Assessing the life cycle environmental impacts of bulky waste - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
assessing the life cycle environmental impacts of bulky
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Assessing the life cycle environmental impacts of bulky waste - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Jan 13, 2024 223 likes •381 views

Assessing the life cycle environmental impacts of bulky waste management in Brussels E. T owa, V. Zeller, W. M.J. Achten 27/06/2019 This research is conducted in the frame of the BRUCETRA project funded by the Brussels capital region

slide-1
SLIDE 1

27/06/2019

Assessing the life cycle environmental impacts of bulky waste management in Brussels

  • E. T
  • wa, V. Zeller, W. M.J. Achten

This research is conducted in the frame of the BRUCETRA project funded by the Brussels’ capital region – Innoviris (2015-PRFB-3a)

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Brussels’ context

2

Context Method Results Conclusions

  • Current management of

bulky waste in Brussels

  • mixed, i.e. non-recyclable,

recyclable and potentially reusable materials

  • Incineration with energy

recovery most important treatment

  • Bulky waste is one of the

priority fmows within the regional programme for circular economy

2,40% 39,90% 57,70%

T reatment of bulky waste in Brussels (2014) Preparation for reuse Recycling Incineration

ABP: Annual report 2014 40.000 t per year

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Bulky waste collection in Brussels

3

Context Method Results Conclusions

  • T

wo main actors

  • Public actor
  • Social economy organizations (SEOs)
  • Three collection types
  • Mixed collection on demand
  • Separate collection of items with a

reuse potential

  • Bringing systems: to container parks
  • r SEO centres

Tons, 2014 Public actors SEOs Total Classical collection 19,845 179 20,024 Citizen deposit at CAS or SEOs centres 13,145 357 13,502 Separate collection 1,238 1,238 Total 32,990 1,774 34,76 4

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Bulky waste defjnition

4

Context Method Results Conclusions

  • Bulky items that are donated or resold are not considered as

waste

  • Bulky waste= waste that does not fjt into containers & bags

Categories included:

  • Furniture and other items such as bikes, strollers, prams,

ironing boards, toys, kitchen items (plates, cups, vases), sport items, sanitary items, etc.) Categories excluded:

  • WEEE, textiles, mattresses

Material composition

Iron; 14,50% Aluminium; 8,30% Polyvinyl chloride; 5,60% Polypropylene; 4,50% Polyethylene; 1,10% Wood; 61,80% Glass; 2,10% Ceramics; 2,10%

Material composition (public collector)

Iron; 3,80%Aluminium; 2,50% Polyvinyl chloride; 4,80% Polypropylene; 3,80%

Polyethylene; 1,00%

Wood; 64,24% Glass; 8,09% Ceramics; 11,79%

Material composition (SEO)

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Environmental performance of bulky waste management

5

Context Method Results Conclusions

Waste hierarchy suffjcient?

  • → Life cycle assessment to verify

i) CE potential of bulky waste management in Brussels? ii) Life cycle-based environmental impacts of difgerent bulky waste management system?

<

slide-6
SLIDE 6

MFA & scenario development

6

Context Method Results Conclusions

Material fmow analyses

  • Collection of waste statistics from difgerent entities
  • Decomposition
  • Sankey that shows the management chain

. CE potential

  • Potential for reuse
  • Potential for recycling
  • Potential for separate collection

Evaluation of scenarios with LCA

  • Data on transport requirements
  • Data on waste treatment processes
  • Data on substitution rate (reuse & recycling)
  • → Impact assessment
slide-7
SLIDE 7

CE scenarios- Scenario 1

7

Context Method Results Conclusions Scenario 1:

  • Improved sorting at the civic amenity sites to increase items for reuse and recycling

FU: treatment of the total bulky waste stream in Brussels (~ 34.000 ton)

slide-8
SLIDE 8

CE scenarios- Scenario 2

8

Context Method Results Conclusions Scenario 2: Potential of separate collection

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Evaluation of scenarios with life cycle assessment

9

Context Method Results Conclusions System boundary: ‘Bin to grave’ boundary

  • Substitution potential for reuse: full substitution, partial substitution (quality/LT) or no

substitution

  • Substitution potential for recycable materials: substitution rates (for example: metals

1:1, plastic 1:0.9) (Rigamonti 2009)

Waste treatment process Collection and transport

Waste collection lorry Diesel Road Waste treatment facility Process inputs (eletricity, diesel, natural gas, chemicals, etc.) Avoided el production T ransport and fjnal treatment Avoided material production (for ex. gravel) Electricity Final residuals Conversion process Bulky waste

Bulky items

Recycled materials Avoided primary production Reusable item Avoided products Use phase & end of life Use phase & end of life

Approach for co-products: substitution

slide-10
SLIDE 10

10

Context Method Results Conclusions

Impact assessment

Huijbregts et al. 2017: ReCiPe2016: a harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level

