Summary of LCA Reviewincluding carbon issues

Julian Parfitt

‘Making the most of LCA thinking’23 November 2006, Savoy Place, London

AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENTS OF WASTE DISPOSAL AND RECOVERY OPTIONS

What is Life Cycle Analysis?

Transportation

Manufacturing

Product/ Material Use

PrimaryProcessing

Transport

Reuse/ Recycling

EfW/ Landfill/

Open Loop Recycling

Extraction

International interest in life cycle thinkingISO 14040:2006 Principles and frameworkISO 14044:2006 Requirements and Guidelines

The EU Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste anticipates bringing new environmental thinking and life-cycle thinking into waste policies

Revised Waste Framework Directive (75/442/EEC) links waste to resource life-cycles.

Paper and cardboard – recovery or disposal? A changing climate for EfW?The impact of the carbon agenda on the waste management business Managing biowastes from households in the UK Dealing with food waste in the UKCarbon balances and energy impacts of the management of UK wastes Impact of energy from waste and recycling policy on UK greenhouse gas emissions

The case for a resource management strategyBiffaward Mass-balance projectsWaste and Resources Assessment Tool for the Environment ………

………..& many more

Why an international review?

Understand critical assumptions

Conflicting Findings

Critical Factors

Need to understand state of knowledge- generally & for WRAP programmes

Seven material categories Paper & cardboard

Plastics

Glass

Wood

Steel

Aluminium

Aggregates

Who did the work?

Technical University of Denmark, Department of Manufacturing Engineering and Management, Innovation and Sustainability, Denmark.

Danish Topic Centre on Waste, Denmark.

Review of Life Cycle Analysis

Holistic LCAs

ISO 14040 standard methodology

Unambiguous

Comparative.

Review of Life Cycle Analysis

272 studies reviewed

55 found to be of sufficient quality for review

201 scenarios assessed across key impact categories

Scope of LCA reviewMaterial Number of studies

evaluated Number of studies selected for detailed review

Number of scenarios contained within selected studies

Glass 19 11 25 Wood 29 3 7 Paper and cardboard 108 9 63 Plastics 42 10 60 Aluminium 19 11 20 Steel 31 9 20 Aggregates 24 2 6 Total 272 55 201

Results

83% favour recycling compared to incineration and landfill

Magnitude of carbon savings: current UK recycling avoids 10-15 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year

Assumes that boundary conditions from reviewed studies relevant to UK

Material 1. Total

tonnes collected

for recycling :

mt

2. **CO2

equivalent offset

Recycling v Landfill

(tonnes CO2 eq per tonne

recycled)

3. **CO2

equivalent offset

Recycling v EfW

(tonnes CO2 eq per tonne

recycled)

4. **Offset

Recycling v Landfill (mt CO2 eq / year)

5. **Offset v

EfW (mt CO2 eq /

year)

6. Total

mtonnes CO2 eq.

offset / year through

recycling

References to main data sources

Paper and

cardboard7.30 1.40 0.62 9.20 0.45 9.65 Confederation of Paper

Industries 2004

Glass packaging 'closed loop'

1.00 0.60 0.43 0.54 0.04 0.59DEFRA provisional PRN statistics for 2005 + British Glass Statistics + WRAP

# Glass into aggregates

0.18 0.00 n.a. 0.00 n.a. 0.00DEFRA provisional PRN statistics for 2005 + British Glass Statistics + WRAP

# Glass into glass fibre & other 'open loop'

0.10 0.30 n.a. 0.03 n.a. 0.03DEFRA provisional PRN statistics for 2005 + British Glass Statistics + WRAP

Plastic packaging 0.40 1.00 1.00 0.36 0.04 0.40 DEFRA provisional PRN statistics for 2005

Steel packaging 0.35 1.34 0.79 0.42 0.03 0.45 DEFRA provisional PRN statistics for 2005

Aluminium

packaging0.04 7.00 7.00 0.25 0.03 0.28 DEFRA provisional PRN

statistics for 2005

Wood

Aggregates

10.80 0.59 11.39

** assumes that 90% of residual waste landfilled and 10% incinerated

# Glass 'open loop' results are based on a single study

no recycling comparisons available from LCA review

insufficient data available from LCA review

TOTAL CO2 eq. Offset (millions of tonnes per year)

Results: System BoundariesExpected VariationsCritical assumptions:

Waste HandlingEnergy consumption

System boundary assumptions (all materials apart from paper/cardboard)

Virgin material 1 Material marginal. Average or specific? Which? 2 Electricity marginal: which? Hydro, biomass, coal, gas, oil, other? 3 Steam marginal: which? Biomass, coal, gas, oil, other? 4 Co-products dealt with? If Yes: By allocation? By system expansion? Secondary material 5 Material marginal. Average or specific? Which? 6 Electricity marginal: which? Hydro, biomass, coal, gas, oil, other? 7 Steam marginal: which? Biomass, coal, gas, oil, other?

Mat

eria

l pro

duct

ion

8 Co-products dealt with? If Yes: By allocation? By system expansion?

9 Product dependent material recovery included? Yes/no

Ant

e -

mat

eria

l re

cove

ry

10 Type of product dependent material recovery

11 Disposal comparison e.g.: recycling vs. incineration 12 Emissions from landfill included? Considered/ no information 13 Energy from incineration substitutes heat? Considered/ no information 14 Energy from incineration substitutes electricity? Considered/ no information 15 Alternative use of incineration capacity included? Considered/ no

information

Mat

eria

l dis

posa

l

16 In which ratio does recycled material substitute virgin material? (1:1 or 1:0.5 or other)

Two examples

Plastics (10 studies, 60 scenarios)

Glass (11 studies, 25 scenarios)

Representation of results:Relative difference calculations

[Impact from glass recycling] - [Impact from landfilling glass]_________________________________________[Impact from landfilling glass]

11.1

10.1

9.1

8.2

4.1

3.1

2.7

2.6

2.3

2.2 2.5

7.1 1.1 9.2 2.1 2.4

-3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

3

1

0

7

5

9

Glass: Recycling vs. LandfillCO2-eq. saving from recycling CO2-eq. saving from landfill

Nu

mb

er

of

scen

ari

os

X.Y X.YClosed loop recycling scenario Open loop recycling scenario

Plastics: Recycling vs. Incineration

Filling some of the gaps ~WRAP LCAs in progress/ being considered LCA of drinks containers, including PLA

LCA of Plasterboard

LCA of Aggregates

Further work on ‘open loop’ system: glass water filtration medium

ConclusionsReview has increased understanding

~ why differences occur~ critical assumptions/ boundary conditions for

each material

Results broadly applicable to UK waste management context

Identified gaps

Allowed indicative estimates of current UK benefits of recycling

The full report:

http://www.wrap.org.uk/about_wrap/environmental.html