Criteria for eco-efficient (sustainable) plastic recycling and waste management

Transcription

1 Criteria for eco-efficient (sustainable) plastic recycling and waste management Fact based findings from 20 years of denkstatt studies September 11 th 2014 denkstatt GmbH Hietzinger Hauptstrasse 28 A-1130 Vienna Austria T denkstatt (+43)1 786 GmbH Hietzinger F (+43)1 Hauptstrasse A-1130 Vienna Austria E T (+43)1 office@denkstatt.at F W (+43) office@denkstatt.at

2 Part 1: The Influence of Recycling Rates on Resource Efficiency of Packaging denkstatt GmbH Hietzinger Hauptstrasse 28 A-1130 Vienna Austria T denkstatt (+43)1 786 GmbH Hietzinger F (+43)1 Hauptstrasse A-1130 Vienna Austria E T (+43)1 office@denkstatt.at F W (+43) office@denkstatt.at

3 Resource / energy / carbon footprint efficiency pf packaging per kg packed good The following slides compare the resource efficiency / energy efficiency / carbon footprint efficiency of packaging per kg packed good for plastic packaging compared to alternative materials all plastic packaging and respective alternatives, waste management varied from 2007 residual waste management + zero recycling to estimated optimum recycling and residual waste management situation PET bottles vs. alternative materials, waste management varied from estimated worst to estimated optimum situation Results were calculated with the model elaborated for 2010 Denkstatt study on energy and GHG emissions Data for average packaging mass per kg packed good for all plastic packaging were contributed by GVM ( Slide 3

4 Energy Resource Efficiency of average plastic packaging compared to alternative materials In 2007 the energy resource efficiency of plastic packaging was 1.9 times higher than the efficiency of alternative packaging materials (even if plastic recycling rate was lower) Average life-cycle energy demand of plastic packaging per kg of product packed in plastic today, and of mix of alternative packaging for the same products (material mix as used on the market). Upper section of columns shows influence of waste management, especially of different recycling levels: 0% recycling combined with 2007 residual waste management conditions shows highest results, maximum recycling (rest to optimised energy recovery) gives lowest results. Slide 4

5 Carbon Footprint Efficiency of average plastic packaging compared to alternative materials In 2007 the carbon footprint efficiency of plastic packaging was 2.6 times higher than the efficiency of alternative packaging materials (even if plastic recycling rate was lower) Average life-cycle GHG emissions of plastic packaging per kg of product packed in plastic today, and of mix of alternative packaging for the same products (material mix as used on the market). Upper section of columns shows influence of waste management, especially of different recycling levels: 0% recycling combined with 2007 residual waste management conditions shows highest results, maximum recycling (rest to optimised energy recovery) gives lowest results. Slide 5

6 Absolute energy and GHG savings realised by plastic packaging in EU-27 in 2012 Benefits shown in figures above: 57.8 MJ/kg plastic packaging 3,3 kg CO 2 e/kg plastic packaging Combined with plastic packaging mass produced in EU-27 in 2012 (18,1 Mill. tonnes, [PlasticsEurope 2013]), resulting absolute energy and GHG savings realised by plastic packaging in EU-27 in 2012 are Energy benefit: 1045 Mill GJ/a GHG benefit: 60 Mill tonnes CO 2 e/a Transformation of these figures into tangible results is shown in slides 9 11 Slide 6

7 Energy Resource Efficiency of different options to pack drinks which are offered in plastic today Today the energy resource efficiency of plastic bottles is 2.9 times higher than the efficiency of alternative packaging materials (even if plastic recycling rate is lower) Average life-cycle energy demand of PET bottles per litre of beverage for drinks packed in plastic today, and of mix of alternative packaging for the same drinks (material mix as used on the market today). Upper section of columns shows maximum influence of waste management, especially of different recycling levels: 0% recycling combined with 100% landfill shows highest results, maximum recycling (rest to energy recovery) gives lowest results. Slide 7

8 Carbon Footprint Efficiency of different options to pack drinks which are offered in plastic today Today the carbon footprint efficiency of plastic bottles is 4.6 times higher than the efficiency of alternative packaging materials (even if plastic recycling rate is lower) Average life-cycle GHG emissions of PET bottles per litre of beverage for drinks packed in plastic today, and of mix of alternative packaging for the same drinks (material mix as used on the market today). Upper section of columns shows maximum influence of waste management, especially of different recycling levels: 0% recycling combined with 100% MSWI shows highest results, maximum recycling (rest to energy recovery) gives lowest results. Slide 8

