Upload
rachel-fowler
View
214
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Improving LCA studies: a case study on paper and card LCAs
By Henrik Wenzel1 and Alejandro Villanueva2
1 Technical University of Denmark, Department of Manufacturing Engineering and Management, Innovation and Sustainability, Denmark. Corresponding author: [email protected]
2 Danish Topic Centre on Waste, Denmark
WRAP LCA Symposium‘Making the most of LCA thinking’
23 November 2006, Savoy Place, London WC2R 0BL
Acknowledgements
• European Commision, DG Environment– review
• WRAP, the Waste and Resources Action Programme, UK– further data analysis
Literature search approach and outcomeThe international literature search contained three main
elements:
• A targeted approach to LCA institutions and experts worldwide and material institutions and waste institutions
• A broad search of the scientific literature
• An international Internet search via search engines and homepages of relevant institutions (mainly national Environmental Protection Agencies)
Evaluated and selected studies
Evaluated: 108 studies
Selected: 9 studies
No. of scenarios: 63
Criteria for final inclusion of studies in the review
1. The study was to be an LCA or LCA-like study complying with LCA quality standards
2. The material stream in question was analysed and reported on separately, that is, not as a part of a mixed waste stream
3. The study included a comparison of two or more scenarios for the end-of-life handling of the material stream in question.
OBS: In practice, all studies comprising a quantitative environmental comparison of waste management options also met the other two criteria and were included
Results and conclusions were held up against system delimitation issuesRaw materials /forestry
1 Alternative use of land/wood included?
2 Saved wood used for energy?
3 Wood marginal
Paper production Virgin paper
4 - Electricity marginal
5 - Steam marginal
Recovered paper
6 - Electricity marginal
7 - Steam marginal
8 Energy export from virgin paper included?
Disposal /energy recovery
9 Which is the main alternative to recycling: incineration or landfilling?
10 Emissions from landfill included?
11 Energy from incineration substitutes heat?
12 Energy from incineration substitutes electricity?
13 Alternative use of incineration & landfilling capacity included?
14 In which ratio does recycled paper substitute virgin paper? (1:1 or 1:0.8 or 1:0.5 or other)
15 Handling of rejects and de-inking waste from paper recovery included?
Essential system delimiation issues identified
Waste management comparisons
Scenarios comparing: • recycling to incineration • recycling to landfill• incineration to landfill
I
R
L
A B
System boundary approaches:
A: Quantitative and relative presentation possible
B: Quantitative, but not relative presentation possible
Result presentation format
– example: energy
9.2 1.2
9.4 3.1 Number of scenarios
Less impact from recycling9.6 4.1 More impact from recycling
9.8 8.2
2.1 9.9 8.11
2.3 9.11 8.14
2.5 9.12 9.1
2.7 9.13 9.3 1.4
2.9 9.15 9.7 4.2
2.11 9.5 9.17 9.10 8.5
5.1 9.14 9.18 9.16 8.8
-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Relative difference: (Recycling - Incineration) / Incineration
1
3
5
7Energy consumption
[Impact from recycling] - [Impact from incineration]_________________________________________
[Impact from incineration]%
2.3
2.5 Number of scenarios
2.7 Less impact from recycling More impact from recycling
2.11 7
5.1
9.2 5
9.5 7.6 3.1
9.8 9.12 8.2 2.1
9.11 9.13 9.6 4.2 8.11 1.2 2.9
9.14 9.15 9.10 7.5 7.4 8.14 4.1 1.4 9.7
9.17 9.18 9.16 9.4 9.3 9.1 8.5 8.8 9.9
-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Global Warming Potential, CO2- eq.
