Zero Waste Scotland. Comparative Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Waste Management Services Provided by CRNS

Transcription

1 Comparative Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Waste Management Services Provided by CRNS Report to Community Recycling Network for Scotland February 2010

2 Comparative Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Waste Management Services Provided by CRNS Members Submitted to: CRNS Date: February 2010 (Updated from November 2009) For: By: Caledonian Environment Centre School of the Built and Natural Environment Glasgow Caledonian University 5th Floor, Buchanan House Cowcaddens Road Glasgow G4 0BA T: F: Contact: Polly Griffiths (Project Manager) & Sheila Scott (Technical Lead) T: was established in January 2010 to provide a single, Scotland focussed delivery programme, driven by and aligned to deliver the Zero Waste Plan. The new programme integrates the activities of the following programmes: Waste Aware Scotland; Envirowise Scotland; Remade Scotland; Keep Scotland Beautiful; NISP; and some programmes delivered by the Community Recycling Network for Scotland. The Caledonian Environment Centre is part of the School of the Built and Natural Environment, Glasgow Caledonian University and is supporting environmental research and policy development in Scotland. Glasgow Caledonian University is a registered Scottish charity, number SC02147

3 Executive Summary The Community Recycling Network for Scotland (CRNS) recognise that through the collection of a broad range of materials for reuse, recycling and composting, community recycling initiatives can make a valuable contribution towards Scotland achieving both waste diversion and carbon reduction targets. To date, little work has been conducted to quantify the contribution of the community recycling sector in terms of the emerging carbon agenda. Remade Scotland, the former programme delivered by the Caledonian Environment Centre (CEC) based in Glasgow Caledonian University, was commissioned by CRNS to provide an estimate of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions arisings and savings from the s provided by a small number of CRNS member organisations. The CRNS s were evaluated using the CEC Carbon Waste Model. This Model calculates the GHG emissions (carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ) and nitrous oxide (N 2 O)) associated with the waste management options under consideration, and converts these into tonnes CO 2 equivalent (t CO 2 e) using the Global Warming Potential (GWP) value for each gas. The Model analysis the waste management provided in the following stages: 1. Collection from household 2. Pre treatment at transfer station or material recovery facility (MRF) e.g. bulking/baling/segregation and transfer to reprocessor or further transfer depot 3. Further treatment e.g. glass crushing and transfer; this stage may be avoided if material goes straight from stage 2 to end destination (stage 4) 4. End destination; use as a recyclate in manufacturing or disposal in landfill This study investigated: the GHG emissions and savings from each CRNS Service the GHG emissions if the equivalent material were sent to landfill where appropriate compares the GHG emissions to similar s provided by Scottish local authorities key factors influencing the relative carbon impacts of s The s modelled fell into three categories: kerbside dry recycling, food and green waste collection and furniture reuse. ii

4 Service Ref Summary of Services Modelled Service Type Authority type 1 Kerbside Household kerbside collection Rural 10 Kerbside Household kerbside collection Island location 13 Kerbside Household kerbside collection Rural 5 Compost Household food waste collection Urban 6 Compost Household green waste collection Urban 11 Food waste SME food waste collection Urban 14 Compost Household green waste drop off Rural 16 Compost Household green waste collection Rural 15 Furniture reuse Household furniture reuse Rural iii

5 Service reference Service type Scenario 2 Results estimated GHG emissions produced by CRNS s t CO 2 e Local Collection [Stage 1] Transfer station/mrf 1 [Stages 2/3] t CO 2 e Reprocessing/ manufacture [Stage 4] Landfill [Stage 4] Total Tonnes material collected t CO 2 e/tonne collected 1 Kerbside dry recyclates Kerbside dry recyclates Kerbside dry recyclates off site Green and food waste on site Green and food waste Green and food waste Green and food waste Green and food waste Green and food waste Reuse iv

6 The results from the modelling demonstrated dry recyclate and reuse schemes deliver emission savings. The savings are due to avoided carbon emissions over the lifecycle of the materials associated with activities such as material extraction, processing and manufacturing. The food and green waste s result in the net production of emissions. While composting is considered to be carbon neutral with regards to CO 2 emissions, the process does produce limited N 2 O and CH 4. There are also carbon impacts associated with other aspects of delivery such as transportation and the operation of the processing facility. However, compared to consigning the material to landfill, the s were found to all contribute carbon savings. The study demonstrated that CRNS organisations reduce GHG emissions through diverting material from landfill. This reinforces the importance of moving Scotland s waste management practices higher up the waste hierarchy towards recycling, reuse and, ultimately, reduction. Through the collection of a broad range of materials for reuse and recycling, community initiatives can make a valuable contribution towards Scotland achieving both waste diversion and carbon reduction targets. Across all the s the avoidance of consigning material to landfill is the main source of emission savings. This is particularly the case with the green and food waste collections where the s themselves do result in the production of emissions. Considerable additional savings are made by the recycling and reuse s due to the savings made through avoided manufacture and processing emissions. Areas of operation which impact on the relative GHG emissions at different stages of the s were demonstrated to be: Route characteristics (and efficiency); Vehicle type and suitability for volumes of material collected; Reprocessing choice and reprocessing location; To varying degrees these are under the control of Services to change and therefore reduce the GHG emissions related to their. The study has indicated that CRNS Services perform as well or better than local authority waste management s in terms of GHG emissions. The comparisons made were based on two Mixed local authorities. v

7 Emissions per tonne of material treated including local authority comparison Service Ref t CO 2 e / t treated Local authority comparison off site on site Local authority comparison In comparison to local authority s, CRNS members are able to offer a more flexible locally tailored which can deliver advantages in terms of GHG emissions: Collect and recycle a larger number of material types compared to local authority collections at kerbside. Materials such as metals, plastics and textiles deliver high GHG emissions savings when recycled. Collection of reusable items. Reuse results in greater GHG emissions savings than recycling. Collection of reusable items together with recycled items increases the GHG emissions savings as a result of kerbside s. Processing of material on the site of collection thus minimising transport emissions as well as GHG emissions related to use of material. It is also essential to consider the other varied benefits, both social and to the local economy, that CRNS member organisations provide, in addition to assisting in reducing the GHG emissions arising from the management of waste. The process of data collection, including gaps in the data provided by s, was found to be the major limiting factor within this study. It has been recommended that community organisations should review systems in place to collect the data required for carbon assessments and that a plan for addressing any gaps in record keeping should be put in place. vi

8 Contents Executive Summary... ii 1. Introduction and Objectives Background Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Waste Management Scottish Drivers The Community Recycling Network for Scotland (CRNS) Methodology Parameters and Boundaries Data Requested from CRNS Member Services Modelled Comparisons with Local Authority Services Overview of Results Comparative Results Kerbside Services Green and Food Waste Collections Local Authority Comparisons Operational Influences Reprocessing Choice Characteristics of Service Logistics Data Collection and Management Data Limitations Recommendations for Routine Record Keeping Implications for the Community Sector Appendix 1 Unit of Measure... I Appendix 2: CEC Carbon Waste Model Data Sources... II Appendix 3: Modelling the Service: Principal Impacts of Waste Collection, Treatment and Disposal... III Appendix 4: Local Authority Services Modelling... IV vii