9 How much energy is 1,045 Mill GJ/a? Ultra 1, large Mill crude GJ/a is oil is equivalent tanker to to Jahre 23 22,4 Mill Viking Mill tonnes tonnes can of carry crude of crude oil oil or or Mill ultra litres large of crude oil oil tankers, lined up up for kilometres or heating and hot water for 41 million people (half of Germany) for a year Slide 9

10 How much energy is 1,045 Mill GJ/a? equivalent to the primary fuel input of 10 nuclear power plants with MW Slide 10

11 60 Mt/a additional CO 2 emissions are equiv. to 331 billion car kilometers or 22 million cars less on the road or comparable to the total greenhouse gas emissions of Norway (50 Mt) or Ireland (69 Mt) Slide 11

12 Conclusions of part 1 Resource/energy/GHG efficiency of packaging can be high (best) even with low recycling rates The influence of waste management options on packaging resource efficiency is usually smaller than the influence of material choice Resource efficiency of plastic packaging is considerably higher than that of alternative packaging for the same goods, even with lower recycling rates The material/energy/ghg reduction already realised by the switch from other materials to plastic packaging is often several times higher than the remaining optimisation potential for higher plastic recycling Slide 12

13 Part 2: Aspects and Methodologies to Identify Eco-efficient (Sustainable) Recycling Potentials Environmental, Economic and Social Aspects denkstatt GmbH Hietzinger Hauptstrasse 28 A-1130 Vienna Austria T denkstatt (+43)1 786 GmbH Hietzinger F (+43)1 Hauptstrasse A-1130 Vienna Austria E T (+43)1 office@denkstatt.at F W (+43) office@denkstatt.at

14 Aspects related to sustainable recycling criteria Environmental benefits of main recycling & recovery options Does a simple hierarchy for plastic waste recovery options exist? Economic aspects, eco-efficiency, cost-benefit balance Do environmental benefits of increased recycling justify add. costs? Quality of recyclates, market demand/potentials for using recyclates High quality recycling vs. down-cycling ; quality of products containing recyclates (both reflected in market prices of recyclates); export of waste Sustainable management of substances / additives REACH/RoHS and recycling; concentration, dissipation, and final sinks of substances Social issues Social costs of separate collection (time, space & costs in households) Working conditions in sorting plants Health, safety, convenience of consumers using recycled Common understanding and commitment in stakeholder groups Slide 14

15 Eco-efficiency: A key aspect of the full picture of sustainability The following presentation focusses on two dimensions Environmental aspects Economic aspects which are aggregated under the headlines of Eco-efficiency: direct comparison of costs and environmental effects, e.g. in form of GHG abatement costs, given in EUR per tonne of CO 2 ; and/or Cost-Benefit Analysis: Integration of environmental impacts by monetising environmental impacts Both concepts integrate environmental and economic aspects into one aggregated picture Social issues, but also subjects of sustainable substance flow management are not covered in this presentation Slide 15

16 LCA and CBA (cost-benefit analysis) in EU-Legislation (I) Packaging Directive: Member States shall, where appropriate, encourage energy recovery, where it is preferable to material-recycling for environmental and cost-benefit reasons.... fix targets... based on the practical experience gained... and the findings of scientific research and evaluation techniques such as life-cycle assessments and cost-benefit analysis. This process shall be repeated every five years. WEEE Directive:... recognised that the choice of options in any particular case must have regard to environmental and economic effects but that until scientific and technological progress is made and life-cycle analyses are further developed, reuse and material recovery should be considered preferable where and in so far as they are the best environmental options. Slide 16

17 LCA and CBA in EU-Legislation (II) Waste Framework Directive... clarify key concepts such as... to introduce an approach that takes into account the whole life-cycle of products and materials and not only the waste phase... When applying the waste hierarchy referred to in paragraph 1, Member States shall take measures to encourage the options that deliver the best overall environmental outcome. This may require specific waste streams departing from the hierarchy where this is justified by life-cycle thinking on the overall impacts of the generation and management of such waste. Slide 17

18 Part 3: Environmental Assessment of Various Recycling and Recovery Options for Plastic Waste denkstatt GmbH Hietzinger Hauptstrasse 28 A-1130 Vienna Austria T (+43) F (+43) office@denkstatt.at Slide 18

