Collection and infrastructure cost optimization and separate collection of biowaste. Alberto Confalonieri

Transcription

1 Collection and infrastructure cost optimization and separate collection of biowaste Alberto Confalonieri High level Seminar on policy instruments to improve municipal waste management Brussels, 19 march 2013

2 Contextual remarks: More than just waste management Biodegradables represent the vast majority of MSW arisings (above all in S. Europe) Proper management often driven by strategies to reduce impacts of disposal Landfill diversion targets (EU Landfill Directive) Major contributor to GHGs from inappropriate management of MSW Extended benefits: soils, farmlands, the environment Climate Change (UNFCCC) Desertification (UNCCD) Biodiversity, fertility, resilience, prevention of floods, erosion (e.g. EU Soil Thematic Strategy)

3 Development of source separation of biowaste in the EU Obligations for biowaste management NL: compulsory schemes for separate collection AUT: obligation upon households to either take part in separate collection or to compost in the backyard GER: KrW-AbfG separate collection widely diffused Catalunya (Spain): ley 6/95 compulsory for all Municipalities with a pop. > 5000 (recently extended to cover all Municipalities) SK (Act 24/04): Garden Waste to be separately collected by 2006; biowaste by 2010 Targets EU: 50% recycling SWE: 35% composting target ITA, UK: recycling targets acting as drivers

4 What does it take to increase separate collection? integrated schemes, kerbside food waste + PAYT integrated schemes, kerbside food waste separation Road containers + kerbside (doorstep) for a few dry recyclables (paper) added systems, organics included through containers on the road added systems, containers on the road for dry recyclables 80 % 70 % 50 % 40 % 20 %

5 A remarkable, quick and longlasting effect % recycling Kerbside biowaste collection implemented 0 1st sem. '92 2nd sem. '92 1st sem. '93 2nd sem. '93 1st sem. '94 2nd sem. '94 1st sem. '95 2nd sem. '95 1st sem. '96 2nd sem. '96 1st sem. '97 2nd sem. '97 1st sem. '98 2nd sem. '98 1st sem. '99 2nd sem. '99 1st sem. '00 2nd sem. '00 Time

6 Best Recycling Municipalities, pop < 10,000 inhabitants 9

7 Province capitals (larger towns, with high-rise buildings) 10

8 Turin Pop. 909,000 Separate collection = 42% 404,000 inhabitants with collection at the doorstep ( kerbside ) Waste separation in neighbourhoods with kerbside, incl. food waste = 59% Waste separation in neighbourhoods without kerbside (road containers, 3,2 m 3 ) = 25% 11

9 Salerno 150,000 inhabitants Pilot project covering 30,000 inhab., July 2008 Extension in 5 steps, completed in September 2009 Separate collection= 75 % Organics 50%! Florianopolis october 28, 2010 Patrizia Lo Sciuto Slide by Enzo Favoino 14

10 Cost optimisation (Lombardy, 1500 Cost of collection (green bars) and cost of treatment/disposal Municipalities) (blue bars) Euro/person

11 TOOLS AND STRATEGIES TO CUT COSTS Tool Details Applies where.. Reducing pickup time Hand pick-up of small receptacles much faster than mechanical loading food waste collected separately from garden waste, in small receptacles Reduction of the frequency for collection of Residuals Effective systems to collect biowaste make its percentage in Residuals less than 15 % captures of biowaste are increased Use of bulk lorries instead of packer trucks Bulk density of food waste is much higher (0.7kg/dm3) than garden waste tools for collection of food waste prevent deliveries of garden waste

12 Low-tech, modular approaches (particularly suited for small districts, pilot areas, small islands)

13 Centralised Anaerobic/aerobic facilities Turn biogenic C into a substitute fuel wider benefits (renewable energy AND soil improvers) Not dependent on availability of bulking materials (e.g. metropolitan areas, lack of gardens) Odour impact reduction Less space demanding than composting alone Unit investment and operational cost usually higher than composting (in spite of revenues from energy production, even if Renewable Energy is subsidised) Cost for the management of wastewaters requires good integration of waste management and management of wastewater

14 Residual Waste Pretreatment According to landfill directive, residual waste has to be pretreated before disposal Besides thermal treatment, also biological treatment (MBT) is able to reduce/degrade/mineralise biodegradable materials (80-90% loss of fermentability) and optimise landfilling of outputs Worth considering: Costs (Cap.Ex. and Op.Ex.) Flexibility (possibility to turn into sites processing separately collected materials) Scalability (viability of options also at low throughputs: rural areas, small waste management districts) Timeline for construction! (the sooner, the better)

15 Summary remarks Separate collection of biowaste a PROVEN strategy Similar schemes deliver similar results everywhere MAKE IT HAPPEN! intensive collection of food waste may deliver High separate collection rates high diversion of BMW savings on cost of managing waste Biowaste recovery technologies can be adapted to different situations and territorial peculiarities Residual Waste pre-treatment through MBT can answer to dynamic RD systems, where flexibility, modularity and promptness are the keywords of success

16 Thank you Alberto Confalonieri