LCA: Recycling of plastic packaging waste from households
CE Delft Geert Bergsma: Coordinator LCA studies and resource management Marijn Bijleveld: LCA researcher GEERT BERGSMA, CE DELFT
| LCA: RECYCLING OF HOUSEHOLD PLASTIC PACKAGING WASTE |
22 MAY 2014
CE DELFT •
Independent, not-for profit consultancy since 1978
•
Energy, Transport, Economics, Chain analysis (LCA)
•
15+ years of experience with LCA studies of waste treatment and recycling
Clients: •
Dutch government
•
Companies (SITA, Twence, Attero, Eneco)
•
NGO’s (Greenpeace, WWF)
GEERT BERGSMA, CE DELFT | LCA: RECYCLING OF HOUSEHOLD PLASTIC PACKAGING WASTE
| 22 MAY 2014
IN THIS PRESENTATION •
Recycling of plastics in Europe and The Netherlands o Statistics, history and goals
o Various recycling routes
•
LCA: recycling vs incineration
o Setup of the study o Results for various recycling routes o Possible improvements in plastic recycling
•
Conclusion, summary
GEERT BERGSMA, CE DELFT | LCA: RECYCLING OF HOUSEHOLD PLASTIC PACKAGING WASTE
| 22 MAY 2014
PLASTIC RECYCLING IN EUROPE: PLASTIC PACKAGING In many countries: mainly energy recovery
Post-consumer plastic packaging waste (2011): Recycling Energy recovery
GEERT BERGSMA, CE DELFT | LCA: RECYCLING OF HOUSEHOLD PLASTIC PACKAGING WASTE
| 22 MAY 2014
HIGH RECYCLING RATES FOR COMPETING PACKAGING MATERIALS Recycling rates (EU 2011)
Trend recycling rate aluminium cans 80%
100%
81,3% 80%
70%
74% 70%
67%
60%
50%
60%
33%
40%
40% 30%
20%
Recycling rate (%)
20% 10%
0%
Paper and board
Steel
Glass
Aluminium Plastics
0% 1990
1995
2000
2005
GEERT BERGSMA, CE DELFT | LCA: RECYCLING OF HOUSEHOLD PLASTIC PACKAGING WASTE
2010
| 22 MAY 2014
RECYCLING OF PLASTIC PACKAGING IN THE NETHERLANDS 1990 – 2010
Recycling only in industry Recycling of household plastics is deemed too expensive
Preference is given to incineration
Recycling of plastic packaging waste from industry
1990
2000
2010
GEERT BERGSMA, CE DELFT | LCA: RECYCLING OF HOUSEHOLD PLASTIC PACKAGING WASTE
| 22 MAY 2014
RECYCLING OF PLASTIC PACKAGING IN THE NETHERLANDS 2000 – 2010
Neighbouring countries start recycling plastic packaging waste from households
Fost+ (BE) and DSD (DE) Recycling of plastic packaging waste from industry
1990
2000
2010
GEERT BERGSMA, CE DELFT | LCA: RECYCLING OF HOUSEHOLD PLASTIC PACKAGING WASTE
| 22 MAY 2014
RECYCLING OF PLASTIC PACKAGING IN THE NETHERLANDS 2009
Discussion in Dutch Parliament: Is recycling environmentally preferable to energy production?