19 Benefits of Recycling & Recovery for Energy & GHG Emissions (example LDPE) 40 Energy [MJ/kg plastic waste] GHG emissions [kg CO 2 -Equiv. per kg plastic waste] Landfilling Net benefit of recovery MSWI with average energy efficiency Energy recovery with high energy efficiency Material recycling (plastic to pl.) 2) 1) 2) 1) Feedstock recycling (e.g. blast furnace) Source: Denkstatt (2010) Impacts of collection, sorting and recycling processes as well as credits due to substituted primary production and substituted primary fuels are already summed up in the figures above Plastic waste is a valuable secondary resource Slide 19

20 1.000 t CO 2 - equiv. / a Reviewed Carbon Footprint Model of Austrian Packaging Recovery System ARA Carbon Footprint Impacts and Benefits of Packaging Recycling & Recovery by ARA Austria, Source: Denkstatt (2011) : System Administration (1 st column, not visible) 2: Collection and transports 3: Sorting 4: Energy for mechanical recycling 5: Substituted production of virgin material 6: CO 2 emissions from energy recovery 7: Effect of substituted fossil fuels in energy recovery 8: Sum = Net-Benefit Slide 20

21 GHG net benefit (impact) of various recycling and recovery options for PE Source: Denkstatt (2014) 1. No simple hierarchy can be derived 2. Industrial energy recovery better than mixed plastic recycling 3. Recycling vs. MSWI: net benefit = 2 3 kg CO 2 / kg PE Slide 21

22 Simplified comparison of benefits of mechanical and feedstock recycling Saved energy resources by different recycling processes for plastics waste Source: Denkstatt (2007) Range of benefits by mechanical recycling Mixed plastics Benefit varies between 0 and 60 GJ/t Benefit of feedstock recycling in blast furnaces: approx. 50 GJ/t (mixed plastics!) Pure plastics GJ/t plastic waste For plastic waste, NO general hierarchy like mechanical recycling > feedstock recycling > energy recovery can be derived from facts on environmental benefits Slide 22

23 Net energy benefit of different recycling & recovery options Net Environmental Benefit Non Renewable Energy Source: Denkstatt (2003) MATERIAL RECYCLING ENERGY RECOV. Reference MSWI FEEDSTOCK REC. Fluidised bed combustion Mechanical recycling 60 % sorting depth Net benefit non renewable energy -15,00-10,00-5,00 0,00 5,00 10,00 15,00 20,00 25,00 MJ / kg Input Mixed recycling substitutes wood Mixed recycling substitutes concrete Gasification (SVZ) Solvent based rec. blast furnace Mechanical recycling 50 % sorting depth Ranges for mechanical recycling, feedstock recycling and energy recovery widely overlap; no clear hierarchy can be derived! Slide 23

24 Net GHG benefit of different recycling & recovery options Net Environmental Benefit Reduction of Global Warming Potential Source: Denkstatt (2003) MATERIAL RECYCLING ENERGY REC. Mixed recycling substitutes wood Gasification (SVZ) Solvent based recycling FEEDSTOCK RECYCLING Mixed recycling substitutes concrete Reference - MSWI Fluidised bed combustion blast furnace Mechanical recycling 60 % sorting depth Mechanical recycling 50 % sorting depth kg CO 2 e 2000 per t Input Ranges for mechanical recycling, feedstock recycling and energy recovery widely overlap; no clear hierarchy can be derived! Slide 24

25 Criteria to choose optimal feedstock recycling or energy recovery route Industrial, HIGH calorific recovery Industrial, MEDIUM calorific recovery Municipal LOW calorific recovery Exemplary process Cement kiln, blast furnace Fluidised bed combustion paper industry MSWI Calorific value of input material Efficiency of resource utilisation MJ/kg MJ/kg 8 12 MJ/kg High! High! Low - medium Quality secondary material High! (e.g. low heavy metal content) Low (comparable with residual waste) Low (comparable with residual waste) Standard of flue gas cleaning Medium (which is ok because of high input quality) High! (MSWI standard) High! Source: Denkstatt (2007) Slide 25