Result presentation format
– example: global warming potential
All impact categories Recycling vs. Incineration
9.2 1.2
9.4 3.1 Number of scenarios Number of scenariosLess negative environmental9.6 4.1 More negative environmental Less negative environmental More negative environmentalimpact from recycling9.8 8.2 impact from recycling impact from recycling9.5 impact from recycling
2.1 9.9 8.11 9.11 2.1
2.3 9.11 8.14 9.12 2.9
2.5 9.12 9.1 9.13 7.4 5.1
2.7 9.13 9.3 1.4 2.3 9.14 7.6 7.5 8.5
2.9 9.15 9.7 4.2 2.5 9.15 9.6 8.2 8.8
2.11 9.5 9.17 9.10 8.5 2.7 9.17 9.10 9.2 4.2 4.1 8.11 8.14
5.1 9.14 9.18 9.16 8.8 2.11 9.8 9.18 9.16 9.4 9.3 9.1 9.9 3.1 9.7
-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Relative difference: (Recycling - Incineration) / Incineration Relative difference: (Recycling - Incineration) / Incineration
2.3
2.5 Number of scenarios 9.1 Number of scenarios
2.7 Less negative environmental More negative environmental Less negative environmental9.3 More negative environmental2.11 impact from recycling 7 impact from recycling impact from recycling9.4 7 impact from recycling
5.1 9.6
9.2 5 9.10
9.5 7.6 3.1 2.3 9.11
9.8 9.12 8.2 2.1 2.5 9.12 3.1
9.11 9.13 9.6 4.2 8.11 1.2 2.9 2.7 9.13 9.16 8.2 8.11 4.1
9.14 9.15 9.10 7.5 7.4 8.14 4.1 1.4 9.7 2.11 9.14 9.17 9.2 8.14 7.4 1.2 9.7
9.17 9.18 9.16 9.4 9.3 9.1 8.5 8.8 9.9 5.1 9.15 9.18 9.5 9.8 8.5 8.8 1.4 9.9
-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Relative difference: (Recycling - Incineration) / Incineration Relative difference: (Recycling - Incineration) / Incineration
Number of scenarios Number of scenariosLess negative environmental More negative environmental Less negative environmental More negative environmentalimpact from recycling 7 impact from recycling impact from recycling 7 impact from recycling
5 9.1 9.2 5
9.3 9.4
8.5 3 9.10 9.6 9.7 3 1.2
8.8 9.12 9.11 9.9 8.5
8.11 9.13 9.16 9.14 8.2 8.8 1.4
8.14 8.2 2.5 9.15 9.18 9.17 8.11 8.14 9.5 9.8
-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Relative difference: (Recycling - Incineration) / Incineration Relative difference: (Recycling - Incineration) / Incineration
Number of scenarios X.Y
Less negative environmental More negative environmentalimpact from recycling 7 impact from recycling X.Y
2.1
2.3 5
2.5 X.Y
2.7 3.1 3
2.9 8.5 7.4 X.Y
2.11 8.8 7.5 1.4
5.1 8.11 8.14 8.2 4.2 1.2 4.1 X.Y
-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Relative difference: (Recycling - Incineration) / Incineration X:Y
3
5
7
1
3
5
7
Energy
consumption
The LCA cov ers only w aste management end-of-life. The
quantification in percentage is, therefore, not possible, and the
env ironmental preference is show n qualitativ ely out of scale
The LCA cov ers the entire life cy cle, i.e. relativ e difference in
percentage can be calculated
Global Warming
Potential, CO2- eq.
Toxicity
Resource
consumption
Other energy related
impacts
Figure 3.1 Frequency histograms of the distribution of results from the various scenarios of the reviewed studies showing the relative difference in impact from recycling vs. incineration. A negative value means that recycling causes less impact than incineration
Other:
Wastew ater (study 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8)
Land use (study 7)
Waste
Green = New sprint, new spapers, magazines
Orange = Mix ed paper, graphic paper, office paper
Yellow = corrugated board and other cardboard
Means that this v alue lies outside of the scale.
