Improving LCA studies: a case study on paper and card LCAs By Henrik Wenzel 1 and Alejandro...

Improving LCA studies: a case study on paper and card LCAs

By Henrik Wenzel1 and Alejandro Villanueva2

1 Technical University of Denmark, Department of Manufacturing Engineering and Management, Innovation and Sustainability, Denmark. Corresponding author: [email protected]

2 Danish Topic Centre on Waste, Denmark

WRAP LCA Symposium‘Making the most of LCA thinking’

23 November 2006, Savoy Place, London WC2R 0BL

mailto:[email protected]

Acknowledgements

• European Commision, DG Environment– review

• WRAP, the Waste and Resources Action Programme, UK– further data analysis

Literature search approach and outcomeThe international literature search contained three main

elements:

• A targeted approach to LCA institutions and experts worldwide and material institutions and waste institutions

• A broad search of the scientific literature

• An international Internet search via search engines and homepages of relevant institutions (mainly national Environmental Protection Agencies)

Evaluated and selected studies

Evaluated: 108 studies

Selected: 9 studies

No. of scenarios: 63

Criteria for final inclusion of studies in the review

1. The study was to be an LCA or LCA-like study complying with LCA quality standards

2. The material stream in question was analysed and reported on separately, that is, not as a part of a mixed waste stream

3. The study included a comparison of two or more scenarios for the end-of-life handling of the material stream in question.

OBS: In practice, all studies comprising a quantitative environmental comparison of waste management options also met the other two criteria and were included

Results and conclusions were held up against system delimitation issuesRaw materials /forestry

1 Alternative use of land/wood included?

2 Saved wood used for energy?

3 Wood marginal

Paper production Virgin paper

4 - Electricity marginal

5 - Steam marginal

Recovered paper

6 - Electricity marginal

7 - Steam marginal

8 Energy export from virgin paper included?

Disposal /energy recovery

9 Which is the main alternative to recycling: incineration or landfilling?

10 Emissions from landfill included?

11 Energy from incineration substitutes heat?

12 Energy from incineration substitutes electricity?

13 Alternative use of incineration & landfilling capacity included?

14 In which ratio does recycled paper substitute virgin paper? (1:1 or 1:0.8 or 1:0.5 or other)

15 Handling of rejects and de-inking waste from paper recovery included?

Essential system delimiation issues identified

Waste management comparisons

Scenarios comparing: • recycling to incineration • recycling to landfill• incineration to landfill

I

R

L

A B

System boundary approaches:

A: Quantitative and relative presentation possible

B: Quantitative, but not relative presentation possible

Result presentation format

– example: energy

9.2 1.2

9.4 3.1 Number of scenarios

Less impact from recycling9.6 4.1 More impact from recycling

9.8 8.2

2.1 9.9 8.11

2.3 9.11 8.14

2.5 9.12 9.1

2.7 9.13 9.3 1.4

2.9 9.15 9.7 4.2

2.11 9.5 9.17 9.10 8.5

5.1 9.14 9.18 9.16 8.8

-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Relative difference: (Recycling - Incineration) / Incineration

1

3

5

7Energy consumption

[Impact from recycling] - [Impact from incineration]_________________________________________

[Impact from incineration]%

2.3

2.5 Number of scenarios

2.7 Less impact from recycling More impact from recycling

2.11 7

5.1

9.2 5

9.5 7.6 3.1

9.8 9.12 8.2 2.1

9.11 9.13 9.6 4.2 8.11 1.2 2.9

9.14 9.15 9.10 7.5 7.4 8.14 4.1 1.4 9.7

9.17 9.18 9.16 9.4 9.3 9.1 8.5 8.8 9.9

-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Global Warming Potential, CO2- eq.

