Upload
sherman-edwards
View
219
Download
4
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Use of LCA Methods For Use of LCA Methods For TheThe
Recycling vs. Disposal Recycling vs. Disposal Issue:Issue:
Prices & Costs vs. Energy Prices & Costs vs. Energy & Environmental Impacts& Environmental Impacts
Dr. Jeffrey Morris Dr. Jeffrey Morris Sound Resource ManagementSound Resource [email protected]@zerowaste.com919-401-4444 or 360-319-2391919-401-4444 or 360-319-2391
INLCA/LCM Conference – September 24, 2003INLCA/LCM Conference – September 24, 2003
Prices for Refuse vs. Recycling,Prices for Refuse vs. Recycling,Virgin vs. Recycled Materials,Virgin vs. Recycled Materials,
&&Virgin vs. Recycled Content Virgin vs. Recycled Content
ProductsProductsAre Telling The Wrong StoryAre Telling The Wrong Story
The Wrong Story The Wrong Story • Recycled-content products typically cost more than virgin-Recycled-content products typically cost more than virgin-
content productscontent products
• Recycled material prices are kept low by virgin material Recycled material prices are kept low by virgin material subsidies and virgin material prices that do not reflect subsidies and virgin material prices that do not reflect public health and ecological impacts public health and ecological impacts
• Total costs for recycling some waste and throwing the rest Total costs for recycling some waste and throwing the rest away are often greater than total costs for just throwing it away are often greater than total costs for just throwing it all away. all away.
Aluminum Ingot vs. Recycled Aluminum Ingot vs. Recycled CansCans
$0
$700
$1,400
$2,100
$2,800
88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04
US
$ p
er t
on
Virgin Ingot
Recycled Cans
Unbleached Softwood Kraft Unbleached Softwood Kraft Pulp vs. Recycled CardboardPulp vs. Recycled Cardboard
$0
$300
$600
$900
93 95 97 99 01 03
US
$ p
er t
on
Virgin Woodpulp
Recycled Cardboard
Polyethylene Terephthalate Polyethylene Terephthalate Pellets vs. Recycled PET Pellets vs. Recycled PET
BottlesBottles
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
94
96
98
00
02
04
US
$ p
er
ton
Virgin Pellets
Recycled Bottles
ONP (#8) & Mixed PaperONP (#8) & Mixed Paper
($50)
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02
US$
per t
on
ONP
MXD
Average Value Per Ton for Curbside Average Value Per Ton for Curbside RecyclablesRecyclables
Pacific Northwest, 1985-2003
$0.00
$20.00
$40.00
$60.00
$80.00
$100.00
$120.00
$140.00
$160.00
$180.00
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04
$/to
n
$42
$57
$71
Curbside Recycling vs. Avoided Curbside Recycling vs. Avoided Disposal Costs in Four WA RegionsDisposal Costs in Four WA Regions
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
Urban West Urban East Rural West Rural East
Mo
nth
ly A
mo
un
t p
er
Ho
us
eh
old Recycling
CostsMinusMarketRevenues
AvoidedDisposalCosts
Net Cost for Curbside Net Cost for Curbside Recycling Recycling
in Four WA Regionsin Four WA Regions
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
Urban West Urban East Rural West Rural East
Mon
thly
Net
Cos
t per
Hou
seho
ld
Three Stages of a Product’s Three Stages of a Product’s Life CycleLife Cycle
• EXTRACTION/MANUFACTURINGEXTRACTION/MANUFACTURING
• USE USE
• WASTE MANAGEMENTWASTE MANAGEMENT
Virgin-Content ProductionVirgin-Content ProductionUses More EnergyUses More Energy
ThanThanRecycled-Content ProductionRecycled-Content Production
Energy Used for Resource Extraction Energy Used for Resource Extraction & Product Manufacturing& Product Manufacturing
Products Made with Virgin- vs. Recycled-Content
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
AlumSheet PETPellets HDPEPellets Newsprint Cardboard SteelBar GlassContrs
Mill
ion
Btu/
Ton
Red shading at top of bar indicatesadditional energy to manufacturematerial with 100% virgin content
Virgin-Content ProductionVirgin-Content ProductionCreates More PollutionCreates More Pollution
ThanThanRecycled-Content ProductionRecycled-Content Production
Greenhouse Gases from Resource Greenhouse Gases from Resource Extraction & Product ManufacturingExtraction & Product Manufacturing
Products Made with Virgin- vs. Recycled-Content
-6000
0
6000
12000
18000
24000
Alm PET HDPE News News(seq) Crdbd Crdbd(seq) Steel Glass
CO2 E
quiva
lent L
bs/T
on
Red shading at top of bar indicatesadditional emissions from manufacturingmaterial with 100% virgin content. Red atbottom indicates lower CO2 for virgin cardboard.
