FRONTIERS OF ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY IN WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE FRAMEWORK OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Transcription

1 The 5 th PSU-UNS International Conference on Engineering and Technology (ICET-2011), Phuket, May 2-3, 2011 Prince of Songkla University, Faculty of Engineering Hat Yai, Songkhla, Thailand FRONTIERS OF ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY IN WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE FRAMEWORK OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Goran Vujic 1 1 University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Technical Sciences, Novi Sad, Serbia *Authors to correspondence should be addressed via goranvujic@uns.ac.rs Abstract: In the past protection of human health and safety represented the main reason for waste management. Protection of human health and the environment, even today, stands as the purpose of waste management. Increased transformation of materials highly influences the waste management system. Transformation of materials for prehistoric men amounted up to 5-6 tons per year, while for modern men today it goes up to tons per year. This level of material use led to the fact that around 1.2 billion tons of municipal waste has been produced in the world annually. Therefore, today it is not enough to protect human health only through adequate management, but it is also necessary for waste management to be sustainable. In developed countries, where it is possible to use significant financial resources, the most common are sophisticated techniques, such as incineration, while in developing countries potential solutions are sanitary landfills with possible implementation of MBT, due to the fact that incineration, even though it is probably the best solution, can hardly be implemented in developing countries due to the high operational cost. Recycling is very popular, but not all problems could be solved only by recycling. Landfilling, as the final destination of numerous materials will definitely subsist in undeveloped and developed countries as well, since it represents the basis of waste management system and numerous researches have been focused on landfills as final destination of materials we use or transform through various types of waste treatment. Serbia is currently in process of joining European Union, and together with development of entire society and the economy, adequate development of waste management system is also very important. As transition country with 3582 landfills and annual production of 0.87 kg capita -1 day -1, and very hard economic situation, Serbia seeks for solution of problem with waste. Kuznetov s curve confirms that it is imposible to skip certain steps in the development of the waste management system in undeveloped countries, which means that transition countries will have to find less expensive solution to waste management problems. 1. INTRODUCTION Consumption of goods has been significantly increased in past two centuries. The increase in material usage is closely connected with economic development of the society. The most obvious difference between transformation of material in the past and now is represented by the amount of material accumulated in the economy, and which will sooner or later end up in the waste management system. This system of consumption and transformation of material today has caused high amounts of generated waste, which has to be dealt with adequately. Figure 1. Transformation of material in history and today (Bruner & Rechebrger 2004) The whole Total municipal waste collected in the entire world in 2004 was estimated to amount 1.2 billion tons. This information is based on collection and processing of statistical data for most of the developed countries. For the rest of the world, the calculation has been based on samples from urban areas and extrapolated data, based on parameters such as GDP per capita, urbanization rate and ratio of paper consumption and paper products per capita. More precisely, this

2 information is related only to OEBS countries and urban areas in transition countries, and developing countries. It is impossible to obtain data on waste amounts which were not formally recorded in rural areas of the countries such as India and China. By expressing data in tons of waste per capita, collected during a one year period, we come up with the value of 700 kg per year per capita in USA and less than 150 kg per year per capita in urban areas in countries such as India. Due to the obvious difference between values we are dealing with contradictory situation in regards to collection and type of waste (the richer the population, the waste is more sophisticated and includes more packages, less food waste and more paper, plastic, glass, metal and toxic waste). Naturally, the differences are related to the methods of treatment and reuse. In Paneuropean countries, except in some EU-10 countries, generation of municipal waste is rising. Increased generation of municipal waste is related to increased consumption in households (for instance furniture and equipment) and the replacement rate of numerous products (Veolia and Environment). Figure 2. Municipal waste treatment in Europe (Graph by CEWEP, Source: Еurostat 2009) Waste management in Serbia