Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Classification of Anthropogenic
Resources
Andrea WINTERSTETTER & Johann FELLNER
Institute for Water Quality, Resource and Waste Management
An
thro
po
ge
nic
Re
so
urc
es
2
Content
• What are Anthropogenic Resources AR?
• Why are AR important?
• Why should AR be evaluated & classified?
• How could we classify AR?
• 3 case studies
(Zn recovery from fly ash, residues form ore
processing & landfill mining)
An
thro
po
ge
nic
Re
so
urc
es
3
What are Anthropogenic Resources?
An
thro
po
ge
nic
Re
so
urc
es
4
Significance of Anthropogenic Resources I
Source: UNEP, 2011
Global average recycling content for metals
An
thro
po
ge
nic
Re
so
urc
es
5
Significance of Anthropogenic Resources II
Anthropogenic resources more and more important!
An
thro
po
ge
nic
Re
so
urc
es
6
Natural vs. Anthropogenic Resources
0
1
10
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
1,000,000
Al Cd Cu Fe Pb Ag
Mill
ion
to
ns
anthropogenic stock reserve base
Sources: Graedel, T., 2010. Metal Stocks in Society: Scientific Synthesis. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi.;
USGS, 2013. Mineral commodity summaries. United States Geological Survey (USGS), Reston.
HOW MUCH IS ACTUALLY
RECOVERABLE?
Anthropogenic resources (potential resource for urban mining)
Natural resources (reserves - extractable)
Evaluation & classification of AR
An
thro
po
ge
nic
Re
so
urc
es
7
Case study I: Zn – waste incineration ash
Waste Incineration Ashes
Zn, Pb,
…
Mass flows of Zn (in tons/a)
Grate Incineration
(Wet APC)
Waste incineration: EU-28 & Switzerland & Norway, 2011
Waste
70,000 tons/a
Fly ash
39,000 tons/a
Bottom ash
31,000 tons/a
Grate Incineration
(Semidry APC)
Grate Incineration
(Dry APC)
Fluidized Bed
Incineration
An
thro
po
ge
nic
Re
so
urc
es
8
Case study I: Evaluation of Zn flows
other occurrences
marginal economic
economic
subeconomic
1.5 times market price for Zn
10 times market price for Zn
market price for Zn (€ 1.6/kg Zn)
Wet APC (filter ash only)
Wet APC (boiler & filter ash)
Dry &
semidry
APC
Bottom ash
& FBC fly
ash
Source: Fellner et al. 2015
5,000 t 8,000 t 14,000 t 25,000 t
An
thro
po
ge
nic
Re
so
urc
es
9
Case Study II: “high-tech” metals
Companionability of metals (% of primary production)
High concentration of “high tech” metals (Se, In, Ga, Ge, ..) in
industrial wastes & by-products
“No” reserve-resource estimates for these metals
Source: Nassar et al. 2015
Recommendation:
include industrial waste into UNFC
An
thro
po
ge
nic
Re
so
urc
es
10
Case Study III: Landfill Mining (LFM)
Objective
Application of UNFC-2009 to anthropogenic stock
resources
Methods
Case Study: Landfilled materials: “Resources” or
“Reserves”?
• Material Flow Analysis (MFA)
• Environmental evaluation: Life cycle assessment
• Economic evaluation: Discounted cash flow analysis
• Uncertainty & sensitivity analysis
An
thro
po
ge
nic
Re
so
urc
es
11
Definition Landfill Mining :
„Process of extracting mineral or solid natural resources that
have been disposed of by burying them in the ground.“
(Krook et al., 2010)
First LFM project: 1953 in Israel
1953 – 2011: ≈ 60 documented LFM
projects
Main motives: Local pollution issues &
landfill capacities
Since 2014: European Enhanced Landfill
Mining Consortium
Background Landfill Mining
An
thro
po
ge
nic
Re
so
urc
es
12
Enhanced Landfill Mining (ELFM) project
in Belgium
• 16 Mio. t waste
• 130 ha
• Since 1970s
• 50 % municipal solid waste
• 50 % industrial waste
• Mining activities will start in 2017 for 20 years
• Initiated by former landfill operator in cooperation with
external partners
• Full valorization of waste streams as material or energy
planned
• WtE: Gas – Plasma Technology
Source: www. elfm.eu
An
thro
po
ge
nic
Re
so
urc
es
13
Investigated landfill mining scenarios
Gas-Plasma Technology
Landfill’s extractable &
potentially usable share
of materials
F O
C U
S
M E
T H
O D
S
MFA
E
co
no
mic
eva
lua
tio
n
Tech
no
log
ies
S
takeh
old
ers
„Micro
Gas-Plasma“
„Macro
Gas-Plasma“
„Micro
Incineration“
„Macro
Incineration“
Incineration
Landfill’s extractable &
potentially usable share
of materials
4 Scenarios
Source: Winterstetter et al. 2015.