26 Conclusions of part 2 Plastic waste is a valuable secondary resource A wide variety of different recycling and recovery options is available and helps to substitute Virgin raw material Non renewable fuels For plastic waste, NO general waste management hierarchy like mechanical recycling > feedstock recycling > energy recovery can be derived from facts on environmental benefits Net benefit ranges of mechanical recycling, feedstock recycling and energy recovery widely overlap Benefits of industrial energy recovery are better than mixed plastic recycling, where thick section products substitute only wood or concrete For mixed plastic waste the optimal energy recovery process can be determined based on few criteria (calorific value, quality,...) Slide 26

27 Part 4: Cost-Benefit Analyses of Plastic Recycling denkstatt GmbH Hietzinger Hauptstrasse 28 A-1130 Vienna Austria T (+43) F (+43) office@denkstatt.at Slide 27

28 Cost-Benefit Analyses of Recycling and Recovery Options: Key Question Are costs of collection, sorting & recycling justified by environmental and economic benefits? Recycling should only be done when possible at a positive cost-benefit balance Then we call it eco-efficient recycling in this information package Slide 28

29 Methodology of Calculating a Cost-Benefit Balance for Recovery Systems Costs of separate collection and sorting Net costs of mechanical recycling and energy recovery + Savings on costs of residual waste collection + Savings on net costs of residual waste treatment and disposal = Result of Net Cost Analysis of Waste Management (A) + Savings on costs of primary production & conventional energy conversion; recovery revenues excluded before (B) + Savings on environmental (= external) costs (either damage costs or avoidance costs ) (C) = Cost-Benefit Balance (A+B+C) Slide 29

30 1 Cost-Benefit analysis (CBA) of domestic plastic packaging recycling in Sweden (2006) Source: Denkstatt & IVL (2007) Collection in residual waste Subst. primary production MSWI Overhead residual waste Environmental benefits Energy recovery Presorting Sorting + mechanical recycling Overhead Plastkretsen Separate collection Waste-Management net cost balance CBA-result [Mill. Swedish Krona per year] Recycling benefits cannot outweigh costs, if all domestic pack. is collected. If only rigid domestic plastic packaging is collected, CBA result is positive! Slide 30

31 Specific and absolute CBA-results for an optimised future scenario (Denkstatt/IVL 2000) Slide 31

32 Cost-benefit balance [ /t plastic pack.] Cost-Benefit analysis of plastic packaging recycling in Austria Optimisation between1995 and 2005 improved cost-benefit balance Source: Denkstatt (2007) 2005: +9,1 Mill. EUR/a 1995: +1,8 Mill. EUR/a : -2,8 Mill. EUR/a Tonnes of plastic packaging 1995: -21,5 Mill. EUR/a net welfare loss recycled + recovered per year Commercial 2005 Commercial 1995 Domestic 1995 Domestic 2005 After 10 years of ambitious analysis and optimisation, domestic plastic packaging recycling has reached a balanced cost-benefit optimum/maximum; total current recycling quota is approx. 35 % Slide 32

33 Examples for costs of CO 2 abatement 38 % of global GHG emissions can be avoided with marginal costs of less than 60 EUR/t CO 2 [McKinsey/Stern 2007] Exchanging PET one-way bottles by PET refillable bottles costs EUR/t CO 2 [Denkstatt 2010] Exchanging PET one-way bottles by Glass refillable bottles costs 4,000 EUR/t CO 2 [Denkstatt 2010] 10 cent environmental fee per plastic bag equals almost 2000 EUR / tonne CO 2 [Denkstatt 2011] Slide 33

34 Limits for additional net-costs based on eco-efficiency criteria 38 % of global GHG emissions can be avoided with marginal costs of less than 60 EUR/t CO 2 [McKinsey/Stern 2007] Slide 21: Net benefit of recycling vs. MSWI = 2 3 t CO 2 / t plastic waste If additional costs for recycling (compared to MSWI) should not exceed 60 EUR/t CO 2, then the maximum additional net-costs per tonne plastic waste should not exceed 180 EUR/t!!! (Additional net-costs are net-costs of collection, sorting, recycling and associated energy recovery of residues, minus saved residual waste costs, minus macroeconomic benefit of saved primary production which is not included in revenues for recyclates) Slide 34