is facing period of rapid and fundamental changes. Few years ago, waste management system consisted of collecting and disposing of waste to municipal landfills, which in most cases didn t fulfill sanitary standards for solid waste landfills. In order to create basis for development of waste management systems one the first steps was development inventory of all landfills in Serbia, which was followed by determination of waste quantity generation and its compostion. Research results show that Serbia have more than 3500 landfills, from which 180 are officiall municipal landfills. Data about amount and composition of waste in Serbia were based on conducted project for quantification and morphological municipal solid waste analysis in 10 representative Serbian municipalities with diverse socio-economic status. Results show that Serbia generates tonnes of waste annually, which yields the average of 0.87 kg capita -1 day -1 (Vujic et al. 2010). The most dominant fractions are garden waste (12.14%) and other biodegradable waste (37.62%) followed by plastics (10%) and its subcategory - plastic bags (4%-7%). Paper, glass and cardboard contribute by 2% to 10% (Vujic et al. 2010). This is very similar with waste composition in other developing countries. Developed countries generate more paper and cardboard packaging and less organic waste. Many studies show that organic waste is present in higher percentage in developing countries comparing to developed countries which is vice versa when comparing to other waste categories such as paper and plastics. Figure 3. Kuznetsov s curve Kuznetsov s curve points out on the relation between the level of income and environmental pressure. The same can be applied to the waste management system. In order to achieve certain technical progress related to the issue of waste management and reduction of negative effects on the environment the growth of GDP is necessary at the same time. In other words, only by GDP growth, and therefore the population s standard of living, we can achieve the level in which we can upgrade our systems with advanced technologies. 2. STATUS AND PERSPECTIVES OF WASTE MANAGEMENT IN TRANSITION AND DEVELOPED COUNTRIES Serbia, as on example of transition country, is currently in process of joining European Union, and together with development of entire society and the economy, adequate development of waste management system is also very important. Analysing the development of waste management it can be concluded that the Republic of Serbia is currently in similar position as countries in Europe where waste management in now at a very high level, (Netherlands, Germany, Austria) were in 1970th. Faced with new trends and new knowledge, questions how to solve problems in waste management and how to achieve goals of waste management are in front of decision makers. Before some decision are made, it is important to notice that goals of waste management are protection of man and the environment and conservation of recourse and after care free (what is now goal in developed countries) and the different treatment technologies are only tools to reach this goals. Relation between GDP and waste management system rate is obvious. Although that social, cultural, religious and historical factors are also important, growth of GDP have direct impact on amount of generated waste and possibility of implementation adequate waste management system. Dependence of waste generation rate and GDP and type of waste treatment was obtained in the research

3 conducted by Bruner & Fellner. Results show that in Vienna (GDP kg/capita/year) Damascus (GDP 1360 kg/capita/year) and Dhaka City (GDP 370 kg/capita/year) waste generation rate is 545, 225 and 140 kg/capita/year respectively, which indicate the correlation between GDP and waste generation rate. It also interesting to notice that in Vienna where cost for waste management is 106 /capita/year 28% of this amount is used for waste treatment, while in Damascus where cost of waste management 3.8 /capita/year only 9% is used for different waste treatment, and in Dhaka City with cost of waste management is 0.7 /capita/year 90% and 10% is used only for collection and landfiling. According to mentioned, it is important to make comparative analysis of historical steps of waste management system in different countries, together with social and economical situation in Serbia as a developing country. If we compare the reduction of waste in the Netherlands and Germany with a GDP/capita/year clear dependence cannot be obtained, but it can be noticed that the value of GDP /capita/year was over International Geary-Khamis dollars, with constant growth until the minimum landfill number was reached (2003 in Netherlands and 2006 in Germany) the value of GDP/capita/year was near 20,000 in 1990 International Geary-Khamis dollars. Compared with developing countries where waste disposal or illegal dumping which predominantly like Romania, Bulgaria, Argentina and Serbia (as Yugoslavia, Serbia has until 1990 been part of Yugoslavia) GDP/capita/year is significantly lower, ranging about International Geary-Khamis dollars. It is very important to notice that reducing the number of landfills in Netherlands lasted approximately 23 years from 1980 to 2003, and in Germany 20 years from 1986 to It is also important to compare the