Eco-Efficiency of Take-Back and Recycling A comprehensive and quantitative approach

Delft University of TechnologyIndustrial Design Engineering Design for Sustainability Program

Eco-Efficiency of Take-Back and Recycling

A comprehensive and quantitative approach

Jaco Huisman, Ab Stevels


Outline

1. Methodology– QWERTY:

Recyclability from an environmental perspective?– EE: Eco-Efficiency:

Relation environment and economics?

2. Requirements3. Examples4. Eco-efficiency directions5. Conclusions


Why QWERTY? (Quotes for environmentally Weighted RecyclabiliTY)

General Idea:Replace ‘weight’ by ‘environmental weight’:• Environmental value of disposed products• Optimal recycling routes• Priorities of different materials• How effective are proposed recycling targets and

treatment rules?

Environmental description of the end-of-life chain


QWERTY: Basic Idea

All materials recovered, best case

All materials to worst case end-of-life route

100%

QWERTY score

0%

Minimum environmental impact

Actual environmental impact

Maximum environmental impact

QWERTY

QWERTYloss

All materials recovered, best case

All materials to worst case end-of-life route

100%

QWERTY score

0%

Minimum environmental impact

Actual environmental impact

Maximum environmental impact

QWERTY

QWERTYloss


Why Eco-Efficiency of End-of-Life?Authorities/ LegislatorsMeaningful criteriaPolicy per product categoryMonitor performance

Designer Evaluate (re)design

NGO’s/ Customer organizationsGreen demands and corresponding price tags

ProducersCalculate End-of-Life costsAudit recyclers

ConsumersEnvironmental value for money

RecyclersCalculate tariffsTechnology improvement Economic description of

the end-of-life chain


How to Quantify Eco-Efficiency?

Environmental gain

(€)

Costs

Environmental burden

(mPts)

Revenues

PositiveEco-efficiency

BALANCEmPt/€

NegativeEco-efficiency

BALANCE€/mPt

Environmental gain

(€)

Costs


(mPts)

Revenues

PositiveEco-efficiency

BALANCEmPt/€

NegativeEco-efficiency

BALANCE€/mPt


Requirements

Data (Dutch take-back system):1. Product compositions2. Disassembly/ shredding and separation 3. LCA methods and standard databases4. Collection rates, transport distances, costs 5. Recovery processes: metal smelters etc. 6. Final waste processing: emissions and

penalties



Examples

1. ‘Weight’ (MRE) versus ‘Environmental Weight’ (QWERTY)

2. Contribution of processes3. Plastic recycling or separate treatment of

cellular phones4. Design strategies5. Plastic recycling versus size of housings


Contribution of materials (cellular phone)

WEIGHT ENVIRONMENTAL WEIGHT

Copper

Palladium

Gold

QWERTY composition Weight composition

Glass

Copper

Plastics

Zinc

Other


Contribution of processes (cellular phone)

-150-100-50050

Pd

Au

Copper

Ni

Sn

Ag

Aluminium

Plastics Al smelter gain

Al smelter burden

Cu smelter gain

Cu smelterburden

Incineration gain

Incinerationburden

Environmental burden (mPts) Environmental gain


Plastic recycling and separate treatment (cellular phone)

-€ 1,00

-€ 0,75

-€ 0,50

-€ 0,25

€ 0,00

€ 0,25-200-150-100-50050

MSW

Regulartreatment

Separatetreatment

Plastic recycling

Revenues

(€)

Costs

Environmental loss (mPts) Environmental gain

1 3

2


Design Strategies (DVD player)

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

Best Case Worst Case Recycling

Sn

Pd

Pb

Au

Plastics

Ferro

Copper

Environmental burden (mPt)

Environmental gain (mPt)

1

2

3


-300

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

00,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0

mPts/€

Weight housings (kg)

'Eco-efficiency'

Plastic recycling versus size of housings

Large sized

Medium sized

Small sized


Eco-efficiency directions

Environmental gain

(€)

Costs


(mPts)

Revenues

ENCOURAGE

AVOID

A

B CD

BALANCE

BALANCE


Eco-efficiency directions: ENCOURAGE

Direction:1. Increase collection rates precious dominated

products2. Separate collection system for precious

dominated products 3. Plastic recycling large sized housings, already

disassembled


Eco-efficiency directions: AVOID

Direction:1. Incineration without energy recovery 2. Residue fractions with low plastic content send

to the cement industry


0 1000 2000 3000

Increase collection metal dominated products

Increase glass recycling 15% to 70%

Increase collection rates glass dominated products

Plastic recycling medium sized housings (1-2,5 kg)

Plastic recycling small sized housings (0-1kg)

Environmental gain in mPts per € invested

Eco-efficiency directions: BALANCE

High priority

Low priority


Conclusions (Policy Strategies)

Problem:End-of-life treatment has to do with material

compositions and not with categoriesSolution:Review (current EU) policy strategies