9 Table 3.1: Data required from CRNS member... 7 Table 3.2: CRNS s modelled... 8 Table 4.1: Scenario 2 results estimated GHG emissions produced by CRNS s t CO 2 e Table 4.2: Scenario 2 results estimated GHG emissions produced by CRNS s per tonne t CO 2 e Table 5.1: Kerbside s materials collected Table 5.2 Net kg CO 2 e emitted per tonne of waste treated / disposed of by closed loop recycling Table 5.3: Kerbside s t CO 2 e whole Table 5.4: Kerbside s t CO 2 e / t treated Table 5.5: Performance figures Table 5.6: Summary Food and garden waste collection s t CO 2 e / t treated Table 5.7: Performance figures Table 5.8: Food and garden waste collection s t CO 2 e whole Table 5.9: Food and garden waste collection s t CO 2 e / t treated Table 5.10: Emissions per tonne of material treated including local authority comparison22 Table 6.1: Comparative CO 2 e emitted recycling versus waste avoidance Table 6.2: Service performance collection Table 6.3: Service performance transport to reprocessor Table 7.1: Data required from CRNS member Table 7.2: Record keeping additional records to carbon footprint company Table A.1: Kyoto 'basket of six' greenhouse gases... I Figure 3.1: Energy flows in the lifecycle of a product... 5 Figure 3.2: The CEC Carbon Waste Model... 6 viii

10 1. Introduction and Objectives Community Recycling Network for Scotland (CRNS) recognise that through the collection of a broad range of materials for reuse and recycling, community recycling initiatives can make a valuable contribution towards Scotland achieving both waste diversion and carbon reduction targets. To date, little work has been conducted to quantify the contribution of the community sector in terms of the emerging carbon agenda. Remade Scotland, the former programme delivered by the Caledonian Environment Centre (CEC) based in Glasgow Caledonian University, was commissioned by CRNS to provide an estimate of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions arisings and savings from the s provided by a small number of CRNS member organisations. The CRNS s were evaluated using the CEC Carbon Waste Model. This Model calculates the GHG emissions (carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ) and nitrous oxide (N 2 O)) associated with the waste management options under consideration, and converts these into tonnes CO 2 equivalent (t CO 2 e) using the Global Warming Potential (GWP) value for each gas. Individual reports were produced for each of the CRNS member organisations included in the study. The emissions calculated relate to the provided by the CRNS member organisation only rather than a carbon footprint for the whole organisation. This report gives some background on the study undertaken, describes the methodology used to evaluate the GHG emissions associated with each, and discusses and reviews the results of the evaluation. This report presents the results for all the s modelled and provides a comparative assessment across the types. The Services modelled fall into three categories: kerbside, compost and furniture reuse. This report investigates the following: the GHG emissions and savings from each CRNS Service the GHG emissions if the equivalent material were sent to landfill where appropriate compares the GHG emissions to similar s provided by Scottish local authorities key factors influencing the relative carbon impacts of s Recommendations are made for how community s can develop record keeping in order to improve the quality of future GHG assessments. The report focuses on carbon impacts of the s. However, where applicable and possible other performance comparisons are made between s. The intention is not to produce a performance league but to highlight lessons that can be learnt to improve the s and add value in the future. For this reason, Services have been anonymised as much as possible. 1

11 2. Background 2.1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Waste Management The Greenhouse Gas Inventories for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland reports that, in 2006, Scotland produced 59 million tonnes of GHG emissions of which 2.33 million tonnes, or 3.9% of the total, came from the management of Scotland s waste 1. The total GHG emissions from waste management can be affected by a number of variables such as: anaerobic degradation in landfill producing CH 4 transportation of waste producing mainly N 2 O and CO 2 energy use in the handling of waste (CO 2 ), and emissions savings from displacement of virgin materials with recyclate in the manufacturing process. Improved capture of landfill emissions has resulted in a 43% reduction in the overall emissions associated with waste management when compared with the 1990 baseline. However, in 2006, CH 4 emissions from the landfilling of waste still constituted 92% of the total emissions from waste management. This reinforces the importance of moving Scotland s waste management practices higher up the waste hierarchy towards recycling, reuse and, ultimately, reduction Scottish Drivers The Scottish Government (SG) has set a number of objectives, likely to be reinforced in the forthcoming Zero Waste Plan, for the management of waste in Scotland. These include stopping the growth in municipal waste by 2010, and achieving recycling/composting targets for municipal waste of a minimum of 50% by 2013, 60% by 2020 and 70% by The SG has also defined within a National Indicator the target of reducing the quantity of biodegradable municipal waste sent to landfill from more than 1.8 million tonnes in 2000/01 to 1.32 million tonnes by The consultation on the Zero Waste Plan 4 sought views on whether a target should be set for the reduction of municipal waste and if there should be targets introduced in relation to preparing for reuse. In addition, the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill imposes challenging targets for the reduction of GHG emissions with reduction targets of 42% by 2020 and 80% by AEAT Greenhouse Gas Inventories for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland: Hhttp:// Week/Speeches/Greener/vision for waste/h accessed Hhttp:// accessed Hhttp:// accessed

12 In announcing a new package of funding for community reuse and recycling projects in September 2008, Richard Lochhead, Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Environment, Scottish Government stated: Dealing with waste sustainably is crucial to the future of Scotland and the future of the planet. The community sector continues to play an invaluable role in helping us meet our ambitious targets of recycling 70% of municipal waste by Everyone must play their part in reducing waste, and only by us all working together in this way will we be able to achieve a. 6 In providing waste reuse and recycling s the community recycling sector assists local authorities in achieving the targets set for waste recycling and diversion from landfill. Furthermore, these projects also contribute to the reduction of GHG emissions related to waste management, through the reduction of waste being consigned to landfill but also through the provision of recyclate for manufacture, reducing the need for virgin material extraction and refining, and avoiding manufacture through reuse The Community Recycling Network for Scotland (CRNS) The CRNS is a membership body for community recycling organisations throughout Scotland, providing information, advice and support to both existing and emerging community recycling and reuse initiatives. Their Mission Statement says: The CRNS exists to build a stronger community recycling sector in Scotland which can create real social, environmental and economic benefit within our local communities. In May 2009, the CRNS had 114 full members and 12 fledgling members whose activities include reuse and recycling of a broad range of materials such as glass, cans, textiles, bikes, books and furniture. CRNS state that community recycling complements the five Strategic Objectives of the Scottish Government in the following respects: Greener Scotland: Smarter Scotland: Community recycling diverts waste from landfill and helps prevent waste arising thus enhancing the environment of Scotland. Community recycling provides accredited training for people entering or re entering the labour market, building skills and confidence. 5 Hhttp:// action/scottishbillh accessed [The target reductions are based on the 1990 baseline for CO 2, CH 4 and N 2 O, and the 1995 baseline for PFCs, HFCs and SF 6. NB: Target for 42% (rather than 30%) reduction by 2020 dependent on EU committing to 30% reduction by 2020]. 6 Hhttp:// accessed

13 Healthier Scotland: Wealthier & Fairer: Safer & Stronger: Community recycling projects often provide training and employment for people with particular health issues as a way of building confidence and capacity. Community recycling is focused on building equality within communities through employment, training and the provision of s to people who are disadvantaged, providing opportunities to improve life chances. Community recycling projects often work in partnership with other community regeneration activities to build cohesive communities through the provision of opportunities for employment, training and volunteering. 4

