Case Studies on Waste Management in Sweden

1
Case Studies on Waste Management in Sweden

• Jan-Olov Sundqvist
• IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute,
  Stockholm
• E-mail Jan-Olov.Sundqvist_at_ivl.se

2
This presentation

• 1. General overview of Swedish case studies and
  their results
• 2. Deeper presentation of one of the studies
  ORWARE

3
Part 1. Case studies in Sweden

• Three research groups
• ORWARE cooperation between
• IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute
• Royal Institute of Technology
• Swedish Institute of Agricultural and
  Environmental Engineering
• fms (Environmental Strategies Research Group)
• Chalmers University of Technology (MIMES/Waste,
  Natwaste)
• In a special co-operation project we penetrated
  our studies, to find general conclusions and to
  analyse differences.Totally 8 case studies were
  analysed

4
The studies have some different scopes

• environment and/or economy
• societal perspective (from the cradle to the
  grave) or actors perspective (e.g. municipality
  or waste company)

5
Different scopes
Environ-ment
fms
ORWARE
Economy (financial)
NatWaste
MIMES/Waste
Societal perspective
Actors perspective
6
Some assumptions in all studies

• Time perspective best choices to build up a
  waste system now for the next 10 - 15 years
• Best available technology
• Incineration high energy recovery - district
  heating
• Material recycling the same virgin material is
  recycled
• Landfilling gas recovery with heat and/or
  electricity production. Only emissions during the
  closest 100 years are shown

7
more assumptions

• Anaerobic digestion gas for bus fuel
  alternatively production of heat and electricity.
  The digestate is used on arable land and
  substitutes chemical fertiliser.
• Composting compost is used on arable land and
  substitutes chemical fertiliser.

8
General conclusions

• 1. Landfilling should be avoided for wastes that
  can be recycled, incinerated (with energy
  recovery), anaerobic digested or composted.
• This is motivated from both environmental and
  economic reasons.

9

• 2. Anaerobic digestion and incineration is
  difficult to compare (equal) - both have
  environmental advantages and disadvantages. The
  financial costs for anaerobic digestion is higher
  than for incineration.
• 3. Composting has no environmental or economic
  advantages compared to incineration or anaerobic
  digestion.

10

• 4. Material recycling is generally preferable to
  incineration from an environmental point of view.
  The result can be varying for different
  materials.
• Non-renewable materials such as plastic and
  metals are especially favourable to recycle.
• For renewable materials, e.g. paper and
  cardboard, the differences between material
  recycling and incineration are smaller than for
  non-renewable materials such as plastics and
  metals.

11

• 5. Transports of waste is of very low importance
  energetically and environmentally. Private
  transports of waste, from home to the collection
  site can play a role.

12

• 6. The landfill can in some cases work as a
  carbon sink, which can affect the results for
  renewable and slowly degradable materials such as
  paper.
• In a short time perspective landfilling also can
  have some advantages for some materials since the
  emissions are postponed to the future.

13

• 7. Phosphorus is a non-renewable resource. The
  domestic waste, however, plays a very minor role
  for the total phosphorus balance.
• In Sweden
• 1000 tons P in domestic waste, about 100 ton is
  recycled
• 6000 tons P in sewage sludge, about 2000 tons
  are recycled
• 20 000 tons in manure, almost all is recycled
• 20 000 tons chemical fertiliser are used

14
Part 2. Results from ORWARE
15
Computerised model ORWARE

• Calculates
• material, substance and energy flows
• emissions
• costs
• System perspective
• LCA - from the cradle to the grave

16
Waste core system in ORWARE
17
Not only the waste system..

• The waste system can produce district heating,
  bus fuel (biogas), electricity, plastic,
  cardboard, fertiliser
• How shall the spared resources be handled??
• In all scenarios the same products are produced,
  either by the waste system or the compensatory
  system (external system)

Waste system
Compensatory system
Product
18
Total system
Compensatory system
Alternative
Alternative
Alternative
Waste sources
fertiliser
raw
material
raw
energy
raw
material
material
material
Emissions
Waste management
Material
Alternative
Alternative
Alternative
system
production
production
production
of
of
energy
of material
N-
,P-
fertiliser
Costs
Energy
Energy
Fertiliser
Material
Energy
Fertiliser
Material
19
All scenarios produce the same amount of products
and services

• Waste from 186 000 people
• District heating 762 TJ
• Electricity 48 TJ
• Bus fuel for 4 100 000 km
• Chemical fertiliser, P 15 ton
• Chemical fertiliser, N 77 tons
• Cardboard pulp 2 030 ton
• Plastic granules 896 ton

20
Upstream and downstrean processes

• Examples pre-process
• emissions and energy consumption from extraction
  of crude oil
• Examples post-process
• landfilling of ash from coal combustion for
  electricity production

21
Questions of issue

• How shall different materials in the waste be
  treated to make the energy utilisation (or
  material utilisation or plant nutrient
  utilisation) of waste as effective as possible
  with respect to environment and economy

22
Scenarios

• 1. All waste is incinerated
• 2. All waste is landfilled
• 3. Degradable waste is anaerobically digested.
  Biogas is used for bus fuel. Other waste is
  incinerated
• 4. Degradable waste is anaerobically digested.
  Biogas is used for electricity/heat. Other waste
  is incinerated
• 5. Degradable waste is composted. Other waste is
  incinerated
• 6. Cardboard is recycled. The other waste is
  incinerated
• 7. Plastic (PE-plastic) is recycled. The other
  waste is incinerated.

23
Some assumptions

• Alternative district heating is produced by
  biofuel (wood chips) in the compensatory system.
• Electricity is produced from nature gas (marginal
  electricity).

24
Global warming
25
Energy
26
And a lot more diagrams.
27
Life Cycle Costs LCC

• All costs from the cradle to the grave
• Both waste system and external system
• Included pre-processes and post-processes
• Same system boundaries as the LCA part
• Shows the costs for the society to produce the
  functional units

28
Financial Life Cycle Costs
1 SEK ? 1 ? 1 US
29

• Welfare economy Life Cycle Costs
  Environmental costs
• Environmental costs by three different methods
• ORWARE
• ECOTAX
• EPS 2000

30
Welfare (societal) costs - ORWARE
1 SEK ? 1 ? 1 US
31
Welfare (societal) costs - EPS
SEK/person, year
Welfare economy (EPS)
1 400
1 200
1 000
Emissions
800
Energy resources
External system
600
Waste system
400
200
0
Landfill
Incineration
Composting
1 SEK ? 1 ? 1 US
Plastic recycling
An. dig.- heat/el.
An, dig - bus fuel
Cardboard recycling
32
Welfare (societal) costs - Ecotax
Welfare economy (Ecotax)
SEK/person, year
1 800
1 600
1 400
1 200
Emissions
1 000
Energy resources
External system
800
Waste system
600
400
200
0
Landfill
Incineration
Composting
Plastic recycling
An, dig - bus fuel
An. dig.- heat/el.
Cardboard recycling
1 SEK ? 1 ? 1 US
33
If peoples time is valued to 7 /h
SEK/person, year
800

700
600
500
Time spent by households
Environmental valuation
400
External system
300
Waste system
200
100
0
Landfill
Incineration
Composting
Plastic recycling
An, dig - bus fuel
An. dig.- heat/el.
Cardboard recycling
1 SEK ? 1 ? 1 US
34
Thank You