ratio of taxes that citizens pay for the waste treatment. Figure 3. Overview of landfill taxes in different countries From the figure can be noticed that the fee per hh/year in the Netherlands increases with reducing waste and introducing advanced technologies. From 100 /hh/year in 1990 reached 220 /hh/year in 2003 when the minimum number of landfills is reached. Tax in Serbia in the city of Novi Sad reached from 25 /hh /year to 30 in 2003 while in 2010 reached 36 Euro/hh/year. Further investment depends on the degree of economy development, but also the ability of relevant institutions and decision makers to recognize the importance of investment in the field of waste management Above mentioned, facts strongly indicates the neccesisety of high GDP which directly influence on the possibility to finance the waste management system with modern waste treatment technologies. It is impossible to finance the treatment technologies with 30 /capita/year (example Vienna) when the overall budget for waste management is much lower (Bruner and Fellner 2007). Serbian government and professional public community is under constant pressure concerning how to achieve goals for waste management as soon as possible and harmonize policy with official policy. Many experts from European Union states that mistakes that developed countries experienced in the waste management should not be repeated by developing countries, and that developing countries must make their on way to developed waste management systems bearing in mind mistakes that mentioned developed countries experienced. Republic of Serbia adopted a set of law on packaging waste and joined the great family of European countries that have a green point system. After the laws are set and the targets for recycling of packaging waste in of 4%, then in % and 25% in 2014 are defined. These goals are defined very ambitious, and leave the question what should be done with the rest waste (75%). Once again it should be noted that amount of waste that could be recycled is 38% (with highly optimistic 100% efficiency of separating) of waste in Serbia. According to above mentioned facts it is necessary that countries with transition economies seek for the solution that will be affordable to their economies and citizens, on one hand and have less influence on environmental and human health impact comparing to status quo on the other hand. Landfilling of waste with all necessary technical-technological measures, will be important and dominant way of waste disposal, in Serbia and in other developing countries. Role of landfill is also important in developed societies, where research are focused on the achieving final storage landfill quality, and developing a model for long term monitoring of landfills emission. These are the question where modern science is seeking for answers. We must develop adequate technologies to reach these goals. Landfills as a final sink of many materials represent an important part of every waste management systems (Fellner 2010 & Sharf 2010). Recent studies (Vujic et al 2011) show that plastic can represent a problem in the future. Due to the growing consumption of plastic materials, their share in the generated waste is constantly increasing. An appropriate management of this category of waste may significantly reduce the needs for this kind of material as a primary resource. Serbia has more than 99% of plastic materials directly land-filled without any pretreatment, and mainly in uncontrolled landfills. Observing today`s patterns of plastic flow, results conducted with Material Flow Analysis for the period indicates that the amount of plastic materials in the country economy stocks wase 475,000 tons and almost 3,100,000 tons in the landfills (Fig 4).

4 ensure future development of waste management and make a basis and pathway for implementation sophisticated and expensive waste treatment technologies. 3. CONCLUSION Figure 4. Plastics flows and stocks in Serbia (Vujic et al 2011) This picture above indicates that amount of plastic is increasing every year in landfills in Serbia. The largest final sink for plastic in Serbia is 3500 landfill all over the country. Landfill mining can be a challenge of the future waste management in Serbia. Landfill mining is also an issue in developed countries. Some researches are focused on this approach in waste management, since old landfills will also represent a future resourses in advance societies (Rettenberger 2010, &Tran et all). If this patterns of plastic flows continue in the next ten years on landfill in Serbia about 5,687,000 tons of different kind of plastics will be landfilled (Vujic et all 2011), which may represent a future for landfill mining. Total estimated investments required for application of measures envisaged in action plan for the period from are 447 million and 958 million cumulative until As it can be expected, the most significant part of total investments is related to the systems and plants for municipal waste management. For that purpose 380 million is required by 2014 (85% of total amount) and 806 million by 2019 (84% of total amount). Annual investments reach the maximum in 2014 amounting 180 million and steadily decrease until Operational costs steadily increase in accordance with the cumulation of investments and amount 201 million per year in