All impact categories Recycling vs. Landfill
Number of scenarios Number of scenarios
Less negative environmental More negative environmental Less negative environmental More negative environmentalimpact from recycling 7 impact from recycling impact from recycling 7 impact from recycling
2.2 5 5
2.4 1.3
6.1 8.1 3
6.2 8.4 8.4
6.3 1.1 8.7 1 8.7
6.4 8.10 8.13 2.4 8.1 8.10 8.13 2.2
-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -100%-75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Relative difference: (Recycling - Landfill) / Landfill Relative difference: (Recycling - Landfill) / Landfill
Number of scenarios Number of scenarios
Less negative environmental More negative environmental Less negative environmental More negative environmentalimpact from recycling 7 impact from recycling impact from recycling 7 impact from recycling
5 5
2.2 1.1 2.4
2.4 1.3 3 6.1 3
6.1 8.4 6.2 8.1 1.3
6.3 8.1 8.7 6.3 8.10 8.4 1
6.4 8.10 8.13 6.2 6.4 1.1 8.13 8.7 2.2
-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -100%-75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Relative difference: (Recycling - Landfill) / Landfill Relative difference: (Recycling - Landfill) / Landfill
Number of scenarios Number of scenarios
Less negative environmental More negative environmental Less negative environmental More negative environmentalimpact from recycling 7 impact from recycling impact from recycling 7 impact from recycling
5 5
2.2
8.4 3 6.1 1.1 3
8.7 6.2 8.4 1.3
8.10 1 6.3 8.7 8.1 1
8.13 8.1 6.4 8.10 8.13
-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -100%-75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Relative difference: (Recycling - Landfill) / Landfill Relative difference: (Recycling - Landfill) / Landfill
Number of scenarios
Less negative environmental More negative environmental X.Yimpact from recycling 7 impact from recycling
X.Y5
3 X.Y
8.4
2.2 8.7 1 X.Y
2.4 8.10 8.13 8.1 1.3 1.1
-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% X.Y
Relative difference: (Recycling - Landfill) / Landfill
Energy
consumption
Global Warming Potential,
CO2- eq.
Toxicity
Resource
consumption
Other energy
related impacts
Figure 3.2 Frequency histograms of the distribution of results from the various scenarios of the reviewed studies showing the relative difference in impact from recycling vs. landfilling. A negative value means that recycling causes less impact than landfilling
Other:
Wastew ater (study 1, 2, 8)
Land use (study 7)
Waste
The LCA cov ers only w aste management end-of-life. The
quantification in percentage is, therefore, not possible, and the
env ironmental preference is show n qualitativ ely out of scale
The LCA cov ers the entire life cy cle, i.e. relativ e difference in
percentage can be calculated
Green = New sprint, new spapers, magazines
Orange = Mix ed paper, graphic paper, office paper
Yellow = corrugated board and other cardboard
All impact categories Recycling vs. a mix of Incineration and Landfill
Number of scenarios Number of scenarios
Less negative environmental More negative environmental Less negative environmental More negative environmentalimpact from recycling 7 impact from recycling impact from recycling 7 impact from recycling
5 5
2.6 8.3 3 2.6
2.8 8.6 2.8
2.10 8.9 1 2.10 7.1 8.9
2.12 8.12 8.15 2.12 7.2 8.3 8.12 8.15 8.6
-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -100%-75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Relative difference: (Recycling - disposal mix) / disposal mix Relative difference: (Recycling - disposal mix) / disposal mix
Number of scenarios Number of scenarios
Less negative environmental More negative environmental Less negative environmental More negative environmentalimpact from recycling 7 impact from recycling impact from recycling 7 impact from recycling
5 5
2.6 8.6 3 2.6 7.1 3
2.8 8.9 2.8 7.2 8.6
2.10 7.1 8.12 2.10 8.3 8.9 1
2.12 7.2 8.3 8.15 2.12 8.12 8.15
-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -100%-75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Relative difference: (Recycling - disposal mix) / disposal mix Relative difference: (Recycling - disposal mix) / disposal mix
Number of scenarios Number of scenarios
Less negative environmental More negative environmental Less negative environmental More negative environmentalimpact from recycling 7 impact from recycling impact from recycling 7 impact from recycling
5 5
8.6 3 8.3 3
8.9 8.6
8.12 7.1 1 2.6 8.9 1
8.15 8.3 7.2 2.10 8.12 8.15
-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -100%-75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Relative difference: (Recycling - disposal mix) / disposal mix Relative difference: (Recycling - disposal mix) / disposal mix
Number of scenarios
Less negative environmental More negative environmental X.Yimpact from recycling 7 impact from recycling
X.Y5
2.6 3 X.Y
2.8 8.6 7.1
2.10 8.9 7.2 1 X.Y
2.12 8.12 8.15 8.3
-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% X.Y
Relative difference: (Recycling - disposal mix) / disposal mix
Energy
consumption
Global Warming
Potential, CO2- eq.