DAL Ys (disability adjusted life years), represents the years that are lost or that a person is disabled due to a disease or accident. PDF: Potentially disappeared fraction of species∙m2∙year: local relative species loss in terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems, respectively, integrated over space and time The unit for resource scarcity is dollars ($), which represents the extra costs involved for future mineral and fossil resource extraction

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Impact assessment at process level

11

Context Method Results Conclusions

0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01

DALY per ton

  • 120
  • 100
  • 80
  • 60
  • 40
  • 20

20 40 60

Quicklime Metal scrap recovered Avoided gravel Transport ash Sodium hydroxide Other process inputs Waste collection Facility Natural gas

USD/ per ton

  • 1E-05
  • 5E-06

0E+00 5E-06 1E-05 2E-05 2E-05 3E-05 3E-05

Species*yr/ per ton

  • 0,07
  • 0,06
  • 0,05
  • 0,04
  • 0,03
  • 0,02
  • 0,01

0,01 0,02 0,03

DAL Y per ton

  • 2E-04
  • 1E-04
  • 5E-05

0E+00 5E-05 1E-04 S p e c i e s * y r p e r t o n

  • 3000
  • 2500
  • 2000
  • 1500
  • 1000
  • 500

500 Avoided ceramics Avoided glass Avoided wood Avoided plastic Avoided iron Avoided aluminium Waste collection Recycling ceramics Recycling glass Recycling wood Plastic recycling USD per ton

  • 1E-01
  • 1E-01
  • 8E-02
  • 6E-02
  • 4E-02
  • 2E-02

0E+00 2E-02

DAILY per ton

  • 3E-04
  • 2E-04
  • 2E-04
  • 1E-04
  • 5E-05

0E+00 5E-05

Sp ecies*yr p er to n

  • 4.000
  • 3.500
  • 3.000
  • 2.500
  • 2.000
  • 1.500
  • 1.000
  • 500

500

Avoided ceramics Avoided glass Avoided wood Avoided plastic Avoided iron Avoided aluminium Waste collection Preparation for reuse Net impact

USD per ton

Incineration: Impacts: incineration process Credits: electricity credit Recycling: Impacts: Aluminium & wood recycling Credits: avoided Al, wood & plastic Reuse:

  • Impacts: Preparation for reuse
  • Credits: avoided Al, wood & plastic

Damage on human health Damage on ecosystems Damage on ressource availbaility Net result: impacts for HH & ES, savings in terms of ressource use Net result: savings for all impacts Net result: savings for all impacts

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Impact assessment of scenarios

12

Context Method Results Conclusions

Scenario Ref Scenario 1 Scenario 2

  • 1600
  • 1400
  • 1200
  • 1000
  • 800
  • 600
  • 400
  • 200

200 400

Human health impacts

DAL Y per yr

Scenario Ref Scenario 1 Scenario 2

  • 3
  • 2,5
  • 2
  • 1,5
  • 1
  • 0,5

0,5 1

Impacts on ecosystems

Species yr

Scenario Ref Scenario 1 Scenario 2

  • 5,00E+07
  • 4,00E+07
  • 3,00E+07
  • 2,00E+07
  • 1,00E+07

0,00E+00 1,00E+07

Ressource use

US D per yr

Waste collection Reuse -avoided products Avoided ceramics Avoided glass Avoided wood Avoided plastic Avoided Fe Avoided AL Avoided el Reuse Recyling ceramics Recyling glass Recyling wood Recycling plastic Recyling Fe Recycling Al Incineration Net result

slide-13
SLIDE 13

13

Context Method Results Conclusions

Discussion of key parameters- sensitivity

Reuse potential:

  • Sensitivity analysis in the article
  • Market potential of reuse?
  • Substitution rate for reused

products?

  • Substitution or not?
  • Partial substitution?

Scenario BAU Scenario 1 Scenario 2

  • 5,00E+07
  • 4,00E+07
  • 3,00E+07
  • 2,00E+07
  • 1,00E+07

0,00E+00 1,00E+07

Ressource use

US D per yr

Limits of the study:

  • A thorough assessment of reuse potential needs a product based

approach

  • Proxy data for the composition of mixed bulky waste
  • Proxy data for the preparation of reuse
  • Some LC stages not (yet) included
slide-14
SLIDE 14

14

Context Method Results Conclusions

Conclusions & outlook

  • CE potential is currently underexploited
  • CE scenarios show a high potential for environmental savings,

especially in terms of resource use

  • For a signifjcant improvement, a change in the collection

system is required

  • → more information about the quality of bulky waste stream as

well as consumer demand & behaviour is needed

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Vanessa Zeller , PhD

Postdoctoral Researcher

Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB) IGEAT-GEST e

Avenue F .D. Roosevelt, 50 (CP 165/63), 1050 Brussels (Belgium) T el : +32 (0)2 650 4333 Mail : vzeller@ulb.ac.be

CONTACT INFORMATION

Thank you for your attention

This research is conducted in the frame of the BRUCETRA project funded by the Brussels’ capital region – Innoviris (2015-PRFB-3a)