Advanced technologies for waste treatment are several times more expensive comparing to landfiling even when the cost of aftercare period of several decades is included in landfiling. Cost of waste incineration is about 100 Euro/tons, the treatment of waste in modern composting plants is more more than 40 per ton. Costs of the recycling depends on the market of secondary materials, but the overall process of recycling that includes separate collection, transport, treatment, recycling and re-use of secondary raw materials is around 80 /tone. All waste treatment technologies have considerably higher costs comparing to sanitary landfilling which is about 20 per ton of municipal solid waste. So from today`s perspective of pathway of waste management in developed countries, and current status in developing countries, it is important to emphasizes that expensive solutions are not feasible in countries with low economic poverty. Solutions in transition economies must be affordable, since only this kind of solutions will have a positive impact on the waste management, and following environmental pressure. Only this way can Since many materials end up in the waste management systems around the world, they must be able to handle not only with these materials, but at affordable costs. The open question is are the solutions, and pathways of developed economies could be the same for developing regions. Are the undeveloped regions with low GDP capable to receive expensive sophisticated technologies into their waste management systems with costs of up to 100 Euro per capita. Currently there are over 3500 uncontrolled landfills in Serbia, and only 3.5 % of generated waste is sanitary landfilled, and not all citizens are covered with waste collection systems. Serbia identified in its strategy of waste management several incinerators, MBT plants, with landfills predominance. Low GDP, and expenditures for waste management are very realistic indicators, that modern technologies are not sustainable solution for developing countries, until certain level of economic development. The basic mistake is the opinions that it is necessary to avoid the waste management system based on landfills. The question is whether it is possible achieve the goals of waste management at affordable cost, or whether it is possible to develop a modern waste management system without landfills that represents the basis of every waste management system. Huge amounts of exploited materials around the world ends up in wastes, and it is not possible to recycle 100% of these materials, landfills represent a feasible solutions for developing countries, but also they are necessary in developed regions, since they represent a final sink of many materials. Landfills are definitely sustainable solutions for developing regions with MBT as a next step of the future developments. Transition of waste management systems is also inevitable. All undeveloped regions and countries must be aware that skipping some steps in waste management development could have only negative effects, and that experience from developed regions must and should be used as an example and guide, but only on a right way. 4. REFERENCES [1] Allgaier, G., & Stegmann, R.(2006) Preliminary assessment of old landfills, Proceedings of Seminario Workshop Tecnologie per la riduzione degli impatti e la bonifica delle discariche, Montegrotto Terme (Padova), 7-9 June, Centro di Ingegneria Sanitaria Ambientale, Italia. [2] Bruner P. H., Recheberger H., Practical Handbook of Material Flow Analysis., Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, [3] Brunner P.H., Fellner J., (2007), Setting priorities for waste management strategies in developing countries, Waste Management & Research, 25,

5 [4] Centre for Strategic Economic Studies Vojvodina- CESS Economic Forecast for Serbia 2009 and 2010 Slow recovery follows sharp downturn. [5] Cewep, Confederation of European Waste to energy plants. Assessed On line at: 3 [6] Fellner, J., Laner, D., Bruner P., H., & Paul H. BRUNNER, The Role of Landfilling within a Sustainable Urban Society, ISWA World Congress, Hamburg [7] Lacoste E., Chalmin P., (2007), Veolia Environemnt, From Waste to Resource, In: 2006 World Waste Survey, (Ed.) Economica, Paris. [8] Retenberger., D., Reduction of GHG-Emissions through Landfill Mining, ISWA World Congress Hamburg [9] Sharf. H., The need for landfill in a sustainable society., Developing a concept for mining of old landfill sites, From Sanitary to Sustainable 2010, Vienna. [10] Tran, N, Hoai., Fricke, K., Műnnich. K., Bahr. Tobias., Bauer. J., Developing a concept for mining of old landfill sites, From Sanitary to Sustainable 2010, Vienna. [11] Vujic G., Batinic B., Stanisavljevic N., Ubavin D., From landfill to 3R, pathway in developed as well in developing country, From Sanitary to Sustainable 2010, Vienna [12] Vujić G., Jovičić N., Babić M., Stanisavljevic N., Batinić B., Pavlović A., Assessment of Plastic Flows and Stocks in Serbia Using Material Flow Analysis., 2010, Thermal Science Vol. 14, Suppl., pp. S89-S95 [13] Vujić, G., Jovičić, N., Redžić, N., Jovičič, G., Batinić, B., Stanisavljević, N., Abuhress, O.A. (2010) A fast method for the analysis of municipal solid waste in developing countries - case study of Serbia. Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, 9, 8,