Toxicity
Resource
consumption
Other energy
related impacts
Figure 3.3 Frequency histograms of the distribution of results from the various scenarios of the reviewed studies showing the relative difference in impact from recycling vs. a mix of incineration and landfill. A negative value means that recycling causes less impact than this disposal mix
Other:
Wastew ater (study 2, 8)
Land use (study 7)
Waste
The LCA cov ers only w aste management end-of-life. The
quantification in percentage is, therefore, not possible, and the
env ironmental preference is show n qualitativ ely out of scale
The LCA cov ers the entire life cy cle, i.e. relativ e difference in
percentage can be calculated
Green = New sprint, new spapers, magazines
Orange = Mix ed paper, graphic paper, office paper
Yellow = corrugated board and other cardboard
All impact categories Incineration vs. Landfill
Number of scenarios Number of scenarios
Less negative environmental More negative environmental Less negative environmental More negative environmentalimpact from incineration 7 impact from incineration impact from incineration 7 impact from incineration
5 5
3
1
7.3
-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -100%-75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Relative difference: (Incineration - landfill) / landfill Relative difference: (Incineration - landfill) / landfill
Number of scenarios Number of scenarios
Less negative environmental More negative environmental Less negative environmental More negative environmentalimpact from incineration 7 impact from incineration impact from incineration 7 impact from incineration
5 5
3 3
1
7.3 7.3
-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -100%-75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Relative difference: (Incineration - landfill) / landfill Relative difference: (Incineration - landfill) / landfill
Number of scenarios Number of scenarios
Less negative environmental More negative environmental Less negative environmental More negative environmentalimpact from incineration 7 impact from incineration impact from incineration 7 impact from incineration
5 5
3 3
1 1
7.3
-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -100%-75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Relative difference: (Incineration - landfill) / landfill Relative difference: (Incineration - landfill) / landfill
Number of scenarios
Less negative environmental More negative environmentalimpact from incineration 7 impact from incineration
5 X.Y
3 X.Y
1
-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Relative difference: (Incineration - landfill) / landfill
Energy
consumption
Global Warming Potential,
CO2- eq.
Toxicity
Global Warming
Potential, CO2
Resource
consumption
Other energy
related impacts
Figure 3.4 Frequency histograms of the distribution of results from the various scenarios of the reviewed studies showing the relative difference in impact from incineration vs. landfill. A negative value means that incineration causes less impact than landfilling
Other
Waste
The LCA cov ers the entire life cy cle, i.e. relativ e difference in
percentage can be calculated
Orange = Mix ed paper, graphic paper, office paper
Specific CO2-eq. savings
Number of scenarios
CO 2 -eq. saving from recycling compared to incineration CO 2 -eq. saving from incineration compared to recycling
9
7
2.5 2.9
2.11 1.2 1.4 4.2
9.2 9.8 8.11 8.5
2.7 9.5 9.10 5.1 9.1 8.8
9.11 3.1 9.12 9.13 2.3 9.4 9.3 8.14 2.1
9.14 9.17 9.15 9.18 9.16 8.2 9.6 9.9 9.7 4.1
4 -3,5 -3 -2,5 -2 -1,5 -1 -0,5 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4
Saved emission of greenhousegases in tonne of CO2-eq. / tonne paper
Recycling vs. Incineration.