Result presentation format

– example: global warming potential

All impact categories Recycling vs. Incineration

9.2 1.2

9.4 3.1 Number of scenarios Number of scenariosLess negative environmental9.6 4.1 More negative environmental Less negative environmental More negative environmentalimpact from recycling9.8 8.2 impact from recycling impact from recycling9.5 impact from recycling

2.1 9.9 8.11 9.11 2.1

2.3 9.11 8.14 9.12 2.9

2.5 9.12 9.1 9.13 7.4 5.1

2.7 9.13 9.3 1.4 2.3 9.14 7.6 7.5 8.5

2.9 9.15 9.7 4.2 2.5 9.15 9.6 8.2 8.8

2.11 9.5 9.17 9.10 8.5 2.7 9.17 9.10 9.2 4.2 4.1 8.11 8.14

5.1 9.14 9.18 9.16 8.8 2.11 9.8 9.18 9.16 9.4 9.3 9.1 9.9 3.1 9.7

-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Relative difference: (Recycling - Incineration) / Incineration Relative difference: (Recycling - Incineration) / Incineration

2.3

2.5 Number of scenarios 9.1 Number of scenarios

2.7 Less negative environmental More negative environmental Less negative environmental9.3 More negative environmental2.11 impact from recycling 7 impact from recycling impact from recycling9.4 7 impact from recycling

5.1 9.6

9.2 5 9.10

9.5 7.6 3.1 2.3 9.11

9.8 9.12 8.2 2.1 2.5 9.12 3.1

9.11 9.13 9.6 4.2 8.11 1.2 2.9 2.7 9.13 9.16 8.2 8.11 4.1

9.14 9.15 9.10 7.5 7.4 8.14 4.1 1.4 9.7 2.11 9.14 9.17 9.2 8.14 7.4 1.2 9.7

9.17 9.18 9.16 9.4 9.3 9.1 8.5 8.8 9.9 5.1 9.15 9.18 9.5 9.8 8.5 8.8 1.4 9.9

-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%


Number of scenarios Number of scenariosLess negative environmental More negative environmental Less negative environmental More negative environmentalimpact from recycling 7 impact from recycling impact from recycling 7 impact from recycling

5 9.1 9.2 5

9.3 9.4

8.5 3 9.10 9.6 9.7 3 1.2

8.8 9.12 9.11 9.9 8.5

8.11 9.13 9.16 9.14 8.2 8.8 1.4

8.14 8.2 2.5 9.15 9.18 9.17 8.11 8.14 9.5 9.8

-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%


Number of scenarios X.Y

Less negative environmental More negative environmentalimpact from recycling 7 impact from recycling X.Y

2.1

2.3 5

2.5 X.Y

2.7 3.1 3

2.9 8.5 7.4 X.Y

2.11 8.8 7.5 1.4

5.1 8.11 8.14 8.2 4.2 1.2 4.1 X.Y

-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Relative difference: (Recycling - Incineration) / Incineration X:Y

3

5

7

1

3

5

7

Energy

consumption

The LCA cov ers only w aste management end-of-life. The

quantification in percentage is, therefore, not possible, and the

env ironmental preference is show n qualitativ ely out of scale

The LCA cov ers the entire life cy cle, i.e. relativ e difference in

percentage can be calculated

Global Warming

Potential, CO2- eq.

Toxicity

Resource

consumption

Other energy related

impacts

Figure 3.1 Frequency histograms of the distribution of results from the various scenarios of the reviewed studies showing the relative difference in impact from recycling vs. incineration. A negative value means that recycling causes less impact than incineration

Other:

Wastew ater (study 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8)

Land use (study 7)

Waste

Green = New sprint, new spapers, magazines

Orange = Mix ed paper, graphic paper, office paper

Yellow = corrugated board and other cardboard

Means that this v alue lies outside of the scale.