Acidification from Resource Acidification from Resource Extraction & Product ManufacturingExtraction & Product Manufacturing
Products Made with Virgin- vs. Recycled-Content
0
3
6
9
Alm PET HDPE News Crdbd Steel Glass
Hydr
ogen
Equ
ival
ent L
bs/T
on
Red shading at top of bar indicatesadditional emissions from manufacturingmaterial with 100% virgin content
Eutrophication from Resource Eutrophication from Resource Extraction & Product ManufacturingExtraction & Product Manufacturing
Products Made with Virgin- vs. Recycled-Content
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Alm PET HDPE News Crdbd Steel Glass
Phos
phat
e Eq
uiva
lent
Lbs
/Ton
Red shading at top of bar indicatesadditional emissions from manufacturingmaterial with 100% virgin content
Additional Energy Use Additional Energy Use and Pollution from and Pollution from Curbside Recycling Curbside Recycling
Trucks Are Trucks Are Overshadowed by Overshadowed by
Conservation of Energy Conservation of Energy and Reduced Pollution and Reduced Pollution from Recycled-Content from Recycled-Content
ProductionProduction
Recycling per Curbside Recycling per Curbside Available Household in Four Available Household in Four
WA RegionsWA Regions
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Urban West Urban East Rural West Rural East
Mon
thly
Pou
nds
per H
ouse
hold
Energy Used for Energy Used for Extraction/Manufacturing of Extraction/Manufacturing of
Materials Recycled in The UW Materials Recycled in The UW RegionRegion
Curbside Recycled Materials Made with Virgin- vs. Recycled-Content
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
AluminumCans
PET Bottles HDPE Bottles Newspapers &Mixed Paper
CardboardBoxes
Steel Cans GlassContainers
Ener
gy U
sage
(kW
h)/H
shld
/Mnt
h
Red shading at top of bar indicatesadditional energy to manufacturematerial with 100% virgin content
Energy Used for Waste Energy Used for Waste Resources Management in The Resources Management in The
UW RegionUW Region
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
RecyclingCollection,
Processing &Shipping to Market
Garbage Collection,Transfer, & Hauling
to Landfill
Landfilling
En
erg
y U
sag
e (k
Wh
)/H
shld
/Mn
th
3.5 2.4 1.4
The Disposal Life CycleThe Disposal Life CycleUses More EnergyUses More Energy
ThanThanThe Recycling Life CycleThe Recycling Life Cycle
Disposal Methods in WA Disposal Methods in WA Regions Regions
• Urban East – 90% waste-to-energy incinerationUrban East – 90% waste-to-energy incineration
• All Other Regions – 100% landfillAll Other Regions – 100% landfill
• Landfill energy/environmental impact calculations Landfill energy/environmental impact calculations assume 75% methane gas capture and flaring; in fact assume 75% methane gas capture and flaring; in fact smaller, older landfills in WA do not have landfill gas smaller, older landfills in WA do not have landfill gas capture systems. Also, 75% may be too high for actual capture systems. Also, 75% may be too high for actual landfill lifetime methane capture rate at most landfills.landfill lifetime methane capture rate at most landfills.
