Waste Indicators

More documents

Recommendations

Info

5 Results of calculationsThe calculation of indicator values for the three waste fractions: paper andcardboard, glass packaging and aluminium is based on factors for resources,energy and landfilling as calculated in Chapter 4 and Appendix C. Factorscan by multiplied by the waste quantities for the different treatment options,thus giving indicator values. The calculation is described in more detail inChapter 4, and results are presented and commented on below.First, waste quantities behind indicator calculations are presented with resultsfor both Model A and Model B (Chapter 5.1). The two forms of presentationare described in more detail in Chapter 1.Then the calculation factors used in Model A are presented and commentedon (Chapter 5.2). In Chapter 5.3 results for indicator calculations cf. Model Aare presented.Chapter 5.4 gives a short description of how to handle the calculation withwaste data and indicator values forming the basis for the presentation ModelB. In Model B focus is put on benefits from the actual waste managementoption compared to landfilling of all waste.The two models are not only different in their way of presenting results, butalso in contents of the presentation. In practice, the same basic data is used.The most significant difference in the data basis is that where Model Arequires knowledge of total consumption of materials in society and wastetreatment, Model B only requires specific knowledge of waste treatment andactual potential for recycling materials. This is explained in more detail inChapter 5.4.5.1 Waste quantities for calculationsThe calculated factors for each material are multiplied by waste quantitiesdistributed by treatment option. Waste quantities can be seen in Table 5.1.The basis for calculating quantities is explained in Chapter 4 and AppendixC.38
Table 5.1Waste fractions and treatment options in DenmarkWaste quantities in Denmark,distributed on treatment option,1,000 tonnesLandfilling Incineration Reuse Recycling withmaterial recoveryPaper and cardboard, 1998 86.3 557.7 - 640.5Glass packaging*, 1998 3.2 58.8 57.3 60.3Glass packaging*, 1995 11.3 58.6 53.9 51.5Glass packaging*, 1991 20.0 37.4 42.8 49.8Aluminium, 1994 5.0 9.8 - 30.9* excl. deposit-return bottles5.2 Presentation of calculation factorsFactors used for Model A in the calculation of indicators are shown in Table4.3. Factors are further illustrated in the following figures. The data basis forcalculations of the different factors for the three material fractions andrelevant treatment options is provided in Appendix D (not translated).5.2.1 Resource factorsResource values are stated in PR – person reserves, expressing consumptionrelated to known reserves of a given resource per person in the world (seeGlossary). The calculation of the resource factor for a material fraction isbased on a statement of resource factors for each individual resource used inthe production of a material fraction. The contribution from each individualresource for each material fraction appears from Appendix D (not translated).Comments on the following figures are based on the underlying values.Figure 5.1 shows that for paper the non-energy-related resource consumptionhas the highest weight, which is mainly due to consumption of the resourcesulphur for the production of paper. The large weight attributed to sulphur inthe statement is due to sulphur having a short supply perspective, when onlytraditionally available sources are taken into account. However, large sulphurresources are bound in fossil fuels, and they are increasingly exploited today.Therefore, it may be argued that the resource statement for sulphur shouldgive a lower value, taking such sources into account (see Appendix C). In theEDIP project, the normalisation of sulphur has been disregarded (setting thevalue = 0), which does not seem correct either. The example thus indicatesthat the LCA methodology is still under development.For glass packaging, by contrast, energy-generating materials have the highestweight (see Figure 5.2). The result is that from a resource perspective thedifference between recycling and landfilling glass is not very large, since thereis considerable energy consumption associated with glass remelting, whereasthere is large benefit from reuse of glass packaging without remelting. In termsof resources (and also energy) large benefits can thus be obtained fromreusing a large amount directly as glass packaging compared to recycling glassfrom cullet.39
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 and 12: Both presentation methods (referred
Page 13 and 14: The significance of the potential s
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 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?