35 Exemplary eco-efficiency data for plastic recycling Additional net-costs Austria, domestic packaging recycling: 100 EUR/t (approx % recycling rate) [Denkstatt 2007] Additional net-costs Sweden: [Denkstatt 2007] Collection of ALL domestic packaging: 390 EUR/t (corresponding CO 2 abatement costs are 170 EUR/t CO 2 ) Collection of ONLY RIGID domestic packaging: 120 EUR/t Additional net-costs Germany (49 % packaging recycling):...? Additional net-costs bumper recycling: 700 EUR/t [Denkstatt 2007] Example CBA pacifier recycling: [Denkstatt 2012] Benefit of 6 tonnes of CO 2 reduction can also be reached by investing 6 x 20 =120 EUR instead of 60,000 EUR (Remark: the LCA result for the recycling project is positive!) Slide 35

36 Part 5: Rough estimation of maximum eco-efficient material recycling potentials for plastics denkstatt GmbH Hietzinger Hauptstrasse 28 A-1130 Vienna Austria T (+43) F (+43) office@denkstatt.at Slide 36

37 Rough estimation of maximum eco-efficient material recycling potentials for plastics Application sector Share in waste Recycling 2012 Maximum recycling Packaging, domestic 39,3% 32% 27% - 42% Packaging, commercial 22,9% 38% 50% - 70% Building 5,6% 22% 27% - 45% Electric/electronic 4,9% 16% 16% - 33% Automotive 4,9% 15% 18% - 38% Ariculture 5,2% 26% 29% - 55% Housew., leisure, sports, etc. 3,5% 2% 5% - 10% Others 13,7% 14% 15% - 20% Total 100% 27% 29% - 45% How results could look like after performing selected cost-benefit analyses Maximum recycling potentials in table on the left were estimated for 32 product groups based on results of LCA and CBA studies presented above Current recycling rates were taken from Consultic/ PlasticsEurope data From an optimistic point of view, the overall maximum eco-efficient recycling level might be between 29% and 45% (not around 60 75%) Recycling beyond the levels listed above will either be low quality recycling (no environmental benefits) or will be not eco-efficient due to very high costs Slide 37

38 Rough estimation of maximum eco-efficient plastic packaging recycling, INPUT based Share in Recycling Max. recycl. Max. recycl. Application sector waste 2012 (low estim.) (high estim.) Packaging, domestic 63,1% 32% 27% 42% beverage bottles 16,0% 60% 72% other bottles 6,0% 50% 70% other rigid packaging 27,4% 10% 30% shopping bags 3,2% 40% 60% other flexible packaging 2,9% 10% 30% small packaging 7,5% 0% 0% Packaging, commercial 36,9% 38% 50% 70% flexible, commercial 33,2% 50% 70% rigid, commercial 3,7% 50% 70% Total plastic packaging 100,0% 35% 53% How results could look like after performing selected cost-benefit analyses Maximum recycling potentials in table on the left were estimated for 8 product groups based on results of LCA and CBA studies presented above Current recycling rates were taken from Consultic/ PlasticsEurope data Austrian & Swedish cost-benefit analyses indicate negative cost-benefit balance for more than 30 % domestic packaging recycling A maximum overall eco-efficient packaging recycling level will be somewhere around 40 % (35 % - 53 %, to be confirmed by CBA studies; the higher rates are only realistic for optimised conditions on all levels) Slide 38

39 Priority list for future cost-benefit analyses to clarify maximum eco-efficient recycling 35,0% 30,0% 25,0% 20,0% 15,0% 10,0% 5,0% 0,0% packaging agriculture electric appliances building & construction automotive 100 % = maximum recycling potential (high estimate) Graph shows possible contributions of different product groups to maximum recycling potential 15 application sectors cover 86 % of maximum recycling potential; others contribute less than 1 % each; Four CBA studies can clarify eco-efficient maxima for 2/3 of total potential Slide 39

40 Cost-benefit balances of recycling for different plastic waste streams Recycling is possible at a positive cost-benefit balance for some waste streams: Commercial packaging, silage films, bottles, shopping bags, bigger items in domestic rigid packaging Other waste streams get increasingly smaller (< 1%), costs for collection, sorting and recycling increase significantly, environmental benefits get smaller, which leads to negative cost-benefit balance Table shows potentials for feasible recycling as estimated above, as well as exemplary or estimated results of cost-benefit analyses based on respective studies for Austria and Sweden Commercial packaging and bottles >90 % of total estimated net benefits (see rectangles in fig. below) Sector Plastic waste mass [% of total waste] Cost-Benefit balance [EUR/t] Commercial packaging films 14,4% 450 Rigid commercial packaging 1,6% 250 Silage films 1,2% 150 Beverage bottles 7,2% 130 Other bottles 2,6% 60 Shopping bags 1,2% 40 Domestic rigid packaging 5,1% other sectors 11,3% 10 to +20? Other plastic waste 55,3% negative Total 100,0% Slide 40