All impact categories Recycling vs. Landfill

Number of scenarios Number of scenarios

Less negative environmental More negative environmental Less negative environmental More negative environmentalimpact from recycling 7 impact from recycling impact from recycling 7 impact from recycling

2.2 5 5

2.4 1.3

6.1 8.1 3

6.2 8.4 8.4

6.3 1.1 8.7 1 8.7

6.4 8.10 8.13 2.4 8.1 8.10 8.13 2.2

-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -100%-75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Relative difference: (Recycling - Landfill) / Landfill Relative difference: (Recycling - Landfill) / Landfill



5 5

2.2 1.1 2.4

2.4 1.3 3 6.1 3

6.1 8.4 6.2 8.1 1.3

6.3 8.1 8.7 6.3 8.10 8.4 1

6.4 8.10 8.13 6.2 6.4 1.1 8.13 8.7 2.2

-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -100%-75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%




5 5

2.2

8.4 3 6.1 1.1 3

8.7 6.2 8.4 1.3

8.10 1 6.3 8.7 8.1 1

8.13 8.1 6.4 8.10 8.13

-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -100%-75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%


Number of scenarios

Less negative environmental More negative environmental X.Yimpact from recycling 7 impact from recycling

X.Y5

3 X.Y

8.4

2.2 8.7 1 X.Y

2.4 8.10 8.13 8.1 1.3 1.1

-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% X.Y

Relative difference: (Recycling - Landfill) / Landfill

Energy

consumption

Global Warming Potential,

CO2- eq.

Toxicity

Resource

consumption

Other energy

related impacts

Figure 3.2 Frequency histograms of the distribution of results from the various scenarios of the reviewed studies showing the relative difference in impact from recycling vs. landfilling. A negative value means that recycling causes less impact than landfilling

Other:

Wastew ater (study 1, 2, 8)

Land use (study 7)

Waste









All impact categories Recycling vs. a mix of Incineration and Landfill



5 5

2.6 8.3 3 2.6

2.8 8.6 2.8

2.10 8.9 1 2.10 7.1 8.9

2.12 8.12 8.15 2.12 7.2 8.3 8.12 8.15 8.6

-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -100%-75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Relative difference: (Recycling - disposal mix) / disposal mix Relative difference: (Recycling - disposal mix) / disposal mix



5 5

2.6 8.6 3 2.6 7.1 3

2.8 8.9 2.8 7.2 8.6

2.10 7.1 8.12 2.10 8.3 8.9 1

2.12 7.2 8.3 8.15 2.12 8.12 8.15

-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -100%-75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%




5 5

8.6 3 8.3 3

8.9 8.6

8.12 7.1 1 2.6 8.9 1

8.15 8.3 7.2 2.10 8.12 8.15

-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -100%-75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%


Number of scenarios

Less negative environmental More negative environmental X.Yimpact from recycling 7 impact from recycling

X.Y5

2.6 3 X.Y

2.8 8.6 7.1

2.10 8.9 7.2 1 X.Y

2.12 8.12 8.15 8.3

-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% X.Y

Relative difference: (Recycling - disposal mix) / disposal mix

Energy

consumption

Global Warming

Potential, CO2- eq.

Toxicity

Resource

consumption

Other energy

related impacts

Figure 3.3 Frequency histograms of the distribution of results from the various scenarios of the reviewed studies showing the relative difference in impact from recycling vs. a mix of incineration and landfill. A negative value means that recycling causes less impact than this disposal mix

Other:

Wastew ater (study 2, 8)

Land use (study 7)

Waste









All impact categories Incineration vs. Landfill


Less negative environmental More negative environmental Less negative environmental More negative environmentalimpact from incineration 7 impact from incineration impact from incineration 7 impact from incineration

5 5

3

1

7.3

-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -100%-75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Relative difference: (Incineration - landfill) / landfill Relative difference: (Incineration - landfill) / landfill



5 5

3 3

1

7.3 7.3

-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -100%-75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%




5 5

3 3

1 1

7.3

-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -100%-75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%


Number of scenarios

Less negative environmental More negative environmentalimpact from incineration 7 impact from incineration

5 X.Y

3 X.Y

1

-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Relative difference: (Incineration - landfill) / landfill

Energy

consumption


CO2- eq.