14 3. Methodology The CEC Carbon Waste Model adopts a life cycle analysis approach with defined boundaries, to provide a detailed breakdown of GHG emissions from waste management scenarios in tonnes CO 2 equivalent (t CO 2 e); explanation of this unit of measurement is contained in Appendix 1. The peer reviewed data sources utilised in the development of the CEC Carbon Waste Model, including emissions factors, are outlined in Appendix 2. The Model calculates the GHG emissions from landfill balanced with GHG emissions savings from the diversion of waste into recycling streams, or recovery technologies such as In Vessel Composting. This standard methodology was applied using the data provided to estimate the total and net GHG emissions from the s provided by the CRNS member organisation Parameters and Boundaries Throughout the different lifecycle stages of any product, GHG emissions arise from the consumption of energy both in the processing and transportation of materials, and the treatment of associated waste arisings. Depending on the process, product manufacture using recyclate can require less energy than manufacture with primary materials e.g. aluminium can production, whilst reuse can potentially avoid all the emissions energy associated with the production of a new product e.g. furniture or bicycle reuse. Figure 3.1 demonstrates how intervention at different stages of a product s lifecycle to divert the material from landfill and back into the process stream avoids the GHG emissions associated with the earlier stages of the product lifecycle. The green arrows indicate the stages at which recycling, reuse and reduction of material impact to eliminate or reduce the emissions associated with preceding stages. RECYCLING (& REMANUFACTURE) REUSE REDUCTION ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY Raw material Acquisition Materials Processing Product Manufacture Product Consumption /Use Final Disposal WASTE: solid, wastewater, air emissions WASTE: solid, wastewater, air emissions WASTE: solid, wastewater, air emissions WASTE: solid, wastewater, air emissions Figure 3.1: Energy flows in the lifecycle of a product 5

15 The CEC Carbon Waste Model (Model) is designed to evaluate emissions from different waste management options rather than variables in the earlier stages of a product s lifecycle such as the impacts of product design or consumption behaviours. It therefore does not include any emissions from lifecycle stages prior to the disposal of material as waste. However, as it is intended to evaluate and predict the emissions associated with different waste management options, the savings generated by the diversion of material into the recycling stream are included as these occur directly as a result of the treatment option selected. The Model evaluates the waste management provided in the following stages: 1. Collection from household 2. Pre treatment at transfer station or material recovery facility (MRF) e.g. bulking/baling/segregation and transfer to reprocessor or further transfer depot 3. Further treatment e.g. glass crushing and transfer; this stage may be avoided if material goes straight from stage 2 to end destination (stage 4) 4. End destination; use as a recyclate in manufacturing or disposal in landfill The stages and parameters included are shown below in Figure 3.2. Further detail on the impacts of the four stages are given in Appendix 3. Figure 3.2: The CEC Carbon Waste Model In summary, the Model provides an emissions figure taking into consideration all the energy consumed in processes, fuel consumed in the transportation of materials at all stages, energy saved through the replacement of virgin materials with recycled products and the degradation of biodegradable wastes in landfill. 6

16 3.2. Data Requested from CRNS Member To facilitate the data provision process, the CRNS member organisation was provided with a bespoke proforma for their own, specifying the relevant data required or alternative data that could be used to provide proxy measures should actual data be unavailable. Table 3.1 outlines the data the CRNS member organisation was asked to provide to allow modelling of a value for the GHG emissions associated with the provided. Table 3.1: Data required from CRNS member Stage of Variable Data required Collection [Stage 1] Transfer Station/Transportation to reprocessor [Stages 2/3] Transportation Coverage Materials Transfer to treatment facility size, fuel type and loading of vehicle used for collection from households/properties, annual mileage or fuel use number of households served and number participating on scheme (if available) material types collected and annual tonnage collected of each by material size, fuel type and loading of vehicle used for transfer from CRNS organisation to reprocessor, annual mileage or fuel use Reprocessing [Stage 4] Treatment type reuse, recycling or residual Residual waste [Stage 4] Contamination rate % rejected and consigned to landfill 3.3. Services Modelled Generally two scenarios were modelled for each : Scenario 1: Scenario 2: Estimated the GHG emissions produced if all the waste captured by the was instead consigned to landfill. Modelled the emissions associated with the being delivered by the community recycling organisation. Table 3.2 lists details for each modelled. Three broad types of were modelled in the study: Kerbside dry recyclate s (kerbside); Food and garden waste collection s (compost); Furniture reuse s (furniture reuse). 7

17 Service Ref Table 3.2: CRNS s modelled Service Type Authority type 1 Kerbside Household kerbside collection Rural 10 Kerbside Household kerbside collection Island location 13 Kerbside Household kerbside collection Rural 5 Food waste Household food waste collection Urban 6 Compost Household green waste collection Urban 11 Food waste SME food waste collection Urban 14 Compost Household green waste drop off Rural 16 Compost Household green waste collection Rural 15 Furniture reuse Household furniture reuse Rural 3.4. Comparisons with Local Authority Services In Section 5.3 a discussion is given of the comparative performance of CRNS s with similar s provided by local authorities in Scotland. The figures quoted for local authorities have been calculated using the same CEC Waste Carbon Model applied to the CRNS s.. The work has been carried out on behalf of specific local authorities in separate studies; data has been anonymised for reasons of confidentiality. The data obtained from the local authorities to allow calculation of GHG emissions for dry and green waste kerbside recycling schemes included: household numbers, s in operation, number and types of vehicles, tonnage of recyclate (including organic waste) recovered by each Comparison is possible between the figures generated for kerbside s delivered by local authorities and CRNS organisations in relation to the GHG emissions savings arising from diversion of materials into the recycling stream. They cannot be used to provide a comparison for the net GHG emissions associated with both diversion into the recycling stream and diversion from landfill. Further discussion is given in Appendix 4. 8

18 4. Overview of Results This Section presents an overview of the Scenario 2 modelling results for each i.e. the GHG emissions related to running the. The results represent a full calendar year. Further discussion around these results is giving in Section 5 and 6. Table 4.1 presents the GHG emissions related to each ; a negative number indicates emissions saved rather than released. The dry recyclate and reuse schemes deliver emission savings. The savings are due to avoided carbon emissions over the lifecycle of the materials associated with activities such as material extraction, processing and manufacturing as discussed in Section 3.1. The food and green waste s result in the net production of emissions. While composting is considered to be carbon neutral with regards to CO 2 emissions, the process does produce limited N 2 O and CH 4. There are also carbon impacts associated with other aspects of the delivery such as transportation and the operation of the processing facility. However, as will be discussed in Section 5, compared to consigning the material to landfill, the s all contribute carbon savings. 9

19 Service reference Table 4.1: Scenario 2 results estimated GHG emissions produced by CRNS s t CO 2 e Service type Local Collection [Stage 1] Transfer station/mrf 1 [Stages 2/3] t CO 2 e Reprocessing/ manufacture [Stage 4] Landfill [Stage 4] Total Tonnes material collected t CO 2 e/tonne collected 1 Kerbside dry recyclates Kerbside dry recyclates Kerbside dry recyclates off site Green and food waste on site Green and food waste Green and food waste Green and food waste Green and food waste Green and food waste Reuse

20 Table 4.2: Scenario 2 results estimated GHG emissions produced by CRNS s per tonne t CO 2 e Service reference offsite 5 onsite 6 Service type Kerbside dry recyclates Kerbside dry recyclates Kerbside dry recyclates Green and food waste Green and food waste Green and food waste Local Collection [Stage 1] Notes 0.02 miles per tonne Transfer station/ MRF 1 [Stages 2/3] Notes Reprocessing / manufacture [Stage 4] Notes Landfill [Stage 4] Notes % textiles Contamination % textiles miles per tonne Collection on site no transport Collection on site no transport Transit miles per tonne % textiles IVC Treated on site no transport IVC open windrow with manual labour Could not quantify contamination Could not quantify contamination No contamination reported No contamination reported Contamination all non biodegradable 11

