Post on 26-Dec-2015
Summary of LCA Reviewincluding carbon issues
Julian Parfitt
‘Making the most of LCA thinking’23 November 2006, Savoy Place, London
What is Life Cycle Analysis?
Transportation
Manufacturing
Product/ Material Use
PrimaryProcessing
Transport
Reuse/ Recycling
EfW/ Landfill/
Open Loop Recycling
Extraction
International interest in life cycle thinkingISO 14040:2006 Principles and frameworkISO 14044:2006 Requirements and Guidelines
The EU Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste anticipates bringing new environmental thinking and life-cycle thinking into waste policies
Revised Waste Framework Directive (75/442/EEC) links waste to resource life-cycles.
Paper and cardboard – recovery or disposal? A changing climate for EfW?The impact of the carbon agenda on the waste management business Managing biowastes from households in the UK Dealing with food waste in the UKCarbon balances and energy impacts of the management of UK wastes Impact of energy from waste and recycling policy on UK greenhouse gas emissions
The case for a resource management strategyBiffaward Mass-balance projectsWaste and Resources Assessment Tool for the Environment ………
………..& many more
Why an international review?
Understand critical assumptions
Conflicting Findings
Critical Factors
Need to understand state of knowledge- generally & for WRAP programmes
Who did the work?
Technical University of Denmark, Department of Manufacturing Engineering and Management, Innovation and Sustainability, Denmark.
Danish Topic Centre on Waste, Denmark.
Review of Life Cycle Analysis
272 studies reviewed
55 found to be of sufficient quality for review
201 scenarios assessed across key impact categories
Scope of LCA reviewMaterial Number of studies
evaluated Number of studies selected for detailed review
Number of scenarios contained within selected studies
Glass 19 11 25 Wood 29 3 7 Paper and cardboard 108 9 63 Plastics 42 10 60 Aluminium 19 11 20 Steel 31 9 20 Aggregates 24 2 6 Total 272 55 201
Results
83% favour recycling compared to incineration and landfill
Magnitude of carbon savings: current UK recycling avoids 10-15 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year
Assumes that boundary conditions from reviewed studies relevant to UK
Material 1. Total
tonnes collected
for recycling :
mt
2. **CO2
equivalent offset
Recycling v Landfill
(tonnes CO2 eq per tonne
recycled)
3. **CO2
equivalent offset
Recycling v EfW
(tonnes CO2 eq per tonne
recycled)
4. **Offset
Recycling v Landfill (mt CO2 eq / year)
5. **Offset v
EfW (mt CO2 eq /
year)
6. Total
mtonnes CO2 eq.
offset / year through
recycling
References to main data sources
Paper and
cardboard7.30 1.40 0.62 9.20 0.45 9.65 Confederation of Paper
Industries 2004
Glass packaging 'closed loop'
1.00 0.60 0.43 0.54 0.04 0.59DEFRA provisional PRN statistics for 2005 + British Glass Statistics + WRAP
# Glass into aggregates
0.18 0.00 n.a. 0.00 n.a. 0.00DEFRA provisional PRN statistics for 2005 + British Glass Statistics + WRAP
# Glass into glass fibre & other 'open loop'
0.10 0.30 n.a. 0.03 n.a. 0.03DEFRA provisional PRN statistics for 2005 + British Glass Statistics + WRAP
Plastic packaging 0.40 1.00 1.00 0.36 0.04 0.40 DEFRA provisional PRN statistics for 2005
Steel packaging 0.35 1.34 0.79 0.42 0.03 0.45 DEFRA provisional PRN statistics for 2005
Aluminium
packaging0.04 7.00 7.00 0.25 0.03 0.28 DEFRA provisional PRN
statistics for 2005
Wood
Aggregates
10.80 0.59 11.39
** assumes that 90% of residual waste landfilled and 10% incinerated
# Glass 'open loop' results are based on a single study
no recycling comparisons available from LCA review
insufficient data available from LCA review
TOTAL CO2 eq. Offset (millions of tonnes per year)
System boundary assumptions (all materials apart from paper/cardboard)
Virgin material 1 Material marginal. Average or specific? Which? 2 Electricity marginal: which? Hydro, biomass, coal, gas, oil, other? 3 Steam marginal: which? Biomass, coal, gas, oil, other? 4 Co-products dealt with? If Yes: By allocation? By system expansion? Secondary material 5 Material marginal. Average or specific? Which? 6 Electricity marginal: which? Hydro, biomass, coal, gas, oil, other? 7 Steam marginal: which? Biomass, coal, gas, oil, other?
Mat
eria
l pro
duct
ion
8 Co-products dealt with? If Yes: By allocation? By system expansion?
9 Product dependent material recovery included? Yes/no
Ant
e -
mat
eria
l re
cove
ry
10 Type of product dependent material recovery
11 Disposal comparison e.g.: recycling vs. incineration 12 Emissions from landfill included? Considered/ no information 13 Energy from incineration substitutes heat? Considered/ no information 14 Energy from incineration substitutes electricity? Considered/ no information 15 Alternative use of incineration capacity included? Considered/ no
information
Mat
eria
l dis
posa
l
16 In which ratio does recycled material substitute virgin material? (1:1 or 1:0.5 or other)
Representation of results:Relative difference calculations
[Impact from glass recycling] - [Impact from landfilling glass]_________________________________________[Impact from landfilling glass]
11.1
10.1
9.1
8.2
4.1
3.1
2.7
2.6
2.3
2.2 2.5
7.1 1.1 9.2 2.1 2.4
-3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
3
1
0
7
5
9
Glass: Recycling vs. LandfillCO2-eq. saving from recycling CO2-eq. saving from landfill
Nu
mb
er
of
scen
ari
os
X.Y X.YClosed loop recycling scenario Open loop recycling scenario
Filling some of the gaps ~WRAP LCAs in progress/ being considered LCA of drinks containers, including PLA
LCA of Plasterboard
LCA of Aggregates
Further work on ‘open loop’ system: glass water filtration medium
ConclusionsReview has increased understanding
~ why differences occur~ critical assumptions/ boundary conditions for
each material
Results broadly applicable to UK waste management context
Identified gaps
Allowed indicative estimates of current UK benefits of recycling