Net Energy Use Reductions from Net Energy Use Reductions from Curbside Recycling in WA Curbside Recycling in WA
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
Urban West Urban East Rural West Rural East
Mon
thly
kW
h S
aved
per
Hou
seho
ld
WasteManagement
Extraction &Manufacturing
The Disposal Life CycleThe Disposal Life CycleGenerates More PollutionGenerates More Pollution
ThanThanThe Recycling Life CycleThe Recycling Life Cycle
Net Greenhouse Gas Net Greenhouse Gas Reductions from Curbside Reductions from Curbside
Recycling in WARecycling in WA
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Urban West Urban East Rural West Rural East
Mon
thly
CO
2 E
quiv
alen
t Pou
nds
per H
ouse
hold
WasteManagement
Extraction &Manufacturing
Net Acidification Potential Net Acidification Potential Reductions from Curbside Reductions from Curbside
Recycling in WARecycling in WA
-0.01
0.00
0.01
0.02
Urban West Urban East Rural West Rural East
Mon
thly
Aci
dific
atio
n E
quiv
alen
cy p
er H
ouse
hold
WasteManagement
Extraction &Manufacturing
Net Eutrophication Potential Net Eutrophication Potential Reduc-tions from Curbside Reduc-tions from Curbside
Recycling in WA Recycling in WA
-0.02
-0.01
0.00
0.01
0.02
Urban West Urban East Rural West Rural East
Mon
thly
Eut
roph
icat
ion
Equ
ival
ency
per
Hou
seho
ld
WasteManagement
Extraction &Manufacturing
Net Human Toxicity Potential Net Human Toxicity Potential Reduc-tions from Curbside Reduc-tions from Curbside
Recycling in WARecycling in WA
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Urban West Urban East Rural West Rural East
Mon
thly
Hum
an T
oxic
ity P
oten
tial p
er H
ouse
hold
WasteManagement
Extraction &Manufacturing
How Do We Value/Compare How Do We Value/Compare Environmental BenefitsEnvironmental Benefits
Against Costs?Against Costs? • Categorize Pollutants by Impacts – global warming, Categorize Pollutants by Impacts – global warming,
acid rain, smog, eutrophication of waterways, acid rain, smog, eutrophication of waterways, human toxicity, ecological toxicity, etc.human toxicity, ecological toxicity, etc.
• Create Normalization Measures for Each CategoryCreate Normalization Measures for Each Category
• Economic Costs vs. Weights Developed by Political Economic Costs vs. Weights Developed by Political Process or Other Methods (e.g., BEES 3.0) Process or Other Methods (e.g., BEES 3.0)
Monthly Value per Household Monthly Value per Household of Three Environmental of Three Environmental Benefits from Pollutant Benefits from Pollutant Releases Avoided Thru Releases Avoided Thru
Curbside Recycling in UW WA Curbside Recycling in UW WA BEES Estimated
Normalized Value Economic Valueof Avoided Impacts of Avoided Impacts
Global Warming 0.002851 $1.61
Acidification 0.000001 $1.05
Eutrophication 0.000095 $0.53
External Cost of Air PollutantsExternal Cost of Air Pollutants(US$ per pound)(US$ per pound)
C rite r ia A ir Polluta nts Low H igh C arbo n M o no xide (C O ) $ 0 .0 1 $ 0 .4 8
N itro ge n O xide s (N O x ) 0 .4 1 4 .5 3
Sulfur O xide s (SO x ) 0 .0 7 2 .2 3
P ar tic ulate s (To tal) 1 .1 9 2 .5 6 Le ad (P b) 0 .1 9 5 2 8G re e nhouse G a se s
C arbo n D io xide (C O 2 ) 0 .0 0 0 2 0 .0 1 2
M e thane (C H 4 ) 0 .0 1 0 .3 8
O the r A ir Polluta nts
H ydro c arbo ns (no n C H 4 ) 0 .2 6 0 .2 6
Am m o nia (N H 3 ) 0 .7 6 1 2 .4 7
H ydro c hlo r ic Ac id (H C L) 2 .4 9 2 .4 9
External Cost of Water External Cost of Water PollutantsPollutants
(US$ per pound)(US$ per pound)Low H igh