Toxicity

Global Warming

Potential, CO2

Resource

consumption

Other energy

related impacts

Figure 3.4 Frequency histograms of the distribution of results from the various scenarios of the reviewed studies showing the relative difference in impact from incineration vs. landfill. A negative value means that incineration causes less impact than landfilling

Other

Waste




Specific CO2-eq. savings

Number of scenarios

CO 2 -eq. saving from recycling compared to incineration CO 2 -eq. saving from incineration compared to recycling

9

7

2.5 2.9

2.11 1.2 1.4 4.2

9.2 9.8 8.11 8.5

2.7 9.5 9.10 5.1 9.1 8.8

9.11 3.1 9.12 9.13 2.3 9.4 9.3 8.14 2.1

9.14 9.17 9.15 9.18 9.16 8.2 9.6 9.9 9.7 4.1

4 -3,5 -3 -2,5 -2 -1,5 -1 -0,5 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4

Saved emission of greenhousegases in tonne of CO2-eq. / tonne paper

Recycling vs. Incineration.

GWP quantitatively

GWP quantitatively

7

2 . 5 2 . 9

2 . 1 1 1 . 2 1 . 4 4 . 2

9 . 2 9 . 8 8 . 1 1 8 . 5

2 . 7 9 . 5 9 . 1 0 5 . 1 9 . 1 8 . 8

9 . 1 1 3 . 1 9 . 1 2 9 . 1 3 2 . 3 9 . 4 9 . 3 8 . 1 4 2 . 1

9 . 1 4 9 . 1 7 9 . 1 5 9 . 1 8 9 . 1 6 8 . 2 9 . 6 9 . 9 9 . 7 4 . 1

4 - 3 , 5 - 3 - 2 , 5 - 2 - 1 , 5 - 1 - 0 , 5 0 0 , 5 1 1 , 5 2 2 , 5 3 3 , 5 4

S a v e d e m is s io n o f g r e e n h o u s e g a s e s in to n n e o f C O 2 - e q . / to n n e p a p e r

N u m b e r o f s c e n a r io sC O

2 - e q . s a v in g f r o m r e c y c l i n g c o m p a r e d t o l a n d f i l l C O

2- e q . s a v in g f r o m la n d f i l l c o m p a r e d t o r e c y c l i n g

9

7

5

6 . 1 3

8 . 4 1 . 1

8 . 7 1 . 3

2 . 4 2 . 2 8 . 1 8 . 1 0 8 . 1 3 6 . 3 6 . 4 6 . 2

4 - 3 , 5 - 3 - 2 , 5 - 2 - 1 , 5 - 1 - 0 , 5 0 0 , 5 1 1 , 5 2 2 , 5 3


N u m b e r o f s c e n a r io sC O

2 - e q . s a v in g f r o m r e c y c l i n g c o m p a r e d t o d i s p o s a l m ix C O

2- e q . s a v in g f r o m d i s p o s a l m ix c o m p a r e d t o r e c y c l i n g

9

7

5

3

2 . 6

2 . 8 2 . 1 0 8 . 1 2 8 . 6

2 . 1 2 8 . 3 8 . 1 5 8 . 9

4 - 3 , 5 - 3 - 2 , 5 - 2 - 1 , 5 - 1 - 0 , 5 0 0 , 5 1 1 , 5 2 2 , 5 3


R e c y c l i n g v s .

I n c i n e r a t i o n .

F i g u r e 3 . 5 F r e q u e n c y h i s t o g r a m s o f t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e s u l t s f r o m t h e v a r i o u s s c e n a r i o s o f t h e r e v i e w e d s t u d i e s s h o w i n g t h e s a v e d e m i s s i o n o f g r e e n h o u s e g a s e s f r o m r e c y c l i n g v s . i n c i n e r a t i o n a n d r e c y c l i n g v s . l a n d f i l l r e s p e c t i v e l y . A n e g a t i v e v a l u e ( t h e l e f t s i d e o f t h e d i a g r a m s ) m e a n s t h a t r e c y c l i n g c a u s e s a s a v i n g c o m p a r e d t o i n c i n e r a t i o n o r l a n d f i l l . F o r l e g e n d s : s e e F f g u r e 3 . 1

R e c y c l i n g v s .