An
thro
po
ge
nic
Re
so
urc
es
14
Results I: Climate Impact Costs: Life Cycle
Assessment
New emissions
caused
by landfill mining
Saved emissions
No emission savings!!
Source: Winterstetter et al. 2015
Results II:
Socioeconomic
viability
Dis
co
un
ted
Re
ve
nu
es
Dis
co
un
ted
Co
sts
No emission savings!! No emission savings!!
Source:
Winterstetter et al. 2015
An
thro
po
ge
nic
Re
so
urc
es
16
Summary of the results
Main drivers for economic performance: Parameters
related to metals sales & energetic valorization
No GHG emission savings
NPVs < 0 for all scenarios “RESOURCE“ or NOT?
Factors to reach cut-off prices for non-ferrous metals
• “Micro Incineration”: ≈ 12 x
• “Micro Gas-Plasma”: ≈ 15 x
• “Macro Incineration”: ≈ 6.5 x
• “Macro Gas-Plasma” : ≈ 8.5 x
Realistic chances to
become economically
viable within the next
20 years
“RESOURCE”
Source: Winterstetter et al. 2015
An
thro
po
ge
nic
Re
so
urc
es
17
1st digit (E): Socioeconomic viability
2nd digit (F): Technical / project feasibility
3rd digit (G): Knowledge on landfill’s composition
Exemplary classification under UNFC-2009
Source: UNECE, 2010
Source: Winterstetter et al. 2015
An
thro
po
ge
nic
Re
so
urc
es
18
Conclusions
Lessons learnt from the LFM case study
• UNFC-2009 successfully applied
• Classification depends on a number of factors:
- Stakeholder perspective
- Choice of technology / project set-up
- Inclusion of non-monetary modifying factors
• Modifying factors differ for each site => Evaluation on an individual basis
An
thro
po
ge
nic
Re
so
urc
es
19
Outlook
Application of UNFC-2009 to other types of anthropogenic
resources
• Stocks, obsolete flows & the potential of in-use materials
Challenges:
• Define quantifiable & comparable criteria analogous with the
axes and classes of UNFC-2009
• Account for several changing (correlated?) modifying factors
• How to deal with the inclusion (monetization) of non-
monetary effects?
Common platform for describing &
evaluating primary and anthropogenic
resource deposits
An
thro
po
ge
nic
Re
so
urc
es
20
Literature
Enhanced Landfill Mining (ELFM), (2013). http://www.elfm.eu/en/default.aspx, accessed on
04.02.2014, 10:26 am.
Fellner, J., Lederer, J., Purgar, A., Winterstetter, A., Rechberger, H., Winter, F., & Laner, D.
(2015). Evaluation of resource recovery from waste incineration residues–The case of
zinc. Waste Management 37: 95-103.
Krook, J., Svensson, N., Eklund, M., Johansson, N., Frändegard, P. (2010). Landfill mining: A
review of three decades of research. Knowledge Collaboration & Learning for Sustainable
Innovation, ERSCP-EMSU conference. Delft, The Netherlands, October 2010.
Nassar, N.T., Graedel, T. E., Harper, E. M. (2015). By-product metals are technologically
essential but have problematic supply. Sci. Adv. 2015;1:e1400180.
UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), (2010). United Nations Framework
Classification for Fossil Energy and Mineral Reserves and Resources 2009. ECE ENERGY
SERIES No.39. United Nations: New York, 2010.
UNEP (2011). Recycling Rates of Metals – A Status Report. International Resource Panel.
ISBN 978-92-807-3161-3.
Weber, L. (2013). Stärken und Schwächen internationaler Vorratsklassifikationssysteme.-
Berg Huettenmänn Monatsh .,158, 130-139.
Winterstetter, A., Laner, D., Rechberger, H., & Fellner, J. (2015). Framework for the
evaluation of anthropogenic resources: A landfill mining case study–Resource or
reserve?. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 96, 19-30.
An
thro
po
ge
nic
Re
so
urc
es
21
Questions or comments?
Thank you!
