-power losses).	High: Waste’s energy is fully utilized within industrial processes. AEF directly replaces fossil fuels in kilns/boilers, so nearly all the calorific value of the waste is harnessed as useful heat. No intermediate step of power generation, thus higher overall efficiency for process heat. (If AEF is used in power plants, it can similarly generate electricity, but its big advantage is in thermal use for industry.)
Residual Byproducts	100% of waste remains – just relocated. Waste stays in the landfill indefinitely. Landfills require long-term management (leachate, monitoring) and can leave behind contaminated land once closed.	Significant Ash: Roughly 15–25% of input waste ends up as ash residue. Bottom ash (the bulk) and fly ash (hazardous) must be landfilled or occasionally reused with treatment. Ash handling and disposal add cost and environmental risk (toxicity, leaching).	Minimal/None: All fuel ash is often integrated into the product (e.g. cement clinker), meaning little to no residual waste to landfill. In cement kilns, the inorganic components of AEF become part of the cement matrix. No new hazardous byproduct is left; effectively the waste is “absorbed” into manufacturing outputs. (Some minimal filter dust might be generated, but far less compared to incinerator ash and often recycled in the process.)
Air Pollutants & Controls	Low direct emissions, but landfills do emit some volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and odors. Landfill gas collection systems mitigate some, but not all, emissions. Occasional landfill fires or gas flares can release pollutants, but generally landfills’ main issue is GHGs rather than criteria pollutants.	High raw emissions, but strict controls are required. Modern WtE incinerators have scrubbers, filters, and continuous emission monitoring. They must meet stringent limits for NOx, SO₂, particulate, mercury, dioxins, etc. When well-operated, >99% of particulates are captured. However, incinerators can still emit NOx and some residual pollutants. Public perception of incinerators can be negative due to historical pollution incidents.	Controlled emissions in industrial systems. Cement kilns and boilers using AEF are equipped with appropriate air pollution control devices (electrostatic precipitators, baghouses, etc.) to meet permit limits. The high combustion temperature often results in very efficient destruction of organic compounds (e.g. dioxins) and the alkaline kiln environment neutralizes acid gases. Emission profiles can be comparable to traditional fuel use. Regulators ensure that AEF combustion doesn’t exceed allowed limits; in practice, many kilns have used alternative fuels while staying within compliance.
Cost (per ton of waste)	Moderate: ~$50–$60/ton tipping fee on average in US (can be higher in certain regions). Costs can increase over time as landfill space diminishes. There are also indirect societal costs (long-term monitoring, environmental externalities) not directly paid by the waste generator.	High: Incinerators are expensive to build and operate. Tipping fees at WtE facilities are typically higher than landfill (often $70–$90/ton or more, depending on debt and operating costs). However, revenue from energy production (electricity sales) offsets some costs. In areas with very high landfill costs (e.g. Northeast US, Europe), WtE can be cost-competitive.	Variable (Potential Savings): AEF production has processing costs (sorting, shredding, etc.), but these can be offset if there’s a buyer for the fuel. Generators might pay a fee similar to or lower than landfill tipping to have waste converted to fuel. End-users might purchase AEF at a favorable price compared to coal. Overall, AEF can be cost-neutral or even save money when considering avoided landfill fees and the value of fuel. As more facilities and service providers enter the market, economies of scale are improving the cost equation for AEF.
Environmental Impact	Negative: Land consumption, long-term pollution risk, and significant GHG emissions. Landfills squander material value and can become environmental justice issues (often located near vulnerable communities). Over time, society bears the impact of buried waste (monitoring for decades, potential clean-up).	Mixed: Reduces volume of waste and generates energy, which is positive. But it requires careful management of pollution. Ash disposal remains an environmental burden (though smaller volume than raw waste). Incineration addresses the waste problem but doesn’t fully align with circular economy (destroying rather than reusing materials, aside from energy recovery). Public opinion on incineration is often divided.	Positive: Aligns with circular economyprinciples by recovering value from waste and reducing need for virgin fuel. Dramatically cuts down landfill usage and the associated methane and leachate issues. When done properly, AEF has a lower emissions profile than both landfilling and mass burn, and it leaves little residue. Supports “landfill-free” sustainability strategies and can improve a company’s overall environmental footprint. Regulatory oversight ensures it operates safely. Overall, AEF turns an environmental liability into a benefit, advancing sustainability goals.

Table: Comparison of waste management options – landfilling vs. incineration vs. Alternative Engineered Fuel – across key factors (emissions, energy, residues, cost, and impact).

Driving the Future of Sustainability with Fuel Made from Trash

In an era where sustainability is not just a buzzword but a strategic imperative, Alternative Engineered Fuels are emerging as a powerful tool for manufacturers to address multiple challenges at once. Instead of the linear “take, make, waste” model, AEF enables a more circular approach: take, make, fuel, and remake. By processing trash into fuel, companies are literally driving their factories (and even power plants) with yesterday’s discards. This approach tackles the pressing issue of waste (reducing landfill dependence and pollution) and the urgent need to cut carbon emissions – all while keeping industrial operations running smoothly.

Manufacturing companies in the U.S. are particularly well-positioned to benefit from AEF. Many have already squeezed out as much recycling as possible and are looking for that next innovation to hit zero waste-to-landfill targets. AEF provides the answer for the leftover waste that can’t be recycled, converting it into something useful and aligned with ESG goals. It demonstrates to boards, customers, and communities that the company is leaving no stone unturned (or no scrap un-burned) in the quest for environmental stewardship. Boards see reduced long-term liability and often a stronger bottom line; customers see a commitment to green practices; communities see fewer local landfills or less burden on existing ones.

The technology and success stories are already here.

As we’ve seen, the technology and success stories are already here – from Europe’s high fuel substitution rates to North America’s pilot projects and new facilities gearing up. The regulatory environment is gradually adapting to facilitate these sustainable practices, ensuring they are done safely. And with corporate sustainability commitments on the rise, the demand for solutions like AEF will only grow. In the coming years, we can expect AEF to move from a niche practice to a mainstream component of waste management and energy strategy for U.S. industries. Cement plants aiming for carbon neutrality, factories striving for landfill-free status, and even municipal waste systems looking to avoid methane are all going to be part of this fuel-from-trash revolution.

Alternative Engineered Fuels truly embody the idea that one company’s trash can be another company’s treasure – or in this case, fuel. By reimagining waste as a resource, AEF is driving the future of sustainability, one converted ton of trash at a time. Manufacturing leaders who embrace this innovation will not only reduce their environmental impact but also help blaze the trail toward a more circular, low-carbon economy. In a world increasingly defined by how well we manage and preserve resources, turning trash into fuel is more than an intriguing concept – it’s a critical piece of the sustainable future that industry and society are striving to build.

Fueling Sustainability with PPE Recovery

Through Wastebits’ active AEF program and PPE recovery efforts, waste once considered unrecyclable is finding new life. Our platform now transforms used gloves, masks, and other PPE—traditionally hard-to-recycle items—into Alternative Engineered Fuel. This process keeps those materials out of landfills and puts them to work as a clean energy source, enabling our industrial clients to achieve landfill-free, sustainable outcomes while meeting their sustainability goals. Ready to see this transformation in action? We invite you to request a demo of our AEF solution today and discover how Wastebits can help turn your waste challenges into sustainable opportunities.