Waste Indicators

More documents

Recommendations

Info

to simple landfilling of the waste. The basis for the calculation is the same asin Model A, where the indicator value for a given treatment option ismultiplied by the waste quantity treated. In Model B the calculations arebased on the differences in indicator values and waste volumes for thedifferent waste treatment scenarios.Thus, Model B compares the different treatment options and does not presentan absolute value for the resource consumption and environmental impact ofdifferent waste fractions. Model B illustrates the resource and environmentalsavings realised by the present management of the waste fractions comparedto landfilling all the waste generated. If desired, Model B can be developed toinclude a partly estimated calculation of the potential savings that could beachieved by managing waste in an optimal way, which is also attempted in theproject. Figure 1.3 is an example of these savings potentials.Figure 1.2Use of resources, energy and landfill space associated with thedisposal of waste and the production of substitute material (Model A)ResourcesPaper&Cardboard,1998Glass, 1998Aluminium, 1994EnergyLandfill (x10)0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000PR/PEThe following units have been used: Resource consumption: PR WDK1990 ; Energyconsumption:PE Energy DK98 ; Landfill requirement: PE <strong>Waste</strong> DK98 . For more detail, see Glossary. The values forlandfill requirement should be multiplied by 10. It should be noted that the threeindicators have only been shown in the same figure for practical reasons. Each indicatorshould be studied separately.Figure 1.3 Realised savings by the current treatment and potentials forfurther savings in the total resource consumption associated with thedisposal of three material fractions. "Potential 2" represents washing andreuse of all glass packaging (Model B)Paper&Card 98RealisedPotentialPotential 2Glass 98Alu. 940 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000PR WDK98The units are person-reserves mPR (see Glossary).12
The significance of the potential savings can be questioned, as well as thechoice of treatment options that are used to calculate the savings. In theexample, the potential savings for glass packaging are calculated assuming thatall glass packaging is recycled or reused. It appears that in relation to resourceconsumption, it is much more important to recycle aluminium and paper andcardboard, than to recycle glass. It is also seen that significant additionalresources could be saved for the waste fractions paper and cardboard andaluminium. However, it is important to compare the resource indicator withthe two other indicators for energy consumption and landfill requirement (seeChapter 5), and possibly include other assessments, such as potential releaseof toxic substances to the surroundings, before any final conclusions aredrawn.1.2 Calculating indicators for the entire waste management systemIf the aim is to obtain an overview of the relative contribution of differentwaste fractions to resource consumption and environmental impacts on thesurroundings, Model A is the most appropriate. In this way, it is possible toidentify the areas where the environmental impacts of waste managementcould be reduced by reducing waste generation or by encouraging the use ofalternative materials during manufacturing. The approach is interesting butmainly suggests that changes should be made in the manufacturing processand in consumer behaviour, which is beyond the scope of this project.If, on the other hand, the aim is to focus on the resource and environmentalsavings resulting from optimising waste management, Model B is sufficient.Calculating Model B for all waste fractions would allow the most significantpotential resource and environmental savings during waste management to beidentified. It would also be possible to supplement with calculations that focuson identifying the fractions with the greatest savings potentials. Finally, itwould be possible to limit the assessment to certain specific fractions in orderto determine the resource and environmental savings associated with thedifferent waste treatment options.Both presentation methods are based on similar calculation parametersdescribing the life-cycles of the materials, but differ in their need for precisequantitative data for individual material fractions. Model B is the leastdemanding, since it primarily uses data