41 Cost-Benefit Balance in EUR/t of waste collected for recycling Cost-benefit balances of recycling for different plastic waste streams (example) Commercial packaging films Rigid commercial packaging Silage films Beverage bottles Other bottles Shopping bags 25 other sectors with 0.5% of total waste mass each, where positive cost-benefit-balance is difficult to reach Plastic waste collected for recycling, given in percent of total plastic waste Domestic rigid packaging Similar graphs related to recycling of PACKAGING only can be found in the annex below and in the presentation for Identiplast For remaining plastic waste, recycling would show negative cost-benefit balance (expensive, small benefits) -500 Slide 41

42 Can t eco-design increase the eco-efficient recycling level? Facts and explanation are needed why the potential influence of design for recycling is very limited Sustainable design formula : + optimised material production x small material demand per functional unit + high functionality / quality / use-benefits + optimal recovery/recycling-mix (often minor influence) = Low eco-footprint, economic & social impact Slide 42

43 Part 6: First Conclusions and Simple Criteria for Eco-Efficient (Sustainable) Plastic Waste Management denkstatt GmbH Hietzinger Hauptstrasse 28 A-1130 Vienna Austria T (+43) F (+43) office@denkstatt.at Slide 43

44 Some general conclusions (I) 1. Plastics contribute significantly to increased resource efficiency, even at low recycling levels. 2. Simple but crucial facts are NOT KNOWN by the public. 3. No simple general waste hierarchy can be derived from LCA facts for plastic waste streams. Individual LCA and CBA studies are needed to check find eco-efficient and sustainable solutions. 4. Feedstock recycling and industrial energy recovery enable higher environmental benefits than medium quality recycling 5. Sustainable recycling levels can be identified by cost-benefit analyses. 6. In some sectors recycling can be increased. Higher recycling rates can be reached for certain applications like commercial films and domestic bottles. Slide 44

45 Some general conclusions (II) 7. Beyond a certain level of recycling the additional (increasing) costs cannot be justified by environmental benefits. Recycling beyond this level will either be low quality recycling (no environmental benefits) or will not be eco-efficient due to relatively high costs. 8. Other forms of recovery get more beneficial from LCA/CBA perspective beyond a certain level of mechanical recycling. 9. Every material and application has its specific beneficial recycling range; the range can change with technology innovations, cost savings, available infrastructure, etc. 10. Future innovation can help to increase the potentials for ecoefficient recycling if costs of collection, sorting and recycling can considerably be reduced Slide 45

46 Basic criteria for eco-efficient (sustainable) plastic waste management For all recovery options: Do credits of substituted virgin materials or fuels outweigh impacts of collection, pre-treatment, recycling? Recycling: Only if the additional costs (compared to energy recovery) divided by the CO 2 -benefits are lower than 60 EUR/t CO 2 (the selected value can be related to existing or future CO 2 reduction targets and related marg. costs) there are no risks of keeping restricted substances in products Feedstock Recycling, Industrial Energy Recovery: criteria for finding optimal process: Calorific value; substitution effects Quality of waste stream (relevant material and chemical parameters) Installed flue gas cleaning systems Rest to MSWI with energy recovery; no landfilling; no littering Social aspects: Social costs of separate collection, working conditions; consumer health, safety, convenience Slide 46

47 Proposed next steps Upgrade available information and benchmarking values to identify most sustainable recycling/recovery options/levels for main relevant waste streams (4 10 CBA studies) 4 15 CBA studies would cover 66 85% of recycling potential Add missing key information together with value chain experts Develop list of criteria and benchmarking values further Combine facts and concerns in stakeholder events Many important facts are not common knowledge! Present facts to key stakeholders; hear concerns of stakeholders Clarify/define remaining questions to be solved together with those stakeholders Present new answers to those questions to stakeholders Slide 47

48 Let s not forget about the relevance The relevance of environmental benefits resulting from plastic packaging recycling should not be overestimated. From results of [Denkstatt 2007] we can derive: The benefit of 1 year of separate collection & recycling/recovery of plastic packaging (per person) is equal to saving car kilometers Slide 48