GWP quantitatively
GWP quantitatively
7
2 . 5 2 . 9
2 . 1 1 1 . 2 1 . 4 4 . 2
9 . 2 9 . 8 8 . 1 1 8 . 5
2 . 7 9 . 5 9 . 1 0 5 . 1 9 . 1 8 . 8
9 . 1 1 3 . 1 9 . 1 2 9 . 1 3 2 . 3 9 . 4 9 . 3 8 . 1 4 2 . 1
9 . 1 4 9 . 1 7 9 . 1 5 9 . 1 8 9 . 1 6 8 . 2 9 . 6 9 . 9 9 . 7 4 . 1
4 - 3 , 5 - 3 - 2 , 5 - 2 - 1 , 5 - 1 - 0 , 5 0 0 , 5 1 1 , 5 2 2 , 5 3 3 , 5 4
S a v e d e m is s io n o f g r e e n h o u s e g a s e s in to n n e o f C O 2 - e q . / to n n e p a p e r
N u m b e r o f s c e n a r io sC O
2 - e q . s a v in g f r o m r e c y c l i n g c o m p a r e d t o l a n d f i l l C O
2- e q . s a v in g f r o m la n d f i l l c o m p a r e d t o r e c y c l i n g
9
7
5
6 . 1 3
8 . 4 1 . 1
8 . 7 1 . 3
2 . 4 2 . 2 8 . 1 8 . 1 0 8 . 1 3 6 . 3 6 . 4 6 . 2
4 - 3 , 5 - 3 - 2 , 5 - 2 - 1 , 5 - 1 - 0 , 5 0 0 , 5 1 1 , 5 2 2 , 5 3
S a v e d e m is s io n o f g r e e n h o u s e g a s e s in to n n e o f C O 2 - e q . / to n n e p a p e r
N u m b e r o f s c e n a r io sC O
2 - e q . s a v in g f r o m r e c y c l i n g c o m p a r e d t o d i s p o s a l m ix C O
2- e q . s a v in g f r o m d i s p o s a l m ix c o m p a r e d t o r e c y c l i n g
9
7
5
3
2 . 6
2 . 8 2 . 1 0 8 . 1 2 8 . 6
2 . 1 2 8 . 3 8 . 1 5 8 . 9
4 - 3 , 5 - 3 - 2 , 5 - 2 - 1 , 5 - 1 - 0 , 5 0 0 , 5 1 1 , 5 2 2 , 5 3
S a v e d e m is s io n o f g r e e n h o u s e g a s e s in to n n e o f C O 2 - e q . / to n n e p a p e r
R e c y c l i n g v s .
I n c i n e r a t i o n .
F i g u r e 3 . 5 F r e q u e n c y h i s t o g r a m s o f t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e s u l t s f r o m t h e v a r i o u s s c e n a r i o s o f t h e r e v i e w e d s t u d i e s s h o w i n g t h e s a v e d e m i s s i o n o f g r e e n h o u s e g a s e s f r o m r e c y c l i n g v s . i n c i n e r a t i o n a n d r e c y c l i n g v s . l a n d f i l l r e s p e c t i v e l y . A n e g a t i v e v a l u e ( t h e l e f t s i d e o f t h e d i a g r a m s ) m e a n s t h a t r e c y c l i n g c a u s e s a s a v i n g c o m p a r e d t o i n c i n e r a t i o n o r l a n d f i l l . F o r l e g e n d s : s e e F f g u r e 3 . 1
R e c y c l i n g v s .
L a n d f i l l .