that can be obtained from wastemanagement statistics describing the waste quantities and treatment optionsfor individual waste fractions. Although it is not necessary to accuratelydetermine the total flow of material in society in order to calculate theindicator values, as it is for Model A, additional data must be obtained inorder to calculate the potential for optimising waste management. However,this data collection exercise can to a certain extent be replaced by qualifiedestimates, without adversely affecting the overall calculation results.No matter which model is selected – A or B – life-cycle-based factors must becalculated for around 50 material fractions disposed of in two to four differentways. Such data is widely available in the EDIP PC tool database or otherLCA databases, but must be supplemented or updated in a number of fields.It is estimated that around two man-months will be needed for initialcalculation of the life-cycle-based factors, and around ½ man-month for anannual updating.13
Page 1 and 2: Environmental Project No. 809 2003M
Page 3 and 4: Indhold1 WASTE INDICATORS - TRIAL R
Page 6: PrefaceThe project on “Developmen
Page 9 and 10: Model B can be carried out initiall
Page 11: Both presentation methods (referred
Page 16 and 17: 2 From waste quantities toenvironme
Page 18 and 19: a number of materials in the so-cal
Page 20 and 21: 2.2.1 Environment and resource indi
Page 22 and 23: that if any material is removed fro
Page 24 and 25: 2.3.4 Which indicators are relevant
Page 26 and 27: 3 Screening of environment andresou
Page 28 and 29: Table 3.1 Differences in environmen
Page 30 and 31: 4 Calculation method andassumptions
Page 32 and 33: Calculations are based on data from
Page 34 and 35: Table 4.3 Calculated factors (norma
Page 36 and 37: have taken place in the area. Calcu
Page 38 and 39: 5 Results of calculationsThe calcul
Page 40 and 41: Total resource consumption associat
Page 42 and 43: Figure 5.4Total primary energy cons
Page 44 and 45: Figure 5.7Total landfill requiremen
Page 46 and 47: Figure 5.10Consumption of resources
Page 48 and 49: 5.4 Indicators with focus on saving
Page 50 and 51: In relation to current recycling th
Page 52 and 53: Figure 5.14Realised savings from cu
Page 54: Figure 5.18Realised resource saving
Page 57 and 58: need updating before being applicab
Page 59 and 60: Table 6.1Total time required for st
Page 61 and 62: One of the points is that focus is
Page 63 and 64:
Model B will be suitable for meetin
Page 65 and 66:
perspective cf. statistics /36/. Th
Page 68 and 69:
9 ReferencesThe list of references
Page 70:
(31) Sewage sludge from municipal a
Page 73 and 74:
Appendix A1.12.2 Environment and re
Page 75 and 76:
Appendix A1 Waste fractions and env
Page 77 and 78:
Appendix AFor recycling, the ISAG s
Page 79 and 80:
tion*) All resource consumption and
Page 81 and 82:
Appendix AEnergy-derived environmen
Page 83 and 84:
Appendix ABoth upon incineration an
Page 85 and 86:
Appendix ArecoveryLandfillingDecomp
Page 87 and 88:
Appendix A1.6.2 Environment and res
Page 89 and 90:
Appendix ATable 1.17: Significant e
Page 91 and 92:
Appendix ARecycling of rubber as a
Page 93 and 94:
Appendix A1.9.3 Data basisTable 1.2
Page 95 and 96:
Appendix AIn so-called selective de
Page 97 and 98:
Appendix Anecessary there is a long
Page 99 and 100:
Appendix A1.14 Other recyclables1.1
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Appendix A”Domestic waste from pr
Page 105 and 106:
Appendix AUpon incineration of slud
Page 107 and 108:
Appendix A1.20.2 Environment and re
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Appendix A1.23 Electrical equipment
Page 114 and 115:
Appendix BTime consumption forcompr
Page 116 and 117:
Appendix B2.1 Review of material fr
Page 118 and 119:
• Iron and steel (excl. stainless
Page 120 and 121:
Appendix Bthat statistics cover qua
Page 122 and 123:
Appendix BIt is estimated that ther
Page 124 and 125:
Appendix BTable 2.1:Data sources fo
Page 126 and 127:
Appendix CAssumptions for calculati
Page 128 and 129:
Appendix CSo the only possibility l
Page 130 and 131:
Appendix CThe EDIP project uses a l
Page 132 and 133:
Appendix CThis method will often un
Page 134 and 135:
Appendix C2) In the EDIP database t
Page 136 and 137:
Appendix Chas supplied in connectio
Page 138 and 139:
Appendix C1998, which has been used
Page 140:
Appendix CThus, slag is primarily r
show all

Waste Indicators

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?