L a n d f i l l .

R e c y c l i n g v s . a m i x o f

i n c i n e r a t i o n a n d l a n d f i l l

4 key system boundary issues divide the conclusions

1. The virgin pulp type – i.e. the energy split between electricity and thermal energy in production of the various virgin paper and cardboard types

2. The marginal electricity assumed for virgin paper/cardboard production

3. The potential utilisation of the extra incineration capacity created by recycling to reduce landfilling

4. The inclusion of an alternative use of saved wood for virgin paper/cardboard production

The virgin pulp type

Newsprint


Less negative environmental More negative environmental CO 2 -eq. saving from recycling CO 2 -eq. saving from incinerationimpact from recycling impact from recycling

2.5

2.7

5.1 5.1

9.5 9.13 8.2 2.7 2.5 9.4

9.14 9.15 9.6 9.4 4.2 4.1 9.14 9.15 9.5 9.13 8.2 9.6 4.2 4.1

-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -3,5 -3 -2,5 -2 -1,5 -1 -0,5 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5

Relative difference: (Recycling - Incineration) / Incineration Saved emission of greenhousegases in tonne of CO2-eq. / tonne paper

Mixed paper



2.11 2.11

9.2 7.6 3.1 7.4 8.14 9.2 9.1 2.9

9.11 9.12 9.10 7.5 9.3 9.1 2.9 9.11 3.1 9.12 9.10 9.3 8.14

-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -3,5 -3 -2,5 -2 -1,5 -1 -0,5 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5


Cardboard



1.2

2.3 1.2 2.1 1.4 8.5

9.8 1.4 9.7 9.8 8.11 8.8

9.17 9.18 9.16 8.11 8.5 8.8 9.9 9.17 9.18 9.16 2.3 9.9 9.7 2.1

-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -3,5 -3 -2,5 -2 -1,5 -1 -0,5 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5


X.Y X.Y

X.Y X.Y

X.Y

X:Y

3

1

7

55

7

5

3

7

1

7

5

3

7

5

3

7

5

3




CO2- eq. savingkg CO2- eq./kg paper



The LCA covers only waste management end-of-life. The quantification in percentage is, therefore, not possible, and the environmental preference is shown qualitatively out of scale

The LCA covers the entire life cycle, i.e. relative difference in percentage can be calculated

Green = Newsprint, newspapers, magazines

Orange = Mixed paper, graphic paper, office paper


Means that this value lies outside of the scale.

The marginal electricity assumed for virgin paper/cardboard production

Newsprint



2.5

2.7

5.1 5.1

9.5 9.13 8.2 2.7 2.5 9.4

9.14 9.15 9.6 9.4 4.2 4.1 9.14 9.15 9.5 9.13 8.2 9.6 4.2 4.1

-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -3,5 -3 -2,5 -2 -1,5 -1 -0,5 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5


Mixed paper



2.11 2.11

9.2 7.6 3.1 7.4 8.14 3.1' 9.2 9.1 2.9

9.11 9.12 9.10 7.5 9.3 9.1 2.9 9.11 3.1 9.12 9.10 9.3 8.14 3.1'

-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -3,5 -3 -2,5 -2 -1,5 -1 -0,5 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5


Cardboard



1.2

2.3 1.2 2.1 1.4 8.5

9.8 1.4 9.7 9.8 8.11 8.8

9.17 9.18 9.16 8.11 8.5 8.8 9.9 9.17 9.18 9.16 2.3 9.9 9.7 2.1

-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -3,5 -3 -2,5 -2 -1,5 -1 -0,5 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5


X.Y X.Y

X.Y X.Y

X.Y

X:Y X.Y

7

5

3

7

5

3

1

7

5

3

7

5

3

7

3

1

7

55












Blue = Electricity for virgin paper/cardboard production assumed to be based partly or fully on wood

Means that this value lies outside of the scale.