R e c y c l i n g v s . a m i x o f
i n c i n e r a t i o n a n d l a n d f i l l
4 key system boundary issues divide the conclusions
1. The virgin pulp type – i.e. the energy split between electricity and thermal energy in production of the various virgin paper and cardboard types
2. The marginal electricity assumed for virgin paper/cardboard production
3. The potential utilisation of the extra incineration capacity created by recycling to reduce landfilling
4. The inclusion of an alternative use of saved wood for virgin paper/cardboard production
The virgin pulp type
Newsprint
Number of scenarios Number of scenarios
Less negative environmental More negative environmental CO 2 -eq. saving from recycling CO 2 -eq. saving from incinerationimpact from recycling impact from recycling
2.5
2.7
5.1 5.1
9.5 9.13 8.2 2.7 2.5 9.4
9.14 9.15 9.6 9.4 4.2 4.1 9.14 9.15 9.5 9.13 8.2 9.6 4.2 4.1
-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -3,5 -3 -2,5 -2 -1,5 -1 -0,5 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5
Relative difference: (Recycling - Incineration) / Incineration Saved emission of greenhousegases in tonne of CO2-eq. / tonne paper
Mixed paper
Number of scenarios Number of scenarios
Less negative environmental More negative environmental CO 2 -eq. saving from recycling CO 2 -eq. saving from incinerationimpact from recycling impact from recycling
2.11 2.11
9.2 7.6 3.1 7.4 8.14 9.2 9.1 2.9
9.11 9.12 9.10 7.5 9.3 9.1 2.9 9.11 3.1 9.12 9.10 9.3 8.14
-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -3,5 -3 -2,5 -2 -1,5 -1 -0,5 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5
Relative difference: (Recycling - Incineration) / Incineration Saved emission of greenhousegases in tonne of CO2-eq. / tonne paper
Cardboard
Number of scenarios Number of scenarios
Less negative environmental More negative environmental CO 2 -eq. saving from recycling CO 2 -eq. saving from incinerationimpact from recycling impact from recycling
1.2
2.3 1.2 2.1 1.4 8.5
9.8 1.4 9.7 9.8 8.11 8.8
9.17 9.18 9.16 8.11 8.5 8.8 9.9 9.17 9.18 9.16 2.3 9.9 9.7 2.1
-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -3,5 -3 -2,5 -2 -1,5 -1 -0,5 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5
Relative difference: (Recycling - Incineration) / Incineration Saved emission of greenhousegases in tonne of CO2-eq. / tonne paper
X.Y X.Y
X.Y X.Y
X.Y
X:Y
3
1
7
55
7
5
3
7
1
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
3
Global Warming Potential, CO2- eq.
Global Warming Potential, CO2- eq.
Global Warming Potential, CO2- eq.
CO2- eq. savingkg CO2- eq./kg paper
CO2- eq. savingkg CO2- eq./kg paper
CO2- eq. savingkg CO2- eq./kg paper
The LCA covers only waste management end-of-life. The quantification in percentage is, therefore, not possible, and the environmental preference is shown qualitatively out of scale
The LCA covers the entire life cycle, i.e. relative difference in percentage can be calculated
Green = Newsprint, newspapers, magazines
Orange = Mixed paper, graphic paper, office paper
Yellow = corrugated board and other cardboard
Means that this value lies outside of the scale.
The marginal electricity assumed for virgin paper/cardboard production
Newsprint
Number of scenarios Number of scenarios
Less negative environmental More negative environmental CO 2 -eq. saving from recycling CO 2 -eq. saving from incinerationimpact from recycling impact from recycling
2.5
2.7
5.1 5.1
9.5 9.13 8.2 2.7 2.5 9.4
9.14 9.15 9.6 9.4 4.2 4.1 9.14 9.15 9.5 9.13 8.2 9.6 4.2 4.1
-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -3,5 -3 -2,5 -2 -1,5 -1 -0,5 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5
Relative difference: (Recycling - Incineration) / Incineration Saved emission of greenhousegases in tonne of CO2-eq. / tonne paper
Mixed paper
Number of scenarios Number of scenarios
Less negative environmental More negative environmental CO 2 -eq. saving from recycling CO 2 -eq. saving from incinerationimpact from recycling impact from recycling
2.11 2.11
9.2 7.6 3.1 7.4 8.14 3.1' 9.2 9.1 2.9
9.11 9.12 9.10 7.5 9.3 9.1 2.9 9.11 3.1 9.12 9.10 9.3 8.14 3.1'
-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -3,5 -3 -2,5 -2 -1,5 -1 -0,5 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5
Relative difference: (Recycling - Incineration) / Incineration Saved emission of greenhousegases in tonne of CO2-eq. / tonne paper
Cardboard
Number of scenarios Number of scenarios
Less negative environmental More negative environmental CO 2 -eq. saving from recycling CO 2 -eq. saving from incinerationimpact from recycling impact from recycling
1.2
2.3 1.2 2.1 1.4 8.5
9.8 1.4 9.7 9.8 8.11 8.8
9.17 9.18 9.16 8.11 8.5 8.8 9.9 9.17 9.18 9.16 2.3 9.9 9.7 2.1
-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -3,5 -3 -2,5 -2 -1,5 -1 -0,5 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5
Relative difference: (Recycling - Incineration) / Incineration Saved emission of greenhousegases in tonne of CO2-eq. / tonne paper
X.Y X.Y
X.Y X.Y
X.Y
X:Y X.Y
7
5
3
7
5
3
1
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
3
1
7
55
Global Warming Potential, CO2- eq.