21 Service reference Service type Green and food waste Green and food waste Green and food waste Local Collection [Stage 1] Reuse Notes 6.25 miles per tonne. 18 tonne vehicle. All material delivered by householders to site not accounted. Transfer station/ MRF 1 [Stages 2/3] Notes Reprocessing / manufacture [Stage 4] Notes Landfill [Stage 4] IVC Use of tractor onsite Transit Includes delivery as well as collection Includes delivery as well as collection Open windrow with tractors (actual fuel use) Open windrow Notes No contamination reported No contamination reported No contamination reported Residual to landfill 12

22 Table 4.2 presents the GHG emissions related to each per tonne of material collected. The notes in the table aim to highlight reasons for differences between similar s. In terms of local collection the main causes of variation relate to distance covered and vehicle choice. The difference in GHG emissions per tonne for collection between Service 1 and Service 13 illustrate the impact that route can have on carbon impact. Service 13 has to travel many more miles to collect a tonne of material than Service 1. While this is likely to be as a result of the nature of the collection route, efficiencies in route management should be made where possible. Larger vehicles are less fuel efficient than smaller vehicles. However, a collecting high volumes of materials will generally have to select a larger vehicle. The higher emissions associated with this will be balanced by the greater volume of material collected and hence savings seen at the reprocessing stage. In terms of transfer the main causes of variation relate to distance covered and vehicle choice. The locality of the reprocessing facility available for use will largely be out of the control of the Service. However, use of local facilities where possible will minimise the carbon impact. Several of the compost s have minimised emissions at this stage because they are using their own facilities and collecting material locally. The vehicle choice may also be outside of the control of the Service if the material is collected by the processor. If the delivery is conducted by the Service then the number of journeys to the processor should be minimised. As with collection, a vehicle of suitable capacity for the volume of material collected should be utilised. In terms of reprocessing for the recyclate and reuse s the variation relates to the balance of materials that are collected. Some materials have higher carbon savings associated with them than others. This is discussed further in Section 5. In terms of the food and garden waste s, In Vessel Composting (IVC) is more energy intensive than Open Windrow Composting (OWC). However, OWC is currently not a suitable processing technology for food waste as it does not comply with Animal By Products legislation. Variations between different s adopting OWC relate to slight operational differences. Service 6 is entirely based on manual labour with no fossil fuel use on site, Service 14 was able to provide figures for actual fuel use on site, and Service 16 uses five different OWC sites based on proximity and therefore default emission factors were used. In terms of landfill the differences relate to the volume of contamination. Some s were not able to provide details of the contamination in the material collected. All s will be aiming to minimise contamination and it is best practice to implement schemes with an effective communication strategy to ensure that s are adopted correctly by users. If not already the case, policies should be put in place to ensure unsuitable material collected is minimised. Certainly the level of contamination reported was very small. In terms of reuse s a proportion of the material collected will always be unsuitable for reuse. 13

23 5. Comparative Results This section discusses the comparative results across the types modelled Kerbside Services Table 5.1 lists the range of materials collected by each kerbside modelled and the proportion of the total tonnage. There is a high degree of similarity across all in terms of the key materials collected. However, each of the s collects additional materials, present in lower quantities in the waste stream, which are not routinely collected by council schemes. For instance, only three local authorities collected textiles in 2007/08. Table 5.1: Kerbside s materials collected Service ref. CRNS 1 CRNS 10 CRNS 13 Authority type Rural Island location Rural Ferrous metal (cans) y 3.6% y 6.4% y 2.4% Non ferrous metal (cans) y 0.6% y 1.0% y 1.0% Paper and card y 72.3% y 69.8% y 69.7% Plastic bottles y 5.9% y 12.1% y 7.1% Glass y 15.9% n n Copper n y 0.3% n Aluminium foil y * n n Bikes y 0.1% n n Domestic cable y * n n Textiles y 1.6% y 7.2% y 13.8% Furniture n y 3.1% n Wooden pallet n n y 6.0%* *no tonnage given 14

24 Table 5.2 illustrates the relative emission savings for different materials when recycled. A negative number represents a carbon saving. In terms of carbon savings metals, textiles and plastics are the most favourable materials to collect. Table 5.2 Net kg CO 2 e emitted per tonne of waste treated / disposed of by closed loop recycling Waste fraction Net kg CO 2 e per tonne of waste treated / disposed of by closed loop recycling Paper and card 713 Wood 250 Textiles 3,800 Plastic (dense) 1,500 Ferrous metal 1,300 Non ferrous metal 9,000 Glass 315 Source: Defra 2009 Guidelines to Defra/DECC s GHG Conversion Factors for Company Reporting Table 5.3 presents the modelling results for the kerbside schemes by and scenario. Based on the assumptions applied in the modelling all the s have higher GHG emissions associated with local collection and onward transport of material for recycling than if the material were simply consigned to landfill. However, significant emission savings are made by the Service because the materials collected are recycled and not sent to landfill. Overall each delivers emissions savings in itself. Table 5.3: Kerbside s t CO 2 e whole Service CRNS 1 CRNS 10 CRNS 13 Phase of scenario 1: no CRNS scenario 2: CRNS difference scenario 1: no CRNS scenario 2: CRNS difference scenario 1: no CRNS scenario 2: CRNS difference Local collection Transfer/MRF Reprocessing Landfill Total

25 Table 5.4 presents the modelling results per tonne of waste treated. Table 5.4: Kerbside s t CO 2 e / t treated Service CRNS 1 CRNS 10 CRNS 13 Phase of scenario 1: no CRNS scenario 2: CRNS difference scenario 1: no CRNS scenario 2: CRNS difference scenario 1: no CRNS scenario 2: CRNS difference Local collection Transfer/MRF Reprocessing Landfill Total % biodegradable 73% 73% 77% % textiles 2% 7% 15%* *Proportion of textiles in waste collected is 15% if excluding the wooden pallets collected for reuse. If the wooden pallets are included then the textile percentage is 13.8% as listed in Table 5.1. The carbon impact of the wooden pallets was modelled separately and not included in the figures given in this report for comparative purposes. Materials The emission factors for the recycling of dry materials (paper, plastic bottles, glass etc.) refer to closed loop recycling (where material is recycled into the same product e.g. aluminium cans into aluminium cans) rather than open loop (where the material is recycled into a different product e.g. glass bottles into aggregate). Whilst it is possible that some of the materials captured by the CRNS member organisations go for open loop recycling, the model has remained consistent with the existing and available peer reviewed data. While the net emission savings per tonne for Service 1 and Service 10 are broadly similar, the savings made by Service 13 are considerably higher. This is despite the fact that the transport emissions from this are higher on a per tonne basis. The emission savings are made in relation to avoided landfill and reprocessing. This is due to the high percentage of textiles that are collected by Service 13. Textiles give a carbon saving of 3,800 kg CO 2 e per tonne recycled 7. The only material that gives a higher saving is non ferrous metal; but the proportion of this in the material collected was equal across all the s. 7 Annex 9 of the Guidelines to Defra/DECC s GHG Conversion Factors for Company Reporting Hhttp:// factors.htmh. Last updated September