Utilisation of released incineration capacity

NewsprintNumber of scenarios Number of scenarios

Less negative environmental More negative environmental CO2-eq. saving from recycling CO

2-eq. saving from incineration

impact from recycling impact from recycling

2.5

2.7

5.1 5.1

9.5 9.13 8.2 2.7 2.5 9.4

9.14 9.15 9.6 9.4 4.2 4.1 9.14 9.15 9.5 9.13 8.2 9.6 4.2 4.1

-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -3,5 -3 -2,5 -2 -1,5 -1 -0,5 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5


Mixed paperNumber of scenarios Number of scenarios




2.11 2.11

9.2 7.6 3.1 7.4 8.14 9.2 9.1 2.9

9.11 9.12 9.10 7.5 9.3 9.1 2.9 9.11 3.1 9.12 9.10 9.3 8.14

-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -3,5 -3 -2,5 -2 -1,5 -1 -0,5 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5


CardboardNumber of scenarios Number of scenarios




1.2

2.3 1.2 2.1 1.4 8.5

9.8 1.4 9.7 9.8 8.11 8.8

9.17 9.18 9.16 8.11 8.5 8.8 9.9 9.17 9.18 9.16 2.3 9.9 9.7 2.1

-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -3,5 -3 -2,5 -2 -1,5 -1 -0,5 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5


X.Y X.Y

X.Y X.Y

X.Y

X:Y X.Y

3

1

7

55

7

5

3

7

1

7

5

3

7

5

3

7

5

3


CO2- eq.


CO2- eq.

Global Warming Potential, CO2-

eq.

CO2- eq. saving

kg CO2- eq./kg paper

CO2- eq. saving


CO2- eq. saving










Blue = Released incineration capacity assumed used to reduce

landfillingMeans that this v alue lies outside of the scale.

Figure 3.8. Recycling versus incineration ~ segregation of results on global warming impacts in frequency histograms for each the main paper/cardboard categories – showing the significance of assuming that incineration capacity released on recycling is used to take in burnable waste from landfills

The cascade effect

Landfill

Incine-ration Recycling

The inclusion of alternative use of saved wood

Newsprint



2.5

2.7

5.1 5.1

9.5 9.13 8.2 2.7 2.5 9.4

9.14 9.15 9.6 9.4 4.2 4.1 9.14 9.15 9.5 9.13 8.2 9.6 4.2 4.1

-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -3,5 -3 -2,5 -2 -1,5 -1 -0,5 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5


Mixed paper



2.11 2.11

9.2 7.6 3.1 7.4 8.14 9.2 9.1 2.9

9.11 9.12 9.10 7.5 9.3 9.1 2.9 9.11 3.1 9.12 9.10 9.3 8.14

-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -3,5 -3 -2,5 -2 -1,5 -1 -0,5 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5


Cardboard



1.2

2.3 1.2 2.1 1.4 8.5

9.8 1.4 9.7 9.8 8.11 8.8

9.17 9.18 9.16 8.11 8.5 8.8 9.9 9.17 9.18 9.16 2.3 9.9 9.7 2.1

-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -3,5 -3 -2,5 -2 -1,5 -1 -0,5 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5


X.Y X.Y

X.Y X.Y

X.Y

X:Y X.Y

7

5

3

7

5

3

1

7

5

3

7

5

3

7

3

1

7

55












Blue = Saved wood used for energy or wood marginal = fossil fuelMeans that this value lies outside of the scale.

Conclusion (mainly on GWP)

• Paper and cardboard from TMP or CTMP (mainly newsprint):

recycling > incineration > landfilling

regardless of assumptions

• Other paper and cardboard (chemical pulp):– In case of cascade effect:

recycling > incineration > landfilling

– In case of biomass limitation (fossil fuel is the marginal fuel):recycling > incineration > landfilling

– All other cases: incineration > recycling > landfilling

• All paper and cardboard categories:– Recycling > landfilling

Improving LCA studies: a case study on paper and card LCAs By Henrik Wenzel 1 and Alejandro...

Documents

Transcript of Improving LCA studies: a case study on paper and card LCAs By Henrik Wenzel 1 and Alejandro...