Global Warming Potential, CO2- eq.
Global Warming Potential, CO2- eq.
CO2- eq. savingkg CO2- eq./kg paper
CO2- eq. savingkg CO2- eq./kg paper
CO2- eq. savingkg CO2- eq./kg paper
The LCA covers only waste management end-of-life. The quantification in percentage is, therefore, not possible, and the environmental preference is shown qualitatively out of scale
The LCA covers the entire life cycle, i.e. relative difference in percentage can be calculated
Green = Newsprint, newspapers, magazines
Orange = Mixed paper, graphic paper, office paper
Yellow = corrugated board and other cardboard
Blue = Electricity for virgin paper/cardboard production assumed to be based partly or fully on wood
Means that this value lies outside of the scale.
Utilisation of released incineration capacity
NewsprintNumber of scenarios Number of scenarios
Less negative environmental More negative environmental CO2-eq. saving from recycling CO
2-eq. saving from incineration
impact from recycling impact from recycling
2.5
2.7
5.1 5.1
9.5 9.13 8.2 2.7 2.5 9.4
9.14 9.15 9.6 9.4 4.2 4.1 9.14 9.15 9.5 9.13 8.2 9.6 4.2 4.1
-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -3,5 -3 -2,5 -2 -1,5 -1 -0,5 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5
Relative difference: (Recycling - Incineration) / Incineration Saved emission of greenhousegases in tonne of CO2-eq. / tonne paper
Mixed paperNumber of scenarios Number of scenarios
Less negative environmental More negative environmental CO2-eq. saving from recycling CO
2-eq. saving from incineration
impact from recycling impact from recycling
2.11 2.11
9.2 7.6 3.1 7.4 8.14 9.2 9.1 2.9
9.11 9.12 9.10 7.5 9.3 9.1 2.9 9.11 3.1 9.12 9.10 9.3 8.14
-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -3,5 -3 -2,5 -2 -1,5 -1 -0,5 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5
Relative difference: (Recycling - Incineration) / Incineration Saved emission of greenhousegases in tonne of CO2-eq. / tonne paper
CardboardNumber of scenarios Number of scenarios
Less negative environmental More negative environmental CO2-eq. saving from recycling CO
2-eq. saving from incineration
impact from recycling impact from recycling
1.2
2.3 1.2 2.1 1.4 8.5
9.8 1.4 9.7 9.8 8.11 8.8
9.17 9.18 9.16 8.11 8.5 8.8 9.9 9.17 9.18 9.16 2.3 9.9 9.7 2.1
-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -3,5 -3 -2,5 -2 -1,5 -1 -0,5 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5
Relative difference: (Recycling - Incineration) / Incineration Saved emission of greenhousegases in tonne of CO2-eq. / tonne paper
X.Y X.Y
X.Y X.Y
X.Y
X:Y X.Y
3
1
7
55
7
5
3
7
1
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
5
3
Global Warming Potential,
CO2- eq.
Global Warming Potential,
CO2- eq.
Global Warming Potential, CO2-
eq.