26 Services that collect biodegradable materials for processing will generally illustrate greater savings in comparison to the landfill scenario. Biodegradable materials consigned to landfill will generate CH 4, a potent GHG. So for instance, a Service collecting a high proportion of paper and card will illustrate a greater net emission saving compared to the landfill scenario when compared to a Service collecting a high proportion of metals. In the case of the kerbside s modelled the proportion of biodegradable materials was roughly equivalent. Performance Table 5.5 presents some supplementary performance figures on the kerbside schemes. Table 5.5: Performance figures Scheme Ref Tonnes collected (minus contamination) kg/hh/wk t/hh/yr Participation No. Households CRNS % 3,127 CRNS No data 3,000 CRNS % 5,250 The Remade recyclate recovery report provides analysis on the performance of council recycling schemes; the latest report covers 2007/08 8. Recovery rates in 2007/08 from dry recyclate collections ranged from 0.05kg/hh/wk to 4.92 kg/hh/wk across all local authorities in Scotland; the average was 2.02 kg/hh/wk. The average yield for all dry recyclate kerbside schemes modelled was 2.31 kg/hh/wk. The CRNS s modelled are all performing above the average yield for local authority schemes but there is still potential to further improve performance. The Remade recyclate recovery report found the main factors influencing high recovery rates were recyclate collection frequency, collection capacity, number of materials recycled and residual waste collection frequency. Certainly the first three of these factors are under the influence of the community scheme to change. The report found that on average schemes that collect more than once a fortnight have recovery rates 47% higher than fortnightly schemes. CRNS Service 13, which has the lowest yield is also the only which operates a fortnightly rather than weekly Green and Food Waste Collections The results from the modelling of the green and food waste s are summarised in Table 5.6; further detail of the results are presented in Table 5.8 and Table Remade (2009). Recyclate Recovery: An Analysis of Scottish Recycling Schemes 2007/08. Hwww.remade.org.uk/media/11577/recyclate_recovery_report_07_08.pdfH 17

27 Overall green and food waste collections are carbon emission producing rather than saving. Unlike the reprocessing of dry recyclate materials, composting is considered to be carbon neutral with regard to CO 2 emissions but produces limited N 2 O and CH 4 process emissions 9. However, these are more than offset by avoided landfill emissions. The organic emission factors applied for the food and green waste were specific to the treatment technology (open windrow or in vessel composting); the emission factors do not differentiate between waste types 10. The differences between the s are marginal and are as a result of operational and processing differences. Table 5.6: Summary Food and garden waste collection s t CO 2 e / t treated Service reference scenario 1: no CRNS scenario 2: CRNS difference 1:2 CRNS 5 off site CRNS 5 on site Biodegradability of materials CRNS CRNS CRNS CRNS Unlike the reprocessing of dry recyclate materials, composting is considered to be carbon neutral with regard to CO 2 emissions, and produces very limited N 2 O and CH 4 process emissions 11. However, the figures for net emissions savings, which include avoided landfill emissions, emphasise the importance of diverting 100% biodegradable material from landfill. 9 The ERM report Impact of Energy from Waste and recycling Policy on UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions January 2006 does include offset peat production as a Non UK impact (Table 3.7 Annex A3) with regard to the CH 4 process emission figure. 10 The emission factors were taken from the ERM report Impact of Energy from Waste and recycling Policy on UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions January The ERM report Impact of Energy from Waste and recycling Policy on UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions January 2006 does include offset peat production as a Non UK impact (Table 3.7 Annex A3) with regard to the CH 4 process emission figure. 18

28 Performance Performance figures for the green and food waste collections are given in Table 5.7. According to the Remade recyclate recovery report 12 yield from local authority garden waste collections varies from 0.66 to 4.03 kg/hh/wk. Services 6 and 16 are performing better than the local authority collections. Further investigation would be required to ensure this is not a result of assumptions made due to lack of data. Data from the Scottish food waste trials indicates separate food waste collection yields range from kg/hh/wk for food only collections. Service 5 is at the lower end of this range but collects from difficult flatted properties. The local authority led food waste trials excluded flatted properties because they were thought to be too difficult to include. This illustrates the ability of community organisations to provide niche s. Table 5.7: Performance figures Service reference Material collected Tonnes collected (minus contamination) kg/hh/wk t/hh/yr Participation No. Households CRNS 5 CRNS 6 CRNS 11 CRNS 14 CRNS 16 Food waste Green waste Food waste Green waste Green waste % % businesses businesses not applicable 20 businesses not known not known not known not known not known Remade (2009). Recyclate Recovery: An Analysis of Scottish Recycling Schemes 2007/08. Hwww.remade.org.uk/media/11577/recyclate_recovery_report_07_08.pdfH 19

29 Table 5.8: Food and garden waste collection s t CO2 e whole Service CRNS 5 CRNS 6 CRNS 11 CRNS 14 CRNS 16 scenario 1: no CRNS scenario 2: CRNS processing off site scenario 2 scenario 3: CRNS processing on site scenario 3 difference 1:2 difference 1:3 scenario 1: no CRNS scenario 2: CRNS difference scenario 1: no CRNS scenario 2: CRNS difference scenario 1: no CRNS scenario 2: CRNS difference scenario 1: no CRNS scenario 2: CRNS difference Phase of Local collection Transfer/MRF Reprocessing Landfill Total

30 Table 5.9: Food and garden waste collection s t CO 2 e / t treated Service CRNS 5 CRNS 6 CRNS 11 CRNS 14 CRNS 16 Phase of scenario 1: no CRNS scenario 2: CRNS processing off site scenario 2 scenario 3: CRNS processing on site scenario 3 difference 1:2 difference 1:3 scenario 1: no CRNS scenario 2: CRNS difference scenario 1: no CRNS scenario 2: CRNS difference scenario 1: no CRNS scenario 2: CRNS difference scenario 1: no CRNS scenario 2: CRNS difference Local collection Transfer/MRF Reprocessing Landfill Total

31 5.3. Local Authority Comparisons Table 5.10: Emissions per tonne of material treated including local authority comparison Scheme Ref t CO 2 e / t treated CRNS CRNS CRNS Local authority comparison CRNS 5 off site CRNS 5 on site CRNS CRNS CRNS CRNS Local authority comparison CEC has modelled local authority s similar to those being run by the CRNS organisations (see Section 3.4). The dry recyclate schemes demonstrate greater carbon savings per tonne than the local authority comparison (this is based on results from two authorities classed as mixed). This is due to the variety and relative proportion of materials collected. Generally CRNS s are collecting a higher proportion of materials which give high carbon savings in comparison to the local authority s modelled. The CRNS s are collecting between 2 15% textiles by weight which is a material not collected by the local authority comparator s. As well as this, the CRNS s are collecting between 6 12% plastics by weight. The proportion in the local authority s was between 0 3% by weight. Both textile and plastics give high carbon savings (see Section 5.1). However, this comparison is only based on two local authorities and there will be considerable variation across local authority schemes. Finally, due to the considerable differences between different material types in the energy savings made in avoided virgin extraction and reprocessing energy consumption, each material within the waste stream has a unique emissions factor associated with recycling. Therefore, the overall emissions saved per tonne of material collected will be affected by the composition of that tonne of material. It is important to note that this is applicable to comparisons between individual CRNS s as well as between CRNS and local authority s. 22

32 The food and garden waste schemes demonstrate broadly similar GHG emissions per tonne to the local authority comparison (this is based on results from two authorities classed as mixed). Service 5 (on site) has lower emissions per tonne due to minimising transport emissions by reprocessing on site. The modelling for Service 14 does not include transport impacts of householders delivering material to site, hence the low GHG emissions per tonne. With regard to transportation of materials, in particular collection from households, it is likely that the local authority will utilise larger vehicles with higher fuel consumption as a result of the number of households they are required to. However, this higher fuel consumption may be balanced by the higher capacity requiring fewer journeys to the transfer station/depot. 23