49 Additional Material denkstatt GmbH Hietzinger Hauptstrasse 28 A-1130 Vienna Austria T denkstatt (+43)1 786 GmbH Hietzinger F (+43)1 Hauptstrasse A-1130 Vienna Austria E T (+43)1 office@denkstatt.at F W (+43) office@denkstatt.at

50 Transformation from input based to OUTPUT based recycling rates All recycling rates mentioned in the first info pack on Criteria for eco-efficient (sustainable) plastic recycling and waste management are based on recycling INPUT In this study recycling input is understood as material which is already sorted for recycling and which fulfills defined quality standards Typical average recycling losses are then %, but can vary between % for different packaging sectors The following slides present estimated maximum ecoefficient plastic packaging recycling rates, first based on recycling input, then based on recycling output The presented ranges were transformed from input based to output based numbers assuming 15 % average recycling losses for lower recycling rates and 20 % for higher recycling rates. Slide 50

51 Rough estimation of maximum eco-efficient plastic packaging recycling, INPUT based Share in Recycling Max. recycl. Max. recycl. Application sector waste 2012 (low estim.) (high estim.) Packaging, domestic 63,1% 32% 27% 42% beverage bottles 16,0% 60% 72% other bottles 6,0% 50% 70% other rigid packaging 27,4% 10% 30% shopping bags 3,2% 40% 60% other flexible packaging 2,9% 10% 30% small packaging 7,5% 0% 0% Packaging, commercial 36,9% 38% 50% 70% flexible, commercial 33,2% 50% 70% rigid, commercial 3,7% 50% 70% Total plastic packaging 100,0% 35% 53% How results could look like after performing selected cost-benefit analyses Maximum recycling potentials in table on the left were estimated for 8 product groups based on results of LCA and CBA studies presented above Current recycling rates were taken from Consultic/ PlasticsEurope data Austrian & Swedish cost-benefit analyses indicate negative cost-benefit balance for more than 30 % domestic packaging recycling A maximum overall eco-efficient packaging recycling level will be somewhere around 40 % (35 % - 53 %, to be confirmed by CBA studies; the higher rates are only realistic for optimised conditions on all levels) Slide 51

52 Rough estimation of maximum eco-efficient plastic packaging recycling, OUTPUT based Share in Max. recycl. Max. recycl. Maximum Application sector waste (low estim.) (high estim.) recycling Packaging, domestic 63,1% 22% 33% 22% - 33% beverage bottles 16,0% 48% 54% other bottles 6,0% 45% 60% other rigid packaging 27,4% 9% 24% shopping bags 3,2% 34% 48% other flexible packaging 2,9% 8% 21% small packaging 7,5% 0% 0% Packaging, commercial 36,9% 45% 59% 45% - 59% flexible, commercial 33,2% 45% 60% rigid, commercial 3,7% 43% 56% Total plastic packaging 100,0% 31% 43% How results could look like after performing selected cost-benefit analyses Maximum recycling potentials in table on the left were estimated for 8 product groups based on results of LCA and CBA studies presented above Current recycling rates based on recycling output are not available Austrian & Swedish cost-benefit analyses indicate negative cost-benefit balance for more than 26 % domestic packaging recycling A maximum overall eco-efficient packaging recycling level will be somewhere around 35 % (31 % - 43 %, to be confirmed by CBA studies; the higher rates are only realistic for optimised conditions on all levels) Slide 52

53 Cost-Benefit Balance in EUR/t of waste collected for recycling Estimated cost-benefit balances for recycling of plastic packaging waste streams Commercial packaging films Rigid commercial packaging Realistic average European scenario Maximum recycling potentials for plastic packaging, given in percent of total plastic packaging waste Beverage bottles Other bottles Shopping bags Other domestic packaging For remaining plastic packaging waste, recycling would show negative cost-benefit balance (expensive, small benefits) Commercial mixed and small Domestic medium, rigid & flexible Domestic small -500 Slide 53

54 Cost-Benefit Balance in EUR/t of waste collected for recycling Estimated cost-benefit balances for recycling of plastic packaging waste streams Commercial packaging films Rigid commercial packaging Beverage bottles Other bottles Shopping bags Other domestic pack. Maximum recycling potentials for plastic packaging, given in percent of total plastic packaging waste Very optimistic scenario for advanced, optimised countries & systems Commercial mixed & small Domestic medium, rig./flex. Domestic small For remaining plastic packaging waste, recycling would show negative cost-benefit balance (expensive, small benefits) -500 Slide 54