D. Fost+ (BE) and DSD (DE) Recycling of plastic packaging waste from industry
1990
2000
2010
GEERT BERGSMA, CE DELFT | LCA: RECYCLING OF HOUSEHOLD PLASTIC PACKAGING WASTE
| 22 MAY 2014
RECYCLING OF PLASTIC PACKAGING IN THE NETHERLANDS 2010 – 2011
LCA by CE Delft Recycling vs incineration of plastic packaging from households
2011 – 2013
Targets for collection rates for consumer plastic packaging waste
Targets LCA D. Fost+ (BE) and DSD (DE) 42%
52%
Recycling only in industry
2005
2010
2015
2020
GEERT BERGSMA, CE DELFT | LCA: RECYCLING OF HOUSEHOLD PLASTIC PACKAGING WASTE
| 22 MAY 2014
WASTE TREATMENT ROUTES
Deposit system (refund) for 1,5L PET bottles
Source separation by consumers
Mechanical separation
Incineration with energy recovery Refuse GEERT BERGSMA, CE DELFT | LCA: RECYCLING OF HOUSEHOLD PLASTIC PACKAGING WASTE
| 22 MAY 2014
SOURCE SEPARATION
MECHANICAL SEPARATION
Separation by consumers
Waste collection
Sorting
Separation
PET
HDPE
Sheet/films PP
Hard plastics
Sheet/Films
Mixed plastics
Sorting PET PP
HDPE
Mixed plastics
To different treatment routes To different treatment routes
GEERT BERGSMA, CE DELFT | LCA: RECYCLING OF HOUSEHOLD PLASTIC PACKAGING WASTE
| 22 MAY 2014
LCA OF PLASTIC PACKAGING: RECYCLING VS ENERGY RECOVERY •
Recycling scenarios: compared with 100% incineration in MSWI
•
Scenarios, based on response rate, consisting of: o Deposit system for large PET bottles o Either source separation by consumers or mechanical separation o Incineration of non-separated plastic packaging
•
Data 2010-2011
Scenario 1 = 95% of PET bottles to deposit, 28% of household plastics source separated, rest to incineration Scenario 2 = 95% of PET bottles to deposit, 31% of plastics mechanically separated, rest to incineration Scenario 3 = Combination: both source separation and mechanical separation
GEERT BERGSMA, CE DELFT | LCA: RECYCLING OF HOUSEHOLD PLASTIC PACKAGING WASTE
| 22 MAY 2014
LCA OF PLASTIC PACKAGING RECYCLING VS ENERGY RECOVERY The study includes emissions from: •
Transportation
•
Energy for processing steps (e.g. sorting and treatment)
•
Auxiliary materials, additives, water
•
Avoided energy and heat production (by incineration)
•
Avoided virgin material (by production of recycled material) o Quality of recycled material is taken into account
•
Losses of material at sorting and treatment are included
GEERT BERGSMA, CE DELFT | LCA: RECYCLING OF HOUSEHOLD PLASTIC PACKAGING WASTE
| 22 MAY 2014
LCA OF PLASTIC PACKAGING RECYCLING VS ENERGY RECOVERY •
LCA with check of large number of environmental aspects (not only CO2)
•
Reviewed
•
Panel with representatives of: o Waste industry
o Local governments o Stakeholders from the recycling industry o NGO’s o The Dutch government
GEERT BERGSMA, CE DELFT | LCA: RECYCLING OF HOUSEHOLD PLASTIC PACKAGING WASTE
| 22 MAY 2014
MAIN CONCLUSIONS (1/4) 1.
Recycling has significant benefits compared with incineration (CO2, but also other environmental effects)
Impact on climate change (kg CO2-eq.)
Impact of scenarios compared with 100% incineration 0
-200 Due to recycling
-400
-600
Due to avoided incineration
-800 -1000
-1200 Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 1 = 95% of PET bottles to deposit, 28% of household plastics source separated, rest to incineration Scenario 2 = 95% of PET bottles to deposit, 31% of plastics mechanically separated, rest to incineration Scenario 3 = Combination: both source separation and mechanical separation GEERT BERGSMA, CE DELFT | LCA: RECYCLING OF HOUSEHOLD PLASTIC PACKAGING WASTE
| 22 MAY 2014
MAIN CONCLUSIONS (2/4) 2.
Similar results for source separation and mechanical separation (Based on 2011 response rate and separation rate)
Impact on climate change (kg CO2-eq.)