33 6. Operational Influences 6.1. Reprocessing Choice Reuse versus recycling The majority of the s modelled in this study were providing recycling s. Table 6.1 illustrates the greater carbon savings that can be realised through waste avoidance rather than recycling. Emissions factors for waste avoidance can be used as a proxy for the benefits of reuse of materials, although it is recognised that items reused are unlikely to have the same lifespan as an equivalent new item. As shown in Section 4 Service 15 which delivers a reuse also demonstrated the greatest carbon savings per tonne of material collected. Service 10 and 13 also collect a small proportion of items for reuse; however, the carbon impact has not been included in this report. Table 6.1: Comparative CO 2 e emitted recycling versus waste avoidance Waste fraction kg CO 2 e emitted per tonne waste avoided kg CO 2 e emitted per tonne waste recycled Textiles 19,294 3,800 Non ferrous metal 11,000 9,000 Glass Location Services that were able to reprocess on site were able to make carbon savings tonne due to transport savings. Any efficiency that can be introduced in relation to the collection route to reduce fuel consumption will deliver carbon savings. The majority of the materials being collected by the kerbside dry recyclate s were being recycled. The major influence that an organisation can have in terms of minimising the carbon impacts of recycling is to reduce the transport involved in delivering this material for final reprocessing. Therefore, local markets should be sought where possible. It is acknowledge in Section 7 that the organisations were not always able to identify the final reprocessing location. This is an area organisations should seek to improve in terms of their duty of care, making more informed decisions regarding choice of markets and correctly quantifying the full carbon impact of the. Processing choice In terms of green waste processing open windrow is less energy and carbon intensive than in vessel composting. If also collecting food waste then the processing technology needs to comply with the Animal By product Legislation and the reprocessing options are IVC or Anaerobic digestion (AD). AD is seen as a more favourable treatment option from an environmental perspective, primarily because the process produces CH 4 which can be used to generate energy. Availability of AD facilities in Scotland should improve in the future. However, in the case of Service 5 24

34 the in vessel composting was taking place on the site of collection and the product also being used site. This represents a good local solution Characteristics of Service Logistics Table 6.2 and Table 6.3 present summary data on the transport aspects of the s modelled. All s used diesel as the fuel type in terms of the vehicles utilised and are cross comparable in this respect. It should be noted that Service 10 utilises bio diesel made from Used Cooking Oil (UCO). Unfortunately, the biodiesel emission factors published by the Government are full life cycle and are not compatible with the transport emission factors used elsewhere in the CEC Model which includes direct emissions only. Adopting the biodiesel emission factors would overestimate the carbon impact in comparison with other s using conventional fuels. As such, the was modelled applying an emission factor for conventional diesel; it is appreciated that this will have resulted in an underestimation of the carbon benefits of Service 10. The benefits of using biodiesel relate to reduced emissions compared to conventional fuels as well as utilisation of a local waste stream. The emissions from collection using biodiesel are reduced but not eliminated. CO 2 emissions from use of biodiesel produced from waste oil are considered to be carbon neutral and, thus, zero. However, some research suggests that biodiesel produces higher N 2 O 13 and CH 4 emissions, and, whilst these emissions are small, their effect may still be significant due to their greater potency as GHG. It is also important to emphasise that emissions reductions associated with the use of biodiesel depend greatly on the feedstock, with UCO providing the greatest benefits of most feedstocks. Research is still ongoing into the net environmental impact of biodiesel 14. Table 6.2 illustrates there is a variety of different size of vehicle utilised. This and the route characteristics will be the main factors influencing the fuel consumption and hence transport emissions of the collection element of the. There is considerable variation in the number of miles travelled per tonne of material collected. Service 15 has the highest mileage per tonne but includes delivery of reused items as well as collection. The kerbside collections were only able to provide data on reprocessor locations rather than details data on fuel use or mileage. Therefore, assumptions had to be made based on a typical haulage vehicle. Hence, as shown in Table 6.3 the results for litres/km are the same for all s. The total transport impact of each was therefore a factor of the relative distance of reprocessing locations. As an island location Service 10 had the greatest distances to travel with the addition of ferry transport. Data limitations and collection are further discussed in Section Also affected by engine type and maintenance. 14 Renewable Fuels Agency Year One of the RTFO: Renewable Fuels Agency report on the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation 2008/09 RFA

35 Service 5, Service 6 and Service 14 minimise the transport impacts of their by processing the food and green waste material on site. Service 5 was only able to do this after the collection scheme had already been established for some months. The savings brought about by this change were 0.57 tonnes carbon. Service 14 differed because material is delivered to site by householders and therefore it was impractical to calculate and include transport impacts. 26

36 Table 6.2: Service performance collection Service Ref CRNS 1 CRNS 10 CRNS 13 CRNS 5 CRNS 6 CRNS 11 CRNS 14 CRNS 16 Service description Data available Vehicle type Litres/ km Household kerbside collection in a rural local authority Household kerbside collection in an island location Household kerbside collection in a rural local authority Household food waste collection in an urban local authority Household green waste collection in an urban local authority SME food waste collection in an urban local authority Household green waste drop off in a rural local authority Household green waste collection in a rural local authority Vehicle type/fuel use/mileage Fuel use biodiesel (had to assume normal diesel as no agreed emission factor for biodiesel) Vehicle type/fuel use/mileage Miles/ tonne t CO 2 e whole t CO 2 e / t treated 3.5 tonne tonne tonne and 2 x 7.5 tonne Collected on foot Vehicle type/mileage 3.3 tonne Vehicle type/approximate mileage Material dropped off by householders 18 tonne Vehicle type/ fuel use Van CRNS 15 Household furniture reuse in a rural local authority Vehicle type/fuel use /mileage Van

37 Table 6.3: Service performance transport to reprocessor Service Ref CRNS 1 CRNS 10 CRNS 13 CRNS 5 CRNS 6 CRNS 11 CRNS 14 CRNS 16 CRNS 15 Service description Data available Litres/ km Household kerbside collection in a rural local authority Household kerbside collection in an island location Household kerbside collection in a rural local authority Household food waste collection in an urban local authority Household green waste collection in an urban local authority SME food waste collection in an urban local authority Household green waste drop off Household green waste collection Household furniture reuse in a rural local authority t CO 2 e whole t CO 2 e / t treated Reprocessor locations Reprocessor locations Reprocessor locations Reprocessor location/trips per wk/vehicle type Material treated on site no transport Approximate mileage to reprocessor No transport to reprocessor Combined with collection No data separating out transport for collection and transport for delivery. Therefore all transport impacts included in collection