55 [kt CO2-eq / a] [TJ / a] Effects of different Waste Recovery Strategies [denkstatt 2010] Recovery strategies Full compliance with EU directives on packaging waste, WEEE & ELV Maximum diversion of mixed residual waste from landfill (possible future strategy) Scenarios for plastic & paper in mixed wastes Scenario A: 100% to MSWI Scenario B: 50% to MSWI, 50% to industrial energy recovery and feedstock recycling Energy effects of two different recovery strategies Full compliance Scenario A Plastic Full compliance Scenario B Total waste Divert from Landfill Scenario A GHG effects of two different recovery strategies Divert from Landfill Scenario B Waste fractions considered Plastic waste & total waste Full compliance Scenario A Full compliance Scenario B Divert from Landfill Scenario A Divert from Landfill Scenario B Maximum diversion from landfill realises 11 (28) times more benefits for energy (GHG) than full compliance with PPW, ELV and WEEE Directives (compared with status quo) Plastic Total waste Slide 55

56 Other sustainability aspects Sustainable management of additives; REACH/RoHS and recycling; concentration, dissipation, and final sinks of substances On the background of phasing out landfills, the recycling of critical substances prevents further dissipation of these substances in landfills but increases the amount of substances which are concentrated in MSWI and put to suitable final sinks Slide 56

57 Rising calorific value in MSWI reduces throughput Plastic waste masses in residual waste rise due to 18,0 0% Share of plastic in residual waste 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 30% - rising share of non-landfilled industrial & commercial waste - rising plastic waste in the sectors building, E&E, packaging, etc. 16,0 14,0 12,0 10,0 Throughput [t/h] 6,26 6,86 7,86 8,11 9,35 10,48 10,60 11,84 - concentration of domestic packaging collection on bottles 8,0 5,6 6,6 9,6 8,6 7,6 10,6 Calorific value [MJ/kg] 11,6 12,6 Slide 57

58 Goals of integrated national strategy for mixed plastic waste utilisation Extraction of plastic films (and paper) from residual waste and/or from sorting residues and further conditioning to produce a high quality secondary resource or fuel with a positive market value Extraction and pre-treatment of rigid plastic waste contained in various residues by more complex mechanical processes to produce also high quality secondary resources Reduction of calorific value in residual waste streams and thereby increasing throughput in MSWI plants Production of fractions with medium calorific value suitable for fluidise bed combustion plants Concentration of plastic waste with significant content of heavy metals etc. in input material of plants with sophisticated flue gas cleaning systems (MSWI) Slide 58

59 Benefits of integrated strategy for mixed plastic waste Significant increase in substitution of primary resources Support for development of RDF-market, increase in RDF market value, stable long-term RDF production Realising synergies ( win-win ), e.g. more calorific value for RDF-users combined with increased capacity of MSWI Increasing acceptance of energy recovery and feedstock recycling in public and authorities Increasing awareness of resource substitution potential of energy recovery and feedstock recycling, less pressure to increase inefficient mechanical recycling Overall: Environmental and economic optimisation Slide 59

60 Cost-Benefit KNA-Ergebnis Balance [ /t [ /t Netto-VP] packaging] Metal 62 % Composites 29 % Cost-benefit balance of packaging recycling by ARA Austria Wood 21 % 200 Paper 85 % Glass 83 % 50 0 Plastic 35 % Holz-VP: 2,6 Mio EUR/a PPK-VP: 95,6 Mio EUR/a Metall-VP: -4 Mio EUR/a Glas-VP: 40,2 Mio EUR/a Kunststoff-VP: 7 Mio EUR/a Verbund-VP: -1,1 Mio EUR/a -150 Collected Netto-Tonnen tonnes of packaging pro Jahr per year Slide 60

61 Dismantling and Material Recycling of Plastic Bumpers? Roundtable discussion with Austrian environmental ministry shredder companies recycling companies; moderation: GUA/denkstatt Results: Dismantling / automated sorting not profitable at the moment (costs /t plastics at savings of approx. 180 /t and revenues of approx. 70 /t). Main problem: difficult to disjoin bumper from body Possible: collection of easily separable bumpers (loose, dangling) because of positive market value Better utilisation of potential in garages! Slide 61