D is so lve d So lids N o e s t . N o e s t . Suspe nde d So lids $ 6 .2 3 $ 6 .2 3 B O D 0 .0 8 0 .0 8 C O D 0 0 O il 0 .2 6 3 0 3 .6 9 Sulfur ic Ac id 0 .1 2 0 .1 2 Iro n 0 0 Am m o nia 0 .7 6 1 .8 4 C o ppe r 9 .5 9 1 9 .9 C adm ium 2 1 5 .7 8 1 ,6 0 6 .3 4 Arse nic 1 1 .9 9 7 ,4 7 7 .2 9 M e rc ury 2 ,4 6 4 .0 0 6 ,2 3 3 .7 2 P ho sphate 0 .1 2 0 .1 2 Se le nium 0 7 0 .0 0 C hro m ium 3 3 5 .6 6 3 3 5 .6 6 Le ad 6 1 .5 4 5 2 8 .0 0 Z inc 0 .5 6 3 .7 0
Reasonable Estimates for the Reasonable Estimates for the Costs of Pollution Indicate Costs of Pollution Indicate
That Recycling Actually Costs That Recycling Actually Costs Less Than GarbageLess Than Garbage
Australian Kerbside Study: Australian Kerbside Study: Recycling Costs Amount to Just Recycling Costs Amount to Just
38% of Dollar Value of Net 38% of Dollar Value of Net Environmental BenefitsEnvironmental Benefits
• Environmental Benefits: Environmental Benefits:
75% from upstream air & water pollution decreases75% from upstream air & water pollution decreases
21% from upstream land use reductions & future 21% from upstream land use reductions & future resource access improvementsresource access improvements
4% from global warming credits4% from global warming credits
2% from reduced land use for landfills2% from reduced land use for landfills
• Environmental Costs: Environmental Costs:
2% from increased truck traffic2% from increased truck traffic
CO2 Value Per Ton Required to CO2 Value Per Ton Required to Offset Curbside Net Monthly Offset Curbside Net Monthly Cost per Household in WACost per Household in WA
Recycling Net Cost CO2 Savings CO2 ValuePer Month Per Month Per Month to Offset Cost
(lbs.) (lbs.)
Urban West 56 $0.73 157 $9
Urban East 26 $0.85 55 $31
Rural West 29 $0.99 77 $26
Rural East 19 $1.35 64 $42
What Will Make What Will Make Recycling Profitable?Recycling Profitable?
Policy Options to Correct Policy Options to Correct Garbage Vs. Recycling Garbage Vs. Recycling
Market FailuresMarket Failures 1.1. Taxes/subsidies to change relative prices – e.g., Taxes/subsidies to change relative prices – e.g.,
no-additional-charge (“free” or “bundled” or no-additional-charge (“free” or “bundled” or “embedded”) recycling for garbage collection “embedded”) recycling for garbage collection subscribers – e.g., bundled commercial recycling subscribers – e.g., bundled commercial recycling decreases garbage disposal per employee by decreases garbage disposal per employee by 10% to 20% and increases recycling by 10 10% to 20% and increases recycling by 10 percentage points.percentage points.
2.2. Regulatory Actions – e.g., cap & trade and bans.Regulatory Actions – e.g., cap & trade and bans.
3.3. Extended Producer/Product Responsibility & Extended Producer/Product Responsibility & Product Stewardship – e.g., deposit/refund Product Stewardship – e.g., deposit/refund systems.systems.
Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Allowance Trading (average Allowance Trading (average
monthly prices) monthly prices)
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01
US
$ p
er t
on
Beverage Container Recycling Beverage Container Recycling Rates Rates
• The 10 deposit/redemption states had The 10 deposit/redemption states had a beverage container recycling rate of a beverage container recycling rate of 71.6% in 1999 (redemption rates 71.6% in 1999 (redemption rates averaged 78%, varying between 69% averaged 78%, varying between 69% and 95%)and 95%)
• The 40 non-deposit/redemption states The 40 non-deposit/redemption states had a beverage container recycling had a beverage container recycling rate of 27.9% in 1999 rate of 27.9% in 1999