38 7. Data Collection and Management 7.1. Data Limitations As discussed in Section 3.2 each Service was provided with a proforma for providing the data required to accurately model the carbon emissions from the Service. The process of data collection and the gaps in the data provided by s were the major limiting factor within this study. The intention had been to model five s of each collection type (kerbside dry recyclates, food and green waste and reuse). This was not possible within the time available as the remaining s were not able to easily provide the data required. The process of data collection has illustrated that the majority of the s do not routinely keep the records required to make the most accurate assessment of GHG emissions. The majority of s included in this report had problems providing a complete set of data. Each individual report gives details of the data assumptions that had to be made due to lack of data. Some of the key data gaps and assumptions are discussed below. Kerbside dry recyclate collection s: Reprocessor location: some of the kerbside s were only able to provide details of where materials were sent in terms of bulking/transfer station location. As this will not be the final location where the material is reprocessed the transport impacts will be underestimated. However, as illustrated in the discussion transport emissions are minor compared to the emission savings generated from recycling material. Transport to reprocessor: s were generally able to provide good data on collection in terms of fuel use or mileage (or both). However, very little data was provided on the annual fuel use, mileage, or even number of trips in order to take material to reprocessor or conducted by reprocessor collecting material. Lack of data on transport of contamination to landfill. Food and garden waste collection s: Collection transport: generally the food and garden waste s were not able to provide data to the same level of detail as the kerbside s. Some s were based on estimated average mileage per week rather than actual vehicle records. 29

39 Transport reprocessor: generally data on transport to reprocessing facilities were better for the food and garden waste s than the dry recyclate s. This is likely to be because only one reprocessor is generally involved rather than several. However, there were cases where only generalised data on the distance to reprocessor and trips per week was provided rather than actual data from vehicle records. Lack of data on transport of contamination to landfill. Reuse s Generally s lack data on the destination of goods sold. The mileage provided included both collection and delivery. The end users of the reusable items tend to be individual households i.e. many customers. Services that conduct a collection as well as delivery are not currently keeping a record of the separate fuel use or mileage for each element of the. This is because many s are delivered concurrently i.e. they will collect and deliver at the same time. Data is lacking on the composition by primary material of goods sold for reuse and refurbished goods. It is recognised that this is an action largely outside the scope of individual s but should be taken on by support organisations such as CRNS, Furniture Reuse Network and WRAP. Within this study generalised assumptions have been made about furniture and electrical good material composition based on published available data. The emissions savings generated through reuse s are based on the embodied fossil energy resulting from avoided waste. There is need for greater research on the lifespan of reused and refurbished goods that replace new items to understand the actual proportion of waste avoided. Within this study it has been assumed that a reused item directly replaces a new item. This is likely to overestimate the carbon benefit e.g. it is estimated that the average lifespan of a reused sofa is 5 years compared to 10 years for a new item. It is recommended that kerbside s conduct regular studies on set out rate and participation rates (households setting out at least once in a three week period). This provides a good metric on which to measure performance and identify opportunities for communication strategies to improve participation and hence material collected Recommendations for Routine Record Keeping It is recommended that community organisations should review systems in place to collect the data required for carbon assessments. A plan for addressing any gaps in record keeping should be put in place. Accurate data is required so that GHG emissions are not under or over estimated and enable benchmarking against other 30

40 similar s. In addition, better record keeping helps to identify ways to cut business running costs. Table 7.1 repeats the table from Section 3 and highlights the main records that companies should aim to keep in order to be able to routinely estimate the GHG emissions from their Service. As illustrated by the discussion above the main issue arising was in terms of the accuracy of the data provided. Table 7.1: Data required from CRNS member Stage of Variable Data required Collection [Stage 1] Transfer Station/Transportation to reprocessor [Stages 2/3] Transportation Coverage Materials Transfer to treatment facility size, fuel type and loading of per vehicle used for collection from households/properties; annual mileage or fuel use; breakdown by route if possible. details of any additional transportation e.g. ferry, rail number of households served; breakdown by route if possible material types collected and annual tonnage collected of each by material size, fuel type and loading of vehicle used for transfer from CRNS organisation to reprocessor, annual mileage or fuel use details of any additional transportation e.g. ferry, rail Reprocessing [Stage 4] Treatment type reuse, recycling or residual Residual waste [Stage 4] Contamination rate % rejected and consigned to landfill This study conducted an assessment of GHG emissions from the organisations waste Services. Companies may also find it of value to conduct a carbon footprint of their company. Table 7.2 illustrates additional records that will enable any company to complete a complete carbon footprint of their company. Definitions of the three groups or scopes are: Scope 1 (Direct emissions): Activities owned or controlled by an organisation that release emissions straight into the atmosphere. They are direct emissions. Examples of scope 1 emissions include emissions from combustion in owned or controlled boilers, furnaces, vehicles; emissions from chemical production in owned or controlled process equipment. Scope 2 (Energy indirect): Emissions being released into the atmosphere associated with consumption of purchased electricity, heat, steam and cooling. These are indirect emissions that are a consequence of an organisation s activities but which occur at sources not owned or controlled by the organisation. 31

41 Scope 3 (Other indirect): Emissions that are a consequence of an organizations actions, which occur at sources which are not owned or controlled and which are not classed as scope 2 emissions. Examples of scope 3 emissions are business travel by means not owned or controlled by an organisation, waste disposal, or purchased materials or fuels. DEFRA recommend that companies measure emissions that fall into Scope 1 or 2 but leave it as discretionary whether a company calculates Scope 3 emissions. DEFRA produced detailed guidance on company reporting of GHG emissions in September Table 7.2: Record keeping additional records to carbon footprint company Area Scope 1 and 2 Scope 3 Electricity Gas+Other Fuels Transport Water + Wastewater Waste On site consumption kwh from: renewable sources Purchased energy consumed (kwh): national grid CHP On site consumption kwh/litres/tonnes from: natural gas, diesel, burning oil, etc Purchased energy consumed: heat / steam cooling Owned transport (km/miles or fuel): commuting, business, distribution Not owned transport by all forms transport (transport other than by vehicles not owned by organization) (km/miles): commuting, business, distribution On site water use (m3): water supply mains, water treatment Waste to landfill (tonnes) Waste to recycling (tonnes by material) This includes waste generated by company operations as well as collected from the delivered. 15 Defra (2009) Guidance on How to Measure and Report your Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hhttp:// guidance.pdfh and Defra (2009) Small Business User Guide business user guide.pdf 32

42 8. Implications for the Community Sector This study has demonstrated that CRNS organisations reduce GHG emissions through diverting material from landfill. Across all the s the avoidance of consigning material to landfill is the main source of emission savings. This is particularly the case with the green and food waste collections where the s themselves do result in the production of emissions. Considerable additional savings are made by the recycling and reuse s due to the savings made through avoided manufacture and processing emissions. The comparative results highlight areas of operation which impact on the relative GHG emissions at different stages of the s. Route characteristics (and efficiency); Vehicle type and suitability for volumes of material collected; Reprocessing choice and reprocessing location; To varying degrees these are under the control of Services to change and therefore reduce the GHG emissions related to their. It should be noted that in many cases a carbon impact directly highlights a financial impact e.g. in terms of fuel purchased. Reducing GHG emissions is also likely to result in a financial saving. However, the pay back period will vary depending on the action taken e.g. improving route efficiency versus purchase of a new vehicle. The study has indicated that CRNS Services perform as well or better than local authority waste management s in terms of GHG emissions. The comparisons made were based on two Mixed local authorities. In comparison to local authority s CRNS members are able to offer a more flexible locally tailored which can deliver advantages in terms of GHG emissions: Collect and recycle a larger number of material types compared to local authority collections at kerbside. Materials such as metals, plastics and textiles deliver high GHG emissions savings when recycled. Collection of reusable items. Reuse results in greater GHG emissions savings than recycling. Collection of reusable items together with recycled items increases the GHG emissions savings as a result of kerbside s. Processing of material on the site of collection thus minimising transport emissions as well as GHG emissions related to use of material. 33