1. Drastically review recycling targets2. Apply differentiated collection rates 3. Apply certain outlet rules4. Discard most of the current treatment rules and apply

certain new ones


Further applications

1. Audit and improve recycler performance2. Monitoring take-back systems as a whole3. Evaluate design strategies and life-cycle

perspective4. Award good ecodesign of individual products

in a collective system5. Broader regional and product scope


More information about this presentation

or the Ph.D. thesis:

[email protected]


Extra Slides


Contribution of materials (DVD player)

MRE definition QWERTY definition

Copper

Plastics

Ferro

Tin

Ferro

Other

Copper

Plastics

Gold

Lead

Palladium Aluminium

Weight composition Environmental weight composition


Environmental contribution of processes

-250-200-150-100-50050100

Copper

Sn

Ferro

Plastics

Aluminium

Pd

Pb

Au Fe smelter gain

Fe smelter burden

Al smelter gain

Cu smelter gain

Cu smelter burden

Incineration gain

Incineration burden

Environmental burden (mPts) Environmental gain


Net Environmental ImpactCollection and "recycling" Transport 5,6

Shredding + sep. 2,68,3

Final waste Incineration + e 0,70,7

Secondary material Cu smelter -94,3 processing Al smelter -7,7

Ferro smelter -71,3 -173,4

Total -164,4 -164,4

Example: Environmental impacts/ stage


Net Costs/ RevenuesCollection and "recycler" Transport and collection € 0,32

Shredding + sep. € 0,36Sorting and handling € 0,18

€ 0,86Final waste Incineration + e € 0,06

€ 0,06Secondary material Cu smelter -€ 0,36processing Al smelter € 0,00

Ferro smelter -€ 0,10-€ 0,45

Total € 0,47 € 0,47

Example: DVD player, Integral CostsExcluding consumer to

retailer/ municipality costs (to EUR 1,66)


DVD player: Eco-efficiency direction

Environmental gain

Costs


(mPts)

Revenues

+10 -160

€ 0,53

€ 0,47

€ 0,00

0

MSW

Recycling

Environmental gain

Costs


(mPts)

Revenues

+10 -160

€ 0,53

€ 0,47

€ 0,00

0

MSW

Recycling

ENCOURAGE


Evaluation of Redesign DVD player

(500)

(400)

(300)

(200)

(100)

-

100

200

Originaldesign best

caseNew designbest case

Originaldesign worst

caseNew designworst case

Originaldesign

recyclingscenario

New designrecyclingscenario

Cl

Br

Cr

Bi

Sb

Ceramics

Other

Ni

Ag

Zn

Aluminium

Pb

Sn

Pd

Au

Plastics

Copper

Ferro


Eco-efficiency of different EOL options

€ 0,00

€ 0,50

€ 1,00

€ 1,50

€ 2,00

€ 2,50

-400-300-200-1000100

State-of-the-artrecycling, (100%collection)Incineration, noenergy recovery

Incineration, energyrecovery

Controlled Landfill

20% collection

plastic recyclinghousings

Revenues

(€)

Costs


Soundmachine: Plastic Recycling? (EI’99)

BEST CASE! (under economies of scale realized)


Soundmachine: Material Selection

-1200

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

Best Case,plastic

Best Case,Fe

Best Case,Al

Recycling,plastic

Recycling,Fe

Recycling, Al

Aluminium

Ferro

Copper

Plastics

Sn

Pd

Pb

Environmental costs (mPt)

Environmental gain (mPt)


Eco-efficiency of different EOL options

€ 0,00

€ 1,00

€ 2,00

€ 3,00

€ 4,00

€ 5,00

€ 6,00

€ 7,00

-800-600-400-2000200

State-of-the-art recycling

Incineration, no energyrecovery

Incineration, energyrecovery

Controlled Landfill

60% collection, 31%incineration, 9% landfill

Increased glass recycling(15% tot 70%)

Plastic recycling housings

Revenues

(€)

Costs


1

2

3

4

Glass recycling 17”Monitor?

(15 kg, glass: 9,5 kg; increase glass recycling 15% to 70%)


Prediction eco-efficiency different products


Changing Logistics: ‘Pick-up on demand’

0

10

20

30

40

50-2000-1500-1000-5000

Currently, 60% collection CRT, 15%other browngood

Collection at households, 60%collection CRT, 15% otherbrowngood

Collection at households, 62,5%collection CRT, 30% otherbrowngood

Collection at households, 65%collection CRT, 45% otherbrowngood

Revenues

(106 €)

Costs

Environmental loss (106 mPts) Environmental gain


Conclusions (Methodology)

1. An end-of-life chain approach and evaluation is the first requirement

2. It is possible to monitor eco-efficiency of take-back systems and single products quantitatively

3. It is possible to quantify the contribution of different actors and stakeholders

4. It is possible to set priorities regarding materials and end-of-life options (where to invest first?)

5. It is possible to quantify how much “environmental improvement” for “money invested” is realized

Documents

Eco-Efficiency of Take-Back and Recycling A comprehensive and quantitative approach