CO2- eq. saving
kg CO2- eq./kg paper
CO2- eq. saving
kg CO2- eq./kg paper
CO2- eq. saving
kg CO2- eq./kg paper
The LCA cov ers only w aste management end-of-life. The
quantification in percentage is, therefore, not possible, and the
env ironmental preference is show n qualitativ ely out of scale
The LCA cov ers the entire life cy cle, i.e. relativ e difference in
percentage can be calculated
Green = New sprint, new spapers, magazines
Orange = Mix ed paper, graphic paper, office paper
Yellow = corrugated board and other cardboard
Blue = Released incineration capacity assumed used to reduce
landfillingMeans that this v alue lies outside of the scale.
Figure 3.8. Recycling versus incineration ~ segregation of results on global warming impacts in frequency histograms for each the main paper/cardboard categories – showing the significance of assuming that incineration capacity released on recycling is used to take in burnable waste from landfills
The inclusion of alternative use of saved wood
Newsprint
Number of scenarios Number of scenarios
Less negative environmental More negative environmental CO 2 -eq. saving from recycling CO 2 -eq. saving from incinerationimpact from recycling impact from recycling
2.5
2.7
5.1 5.1
9.5 9.13 8.2 2.7 2.5 9.4
9.14 9.15 9.6 9.4 4.2 4.1 9.14 9.15 9.5 9.13 8.2 9.6 4.2 4.1
-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -3,5 -3 -2,5 -2 -1,5 -1 -0,5 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5
Relative difference: (Recycling - Incineration) / Incineration Saved emission of greenhousegases in tonne of CO2-eq. / tonne paper
Mixed paper
Number of scenarios Number of scenarios
Less negative environmental More negative environmental CO 2 -eq. saving from recycling CO 2 -eq. saving from incinerationimpact from recycling impact from recycling
2.11 2.11
9.2 7.6 3.1 7.4 8.14 9.2 9.1 2.9
9.11 9.12 9.10 7.5 9.3 9.1 2.9 9.11 3.1 9.12 9.10 9.3 8.14
-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -3,5 -3 -2,5 -2 -1,5 -1 -0,5 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5
Relative difference: (Recycling - Incineration) / Incineration Saved emission of greenhousegases in tonne of CO2-eq. / tonne paper
Cardboard
Number of scenarios Number of scenarios
Less negative environmental More negative environmental CO 2 -eq. saving from recycling CO 2 -eq. saving from incinerationimpact from recycling impact from recycling
1.2
2.3 1.2 2.1 1.4 8.5
9.8 1.4 9.7 9.8 8.11 8.8
9.17 9.18 9.16 8.11 8.5 8.8 9.9 9.17 9.18 9.16 2.3 9.9 9.7 2.1
-100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -3,5 -3 -2,5 -2 -1,5 -1 -0,5 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5
Relative difference: (Recycling - Incineration) / Incineration Saved emission of greenhousegases in tonne of CO2-eq. / tonne paper
X.Y X.Y
X.Y X.Y
X.Y
X:Y X.Y
7
5
3
7
5
3
1
7
5
3
7
5
3
7
3
1
7
55
Global Warming Potential, CO2- eq.
Global Warming Potential, CO2- eq.
Global Warming Potential, CO2- eq.
CO2- eq. savingkg CO2- eq./kg paper
CO2- eq. savingkg CO2- eq./kg paper
CO2- eq. savingkg CO2- eq./kg paper
The LCA covers only waste management end-of-life. The quantification in percentage is, therefore, not possible, and the environmental preference is shown qualitatively out of scale
The LCA covers the entire life cycle, i.e. relative difference in percentage can be calculated
Green = Newsprint, newspapers, magazines
Orange = Mixed paper, graphic paper, office paper
Yellow = corrugated board and other cardboard
Blue = Saved wood used for energy or wood marginal = fossil fuelMeans that this value lies outside of the scale.
Conclusion (mainly on GWP)
• Paper and cardboard from TMP or CTMP (mainly newsprint):
recycling > incineration > landfilling
regardless of assumptions
• Other paper and cardboard (chemical pulp):– In case of cascade effect:
recycling > incineration > landfilling
– In case of biomass limitation (fossil fuel is the marginal fuel):recycling > incineration > landfilling
– All other cases: incineration > recycling > landfilling
• All paper and cardboard categories:– Recycling > landfilling