LogiWEEE and SmartEEre Nordic cooperation projects to improve collection and logistics of WEEE in Sweden and Norway

Transcription

1 LogiWEEE and SmartEEre Nordic cooperation projects to improve collection and logistics of WEEE in Sweden and Norway Brussels, November 18 th 2014 Hanne Lerche Raadal Ostfold Research (Østfoldforskning)

2 Ostfold Research (Østfoldforskning) Norwegian research company, located in Fredrikstad Number of staff: 20 Performs applied research and development within Environmental Protection, based on Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology: Energy and waste resources Food and packaging Buildings and constructions Furnitures and textiles Networks and innovation processes Project examples, waste related: BioValueChain (efficient value chains for biogas production) Carbon footprint of different waste types and treatment methods

3 Aim of the projects LogiWEEE Contribute to higher transport efficiency and lower costs for the collection system of WEEE as well as increase the environmental and resource efficiency at a system level. Period: SmartEEre Increase the transport efficiency and effectiveness and lower the costs of Elretur s collection system without decreasing the resource efficiency of the system. Period: Comparative studies for mutual learning

4 Funding and participants LogiWEEE Vinnova (Sweden s innovation agency and partners: El-kretsen and EÅF: producer responsibility organisations for WEEE Sweden Norwegian Research Council Research partners: Chalmers University of Technology, IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute and Chalmers Industrial Technology SmartEEre ( only in Norwegian) Norwegian Research Council and partners Elretur: producer responsibility organisation for WEEE Norway Transporters, treatment companies (e.g. Stena), packaging producers (e.g. EnviroPac), IT companies (GeoData, GSI Norway), branch organisations for waste (Waste Management Norway) Research partners: Ostfold Research, BI (Norwegian Business School), GS1, Geodata

5 Comparative study Sweden Norway in order to investigate The implementation of the WEEE Directive and policy instruments for effective recycling systems for WEEE External drivers and barriers Logistic efficiency and effectiveness of recycling systems for WEEE in the two countries Internal drivers/barriers partly result of the external conditions?

6 WEEE in Norway and Sweden

7 1. Comparing implementation of regulations Example differences on a system level Producer responsibility organisations (take-back companies) Collection of WEEE Norway 5 2 Retailers (all) and recycling centres (all PRO) Sweden Product groups 14 categories 10 categories Clearing system No Yes Collection points > Retailers (selling area > 400 m 2 ) (EÅF) and recycling centres (Elkretsen) Industrial waste included in the EPR system Payment model for transportation costs Municipality agreements Yes Per tonne One agreement per municipality and the negotiated PRO No (only household equipment) Per cage One common agreement (Avfall Sverige - Elkretsen) 0,3 SEK/kg

8 Five WEEE-take back companies in Norway Share of collected WEEE 28% 6% Each of the 5 take-back company must collect their own market share within all the municipalities Must cover 90 % of the municipalities 25% 41% A lot of transport/collection for different WEEE-take back companies within the same areas.

9 Two WEEE-take back companies in Sweden Share of collected WEEE/ market share 77% 23% tons from stores tons cleared from recycling centres

10 2. Comparing «similar» regions Comparing regions in the two countries with regard to inhabitants, area, density Describe similarities/differences Calculate Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) Case region Localisation of treatment facilities

11 Regions being compared Case 1: Oslo Gøteborg Case 2: Lillehammer Karlskoga Case 3: Tromsø - Østersund

12 Area and density

13 The collection and transport system Collection point Pre-treatment facilities (examples) Municipal recycling stations Sweden: 99% Municipality Retailers/stores Norway: 66% Norway: 33% Sorting Sweden: 1%

14 Develop and calculate KPIs for comparing and evaluating the WEEE systems KPI may be stated as rations or as actual or nominal inputs or outputs (Kalantari, 2012). This project will look at the WEEE system performance in terms of: System characteristics (how the system look like) System efficiency (the relationship between the input and output) System effectiveness (the quality of the process output).

15 Examples KPIs: System characteristics KPI Number of collection points per capita (nr/capita) Volumes per collection point (volume in total) Description Say something about how scattered the system is (influences transport efficiency) Number of collection points per kg WEEE (nr/kg) Proportion of vehicle powered by renewable fuels in fleet (percent) Number of inhabitants per km2 Share of inhabitants living in densely populated areas Number of companies organizing collection in the region Environmental measurement

16 Example KPI system caracteristics

17 Examples KPIs: System efficiency KPI Number of km driven per kg collected WEEE (km/kg) Filling rate in the vehicle (percentage) Capacity work (tonkm) Transport efficiency (percentage) Empty running (km) Capacity work/transport costs (tonkm/costs) Deliver frequency (times/week) Description System efficiency The ration of the total utilized and available capacity for the loading units, e.g. fleet of truck Sum of distance driven by each vehicle times individual capacity for each vehicle. The ration of external transport work (what is payed for) and capacity work The distance the vehicle travels empty Say something about the efficiency from a transport perspective How often does Pre-treater receive delivery

18 Example «retailer distance» in the North of Norway

19 Example transport efficiencies and distances Tromsø region Retailer Recycling centre Distance 95 km km 1 km - 8,1 km

20 Material flows in Östersund Municipal recycling stations 870 km 980 km 199 km Östersund municipality responsible for the transport El-kretsen responsible for the transport

21 Use of GIS (maps) Resources WEEE Driving distances from pick-up points to sorting/pre-treatment

22 Important to remember Correct waste treatment is of major importance Example: Preventing the release of refrigerant gases from 1refrigerator = emissions of greenhouse gases of 600 kg CO 2 - ekvivalenter 3000 km driving.

23 Pilot testing of new solution for safe collection of small electronics with storage capacities Elretur at Avfallsdagene in Trondheim May 2014 Main elements in the pilot solution Comply with intentions in revised WEEE directive: safe collection of mobile phones RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) solution for tracing information about containers Containers with security locks and authorized opening Sensor gives automatically signals when the container is full - prevent transport Possible further development with automatic weighing and feedback to users about safe treatment of content in containers

24 Further work Continue the work on describing the systems System level Regional level (calculate KPIs) in order to answer the questions 1. How are the Norwegian and Swedish WEEE systems structured and organised what are the similarities and dissimilarities? 2. What are the main differences in system efficiency and effectiveness between the two countries, and what are the major reasons/factors for these differences? 3. What are the effects of national and regional characteristics, national regulations and politics and what are systems related differences? 4. How can the systems efficiency and effectiveness in the respective countries be improved?

25 Main outcome of the projects Better understanding of the differences between the systems in Norway and Sweden Basis for understanding internal and external efficiency and effectiveness drivers and barriers Importance of regulations and systems characteristics for efficiency and effectiveness of the systems Basis for further development and improvement of the systems Scientific papers

26 Thanks for your attention! Contact details: