Waste-to-energy sounds appealing. Kenya should proceed with caution
By Eliud Mwangi
As urban populations in Kenya swell and municipal waste accumulates, converting waste into energy is drawing growing interest. Local governments and sanitation utilities argue that waste-to-energy (WtE) could help manage waste backlogs while supplying fuel or energy. Still, real-world experience and environmental reports show that benefits come with trade-offs. This article draws on documented projects, public statements and peer-reviewed findings to assess the viability of WtE in Kenya – examining technology models, a leading Kenyan pilot, environmental and health risks, institutional challenges and what a responsible WtE strategy would look like.
Understanding Waste-to-Energy
“Waste-to-energy” is not a single technology but an umbrella for several methods. One approach involves processing sewage or faecal sludge and organic waste into fuel briquettes or combustible material. Another, more ambitious model involves incineration or thermal treatment of mixed municipal solid waste (MSW) to generate heat or electricity.
In Kenya, one of the most concrete real-world applications is the conversion of human faecal sludge, collected from latrines and septic tanks, into fuel briquettes. A subsidiary of Nakuru Water and Sanitation Services Company (NAWASSCO), known as NAWASSCOAL, runs such a facility. As the company’s General Manager, John Irungu, puts it:
“When people think of human waste, they only think of disposal. We saw an opportunity to clean up communities, create income, and help Kenya transition to cleaner alternatives.”
According to the project documentation, NAWASSCOAL processes faecal sludge by drying, carbonising (in kilns) and mixing with carbonised sawdust, before compressing the mixture into briquettes. The final fuel is reportedly odourless and intended to conform to safety and combustion standards.
As Irungu explains its appeal:
“These briquettes are an affordable and reliable energy source, burning cleaner and lasting longer than traditional charcoal or firewood. They are also smokeless, therefore significantly reducing indoor air pollution.”
Scaling WtE: Incineration, emissions and toxic residues
Beyond sludge-to-fuel projects lie proposals to incinerate mixed municipal waste or convert MSW into energy at scale. Yet international environmental studies warn that incineration carries serious environmental and health risks. A 2024 report by IPEN argues bluntly that:
“Waste-to-energy incinerators are toxic minefields for nearby communities and produce toxic emissions and wastes that threaten the planet.”
The report adds that both fly ash and bottom ash from incinerators are highly contaminated with dioxins, heavy metals and other persistent organic pollutants – substances that are difficult to neutralise and pose long-term ecological and health hazards.
These findings challenge the widespread notion that WtE automatically constitutes an environmentally benign solution. They underline that incineration-based WtE requires rigorous controls, long-term management of residues and careful risk mitigation.
Institutional and regulatory realities in Kenya
In Kenya, institutional capacity, waste-management practices, and regulatory enforcement shape what WtE can realistically achieve.
Municipal waste collection is inconsistent across many urban centres, and waste streams are often mixed, combining organic waste, plastics, hazardous refuse, and other materials, which complicates efficient combustion and increases toxic residue.
At the local government level, the push for waste-conversion technologies has recently gained traction. In late 2025, the Nakuru County Government announced plans to partner with private investors to promote waste-to-energy and waste-to-fuel initiatives. As the county’s Chief Officer for Environment, Energy and Natural Resources, Kennedy Barasa, said:
“We need innovative technologies and approaches that change the way we think about, use and treat solid, liquid, domestic, industrial and commercial waste.”
Yet, practical obstacles remain. In 2025 the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) closed down three pyrolysis factories in Kenya for failing to obtain environmental impact assessments and emitting uncontrolled pollutants. This underscores how easily poorly regulated waste-processing operations can slip into harmful environmental practices.
Public perception, stigma and the path from waste to fuel
Even in the sludge-to-fuel model, community acceptance has not been automatic. Converting human waste into fuel challenges cultural norms, especially when the raw material is perceived as unclean. NAWASSCOAL’s initial uptake was slow – many potential users expressed concern over the origin of the briquettes.
NAWASSCOAL responded by mounting community sensitisation campaigns, product demonstrations, and engagement with health officials – efforts aimed at building public trust. As the company’s leadership explained:
“We embarked on extensive community sensitisation campaigns and product demonstrations, rebranding the briquettes to emphasise cleanliness, safety, and performance.”
Over time, some households have embraced the briquettes. One user told a media outlet: “It does not have an odour, it cooks well, the fire burns well; you are able to cook fast and the briquettes burn for long.”
What a responsible WtE strategy looks like for Kenya
The evidence suggests a pragmatic approach to WtE: one that recognises both potential benefits and risks, emphasises waste prevention and recovery, and enforces stringent environmental and public-health safeguards.
WtE should not be treated as a standalone solution but as one component in a broader waste-management and energy strategy. Source segregation, recycling, composting and waste-reduction remain essential. Incineration or waste-to-fuel should apply primarily to residual waste or defined waste streams that cannot be recovered or recycled.
Small-scale, decentralised waste-to-fuel operations appear more immediately realistic under current conditions than large-scale incineration-to-power plants. These models demand lower capital investment, require simpler institutional capacity, produce manageable waste streams and have fewer environmental risks when properly regulated.
Any thermal-treatment or incineration-based WtE initiative must be preceded by comprehensive feasibility studies analysing waste composition, supply regularity, emissions control requirements, ash residue management, demand for energy output, and long-term environmental liabilities.
Governance matters. Regulatory oversight, environmental impact assessments, emissions monitoring, safe disposal or neutralisation of ash, and transparent engagement with local communities must be mandatory.
Stigma and social norms must be addressed explicitly. Community sensitisation, demonstration of safety, product testing, and public-health validation are vital, especially when fuel is derived from human waste or other sensitive sources.
Finally, WtE must be managed with a long-term view. Investments should account not only for immediate benefits, waste diversion, fuel supply, job creation, but also for long-term environmental, health and social costs, especially related to emissions, ash residues and possible public opposition.
Conclusion
Waste-to-energy presents a potentially valuable tool for Kenya’s waste and energy challenges – but only under carefully controlled, context-sensitive conditions. The experience of NAWASSCOAL in Nakuru shows that waste-to-fuel from sludge can produce usable, clean-burning briquettes that substitute for charcoal or firewood, helping households, reducing environmental pressure and creating local jobs.
At the same time, global environmental analyses warn that incineration-based WtE carries serious risks, including toxic emissions, persistent pollutants, hazardous ash and long-term health hazards. In Kenya, institutional gaps, regulatory weaknesses and public-health sensitivities add layers of complexity.
For WtE to fulfil its promise, policymakers, at county and national levels, will need to embed it within an integrated waste-management framework. That framework must prioritise reduction, reuse and recycling; treat WtE as a complementary component rather than a catch-all solution; and enforce strict environmental, health and safety standards.
Handled responsibly, WtE could help Kenya turn waste from a burden into a resource. But only if ambitions are matched with discipline, transparency and respect for environmental limits.