Impact of scenarios compared with 100% incineration 0
-200 Due to recycling
-400
-600
Due to avoided incineration
-800 -1000
-1200 Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 1 = 95% of PET bottles to deposit, 28% of household plastics source separated, rest to incineration Scenario 2 = 95% of PET bottles to deposit, 31% of plastics mechanically separated, rest to incineration Scenario 3 = Combination: both source separation and mechanical separation GEERT BERGSMA, CE DELFT | LCA: RECYCLING OF HOUSEHOLD PLASTIC PACKAGING WASTE
| 22 MAY 2014
MAIN CONCLUSIONS (3/4) 3.
Best results: combination of source separation and mechanical separation (50% total separation)
Impact on climate change (kg CO2-eq.)
Impact of scenarios compared with 100% incineration 0
-200 Due to recycling
-400
-600
Due to avoided incineration
-800 -1000
-1200 Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 1 = 95% of PET bottles to deposit, 28% of household plastics source separated, rest to incineration Scenario 2 = 95% of PET bottles to deposit, 31% of plastics mechanically separated, rest to incineration Scenario 3 = Combination: both source separation and mechanical separation GEERT BERGSMA, CE DELFT | LCA: RECYCLING OF HOUSEHOLD PLASTIC PACKAGING WASTE
| 22 MAY 2014
MAIN CONCLUSIONS (4/4) 4.
Of the recycling routes, the deposit system for the large PET bottles provides most benefit per kg material
Impact on climate change (kg CO2-eq.)
Impact of scenarios compared with 100% incineration 200 0
-200
Due to separation
-400 Due to deposit system
-600 -800
Due to avoided incineration
-1000 -1200 Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 1 = 95% of PET bottles to deposit, 28% of household plastics source separated, rest to incineration Scenario 2 = 95% of PET bottles to deposit, 31% of plastics mechanically separated, rest to incineration Scenario 3 = Combination: both source separation and mechanical separation GEERT BERGSMA, CE DELFT | LCA: RECYCLING OF HOUSEHOLD PLASTIC PACKAGING WASTE
| 22 MAY 2014
WEIGHTING OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITH RECIPE * •
Climate change: dominant
•
Fossil depletion: energy issue correlated with climate change
•
Particulate matter: smaller issue
•
Agricultural land use: benefit caused by use of recycled mixed plastic products instead of tropical wood products. ReCiPe single score Contribution of environmental effects
ReCiPe single score (Pt)
20
Fossil depletion
0
Land use
-20
-40 -60
Climate change ecosystems
-80
Fine dust formation
-100 -120
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Climate change human health
* Goedkoop et al
GEERT BERGSMA, CE DELFT | LCA: RECYCLING OF HOUSEHOLD PLASTIC PACKAGING WASTE
| 22 MAY 2014
REMARKABLE DETAILS
•
Scenario 1 (based on source separation) 5 variations in avoided materials
Replacement of tropical wood product provides the highest benefit for mixed plastics Replacement of concrete results in a lower benefit
20 0 -20
ReCiPe Single Score (Pt)
•
-40 -60 -80 -100 -120 -140
concrete/azobé/PP (equal share)
concrete
azobé
PP
Climate change, human health Fine dust formation Climate change, ecosystems Land use Fossil depletion
GEERT BERGSMA, CE DELFT | LCA: RECYCLING OF HOUSEHOLD PLASTIC PACKAGING WASTE
| 22 MAY 2014
LARGE DIFFERENCES IN RESPONSE RATES BETWEEN MUNICIPALITIES •
Higher response rates more environmental benefit
•
Source separation by consumers is likely to score a little better when response rates are high Response or separation rate Impact on climate change (kg CO2-eq.)
0% 0 -200 -400 -600 -800 -1000 -1200 -1400 -1600 -1800
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Scenario 1 (source separation) Scenario 2 (mechanical separation) Current response and separation rate
GEERT BERGSMA, CE DELFT | LCA: RECYCLING OF HOUSEHOLD PLASTIC PACKAGING WASTE
| 22 MAY 2014
LARGE DIFFERENCES IN RESPONSE RATES IN MUNICIPALITIES Response rate of source separation by consumers varies between 7 and 60% High response rates are possible
For municipalities with low response rates (