43 It is also essential to consider the other and varied benefits, both social and to the local economy, that CRNS member organisations provide, in addition to assisting in reducing the GHG emissions arising from the management of waste. The results and conclusions should be considered in the context of data limitations. The process of data collection, including gaps in the data provided by s, was found to be the major limiting factor within this study. It has been recommended that community organisations should review systems in place to collect the data required for carbon assessments and that a plan for addressing any gaps in record keeping should be put in place. Accurate data is required so that GHG emissions are not under or over estimated and enable benchmarking against other similar s. In addition, as GHG emissions are closely linked to fuel and energy use, both of which are increasingly expensive commodities, keeping accurate records of these factors would benefit the s from a financial as well as environmental viewpoint. 34

44 Appendix 1 Unit of Measure CO 2 is considered the ground zero of GHGs with the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of the other gases measured as a multiple of the GWP of CO 2. Six main GHGs have been identified, sometimes known as the Kyoto basket of six, and these are shown in the table below, together with their GWP and the main sources of emission. Table A.1: Kyoto 'basket of six' greenhouse gases Gas Chemical Formula GWP (IPCC*) Main Sources of Man Made Emissions (EA/SEPA**) Carbon Dioxide CO 2 1 Methane CH 4 23 Nitrous Oxide N 2 O 296 Hydrofluorocarbons HFCs Perfluorocarbons PFCs 6 12,000 Sulphur Hexafluoride SF 6 22,200 * Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change **Environment Agency/Scottish Environment Protection Agency Power generation through fossil fuel combustion; Transport: vehicle emissions; Manufacturing industry. Agriculture: ruminant animals (cows, sheep, goats etc); Landfill gas; Natural gas extraction & transportation (leakage from gas distribution system); Coal mining. Agriculture; Nitrogenous fertilisers; Wastewater treatment; Transport: vehicle emissions; Power generation; Production of acidic chemicals. Refrigeration; Air conditioning; Industrial aerosols. Semiconductor manufacture; Aluminium production. Electronics industry; Magnesium smelters; Consumer goods such as tennis balls and training shoes. HFCs, PFCs and SF 6, are known as the F gases and are all man made i.e. do not occur naturally. Having a much higher relative GWP, they are, in effect the better insulators. However, as CO 2, CH 4 and N 2 O are far more abundant in our atmosphere, most activity in this field focuses on these three gases. The entirely man made F gases remain important though with trends indicating that HFCs and SF 6 emissions are increasing in Scotland, whilst emissions of the other GHGs decrease. The CEC Carbon Waste Model calculates the GHG emissions associated with the waste management options under consideration (CO 2, CH 4 and N 2 O), and converts them to tonnes CO 2 equivalent (t CO 2 e) using the GWP value for each gas. I

45 Appendix 2: CEC Carbon Waste Model Data Sources The following peer reviewed data sources were utilised in the development of the CEC Carbon Waste Model: Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, IPCC, 2000: provides the basis for the calculation of landfill GHG emissions. This is consistent with the approach used by the UK Government in the UK NIR (National Inventory Report) The UK NIR adopts a tier 2 approach, employing some UK wide national data; however as this is largely based on data relating to England and Wales data extrapolated to Scotland, the CEC Model has used the IPCC recommended default values (tier 1 approach) in preference. Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), IPCC, 2007: factors used for converting tonnes of GHG to t CO 2 e are in line with National Inventory Reporting protocol. Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, IPCC, 2006: calculation of landfill GHG emissions and conversion factors for converting tonnes of GHG to t CO 2 e Guidelines to Defra/DECC s GHG Conversion Factors for Company Reporting, Defra. DECC, 2009 (September 2009 release). Impact of Energy from Waste and Recycling Policy on UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Defra, Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Lifecycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks, USEPA, September Guidelines to Defra s GHG Conversion Factors: Methodology Paper for Transport Emission Factors, Defra, 2008: ferry emissions factors. These documents also provided default data for any data gaps arising in the modelling process. This was further supplemented, where appropriate, by default data provided from previous modelling studies undertaken by CEC. In using the data contained in these reports, the CEC Carbon Waste Model has accepted and included assumptions made within these reports relating to: boundaries for lifecycle analysis the mix of virgin:recyclate in material use in manufacturing processes in the calculation of emissions savings through displacement in manufacture fuel mix in the production of electricity consumed in processes. II

46 Appendix 3: Modelling the Service: Principal Impacts of Waste Collection, Treatment and Disposal The impact of waste and recycling estimated in the modelling process fall into 4 main categories: 1) Collection: The t CO 2 e produced from the use of the collection vehicle/s. This can be determined from the total fuel consumed, or from information on distance travelled by the fleet and an estimation of the fuel consumption (litres/100km) for the vehicles used in the. 2) Bulking and Transport to Reprocessor: The amount of electricity and fuel used in the bulking/baling of the waste, and the onward transport to reprocessors located elsewhere in the UK. This may include transportation by ferry. 3) Displacement of Virgin materials: By using recycled materials in the product manufacturing process, virgin materials are no longer required by the manufacturing process and the reduction in their associated energy and emissions offer a reduction in the overall CO 2 produced. 4) Landfilling of the Waste: The biodegradable element of landfilled waste will produce CH 4 (which is 21 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO 2 ). A default value of 20% for landfill gas capture is suggested in the IPCC 2006 Guidelines; however, the CEC Model uses a value of 80% value which better reflects the current technology status in Scotland. In effect, the additional emissions of collection (1) and bulking/transfer (2) can be offset by the reduced GHG emissions from displaced virgin material (3), and reduced waste going to landfill (4). III

47 Appendix 4: Local Authority Services Modelling The local authority modelling work undertaken by CEC to date has entailed whole modelling. Thus the flow of all municipal solid waste (MSW) arisings through all waste management s provided by the Local Authority have been mapped and modelled in the local authority studies. This includes the kerbside dry and green waste collections but also other systems in place such as recycling points, household waste recycling centres, special uplifts, commercial waste collections, and residual waste treatment. The Model is designed such that all material diverted by waste recovery processes is subtracted from the total MSW arisings, with the remainder consigned to landfill. Thus, whilst the emissions data for individual kerbside s can be considered to provide a comparison for the CRNS s, the emissions data relating to material to landfill is calculated through a more complex process and, therefore, not comparable. Furthermore, whilst the modelling undertaken for the CRNS studies based baseline waste composition on the proportions and types of materials collected by the CRNS, the entire MSW arisings are used as a baseline for the local authority modelling work. This creates disparity in the waste compositions being consigned to landfill between the local authority and CRNS studies, with particular regard to biodegradability and thus GHG content in associated landfill gas emissions. Thus, whilst the local authority studies allow for comparison between the kerbside s delivered by local authority and CRNS organisations in relation to the GHG emissions savings arising from diversion of materials into the recycling stream, they cannot be used to provide a comparison for the net GHG emissions associated with both diversion into the recycling stream and diversion from landfill. With regard to transportation of materials, in particular collection from households, it is likely that the local authority will utilise the larger vehicles with higher fuel consumption as a result of the number of households they are required to. However, this higher fuel consumption may be balanced by the higher capacity requiring fewer journeys to the transfer station/depot. Finally, due to the considerable differences between different material types in the energy savings made in avoided virgin extraction and reprocessing energy consumption, each material within the waste stream has a unique emissions factor associated with recycling. Therefore, the overall emissions saved per tonne of material collected will be affected by the composition of that tonne of material. It is important to note that this is applicable to comparisons between individual CRNS s as well as between CRNS and local authority s. IV

48