Towards Zero. separate collection, prevention and management of residuals. Enzo Favoino. Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza

Transcription

1 Towards Zero separate collection, prevention and management of residuals Enzo Favoino Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza Osservatorio Verso Rifiuti Zero, Capannori

2 Zero waste is a travel, not a destination

3 On the agenda Planning in a changing regulatory scenario (intensive) separate collection: practicable? Cost-competitive competitive? After reduction and separate collection: amount and composition of residual waste Fine-tuning the options for residual waste

4 The regulatory context: drivers from EU env policy Revised WFD waste hierarchy + recycling targets + prevention programmes Packaging Directive recycling targets Landfill Directive diversion targets for biodeg waste + oligation for pretreatment

5 Landfilling in kg/inh.y (EU-15)

6

7 The resource scarcity crisis highlights/europe2019s-demand-for-resources- reaching?utm_source=eeasubscriptions&utm_medium=rssfeeds&utm_campaign=generic paign=generic

8 Decoupling! GDP, Waste Time

9 EP resolution of 20 April priorities for 7th EAP (the EP) Takes the view that the 7th EAP should provide for full implementation of waste legislation, including compliance with the waste treatment hierarchy while ensuring coherence with other EU policies; considers that it should set more ambitious prevention, re-use and recycling targets, including a net decrease in waste generation Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza

10 effect actions (Community level) ready effect Home composting Sustainable event management (e.g. no throwaway dishes/cutlery cutlery) Tap water Cloth (washable) nappies De-assimilation!! (get the big containers off the road!)

11 Increase of waste arisings: Lucca (IT) 760,00 750,00 740,00 MSW production(kg/inhab/y) 742,63 747,11 730,00 720,00 710,00 700,00 690,00 688,63 680,00 670,00 660,00 650,00 640,00 634,28 630,00 620,00 610,00 610,65 620,62 600, Serie1 610,65 620,62 634,28 688,63 742,63 747,11

12 What does it take to get there? intensive kerbside incl.. food waste + PAYT intensive kerbside, incl.. food waste separation Road containers + kerbside (doorstep) for a few dry recyclables (paper) additional systems, organics included trhough containers on the road additional systems, containers on the road for dry recyclables > 80 % 70 % 50 % 40 % 20 %

13 The paradigm - keep control on collection, make participation highest Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza

14 Against the paradigm - loosing control on collection, make participation lowest Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza

15 Best Recycling Municipalities, pop < 10,000 inhabitants 9 Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza

16 Turin Pop. 909,000 Separate collection = 42% 404,000 inhabitants with collection at the doorstep ( kerbside ) - Waste separation in neighbourhoods with kerbside, incl. food waste = 59% - Waste separation in neighbourhoods without kerbside (road containers, 3,2 m 3 ) = 25% 11 Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza

17 Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza

18 Waste management in Italy? 3 Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza

19 The new European Map Economist 2010 * 7 Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza

20 Salerno 150,000 inhabitants Pilot project covering 30,000 inhab., July 2008 Extension in 5 steps, completed in September 2009 Separate collection= 75 % Organics 50%! Florianopolis october 28, 2010 Patrizia Lo Sciuto Slide by Enzo Favoino 14 Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza

21 Approaches for food waste collection VGF (NL = GFT, Central Europe = vor dem Teller ) bespoke food waste collection (Catalunya, ITA, developing in UK) Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza

22 Biobins (carts) - Key problems The use of biobins may imply high deliveries of garden waste Bins require mechanical loading Low density implies adoption of expensive packer trucks or high costs for transport Reduced frequency of collection is therefore considered to save money This impairs captures of food waste fairly high percentages in residual waste Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza

23 Biowaste Paradigm for optimisation Buckets litres hand-picked saves time collection time per pick-up point: at high-rises, carts adopted to serve households with one single pick Biodegradable bags Help keep containers clean The bags + a relatively frequent collection make it an user-friendly system Highest captures, lowest percentages of organics in residual waste Residual waste may be collected at a much lower frequency saves money! 5 Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza

24 bespoke food waste collection: Food waste in residual waste Municipality % Food waste Altivole 7,82 Arcade 8,24 Breda di Piave 7,61 Casale sul Sile 9,42 Castello di Godego 8,05 Cessalto 6,30 Conegliano 9,40 Cornuda 7,19 Giavera del Montello 6,88 Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza

25 Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza

26 Packaging waste paradigm for optimisation There s no one stop shop solution different trucks for different materials Tackle different waste materials according to their specific density/compactability Multi-material being dismissed Paper collected on itself (high captures, best quality) Glass collected on itself (best quality; also, simple/cheapest collection, it breaks hence packer trucks not needed, open lorries much cheaper) Plastics + cans increasingly tackled through combined collection (lightweight and compactable materials, they need packer trucks) Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza

27 Separate collection - more expensive? % Cost costo (Eur/year procapite year) ,00 31% 117,90 45% 53% 99,00 66% 78% 96,00 95,50 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Separate collection (%) % raccolta differenziata 0 COSTO PROCAPITE ( /ab.*anno) % RACCOLTA DIFFERENZIATA ITALIA NORD VENETO CONSORZIO TVTRE CONSORZIO PRIULA 131,00 117,90 99,00 96,00 95,50 31% 45% 53% 66% 78% Italia, Nord e Veneto: dati 2006 (fonte Rapporto Rifiuti 2007 APAT ONR) Consorzio Priula e Consorzio TvTre: costi dati 2008 % RD stima anno % Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza

28 Costs of MSW management some general remarks Increased cost of disposal - Landfill Directive - Incineration Directive + IPPC Anyway cost of collection may by itself be comparatively low similar to commingled MSW collection - Savings on disposal Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza

29 INFA-VHE report (Germany, 2004) Mixed MSW Residuals Biowaste R+B Difference to mixed MSW Rural area kg/inhab/y % coll/week 1 0,5 0,5 1 coll/cost ( inhab/y) 9,4 5,93 4,63 10,56 12% treat./cost ( /inhab/y) 27,5 16, ,25-19% treat./cost ( /t) total cost ( /inhab/y) 36,9 22,18 10,63 32,81-11% Urban area kg/inhab/y % coll/week 1 0,5 0,5 1 coll/cost ( (inhab/y) 17,88 14,56 5,27 19,83 11% treat./cost ( /inhab/y) 33,75 28, ,13-8% treat./cost ( /t) total cost ( /inhab/y) 51,63 42,685 8,27 50,96-1% Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza

30 Cost optimisation (Lombardy Lombardy,, 1500 Municipalities) Cost of collection (green bars) and cost of treatment/disposal (blue bars) Euro/person

31 TOOLS AND STRATEGIES TO CUT COSTS Tool Details Applies where.. Reducing pickup time Hand pick-up of small receptacles much faster than mechanical loading food waste collected separately from garden waste, in small receptacles Reduction of the frequency for collection of Residuals Effective systems to collect biowaste make its percentage in Residuals less than 15 % captures of biowaste are increased Use of bulk lorries instead of packer trucks Bulk density of food waste is much higher (0.7kg/dm3) than garden waste tools for collection of food waste prevent deliveries of garden waste

32 Guidance Manual for Municipalities, Slovak Republic komp/biologicky_odpad_eng.pdf Handbook for Municipalities

33 Sent to recycling residuals

34 The Landfill Directive,99/31 mandates reduction of biodegradable municipal waste to be landfilled Separate collection of paper / organics is key Also, it mandates pretreatment of the waste to be landfilled

35 article/2012/06/05/ eon-waste waste-sale-idusl5e8h581v E.ON Energy from Waste ( ) has 18 waste incinerators in Europe, most in Germany, with an annual capacity of about 4.0 million tonnes. But the market is experiencing overcapacity after Germany encouraged construction of incinerators in the 1990s to reduce the use of landfills. These plants now compete for shrinking amounts of waste as recycling increases. Incineration companies must pay more for the refuse they use as fuel while power prices are falling

36 The Danish case Energetic agenda (100% renewable E by 2050) Resource scarcity crisis The new Danish Govt. tabled on the agenda a possible exit exit strategy from incineration.

37 organics Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza What is left in residuals? Prov. Lucca Capannori Categorie merceologiche % (peso/peso) % (peso/peso) Materiale organico da cucina; 25,12% 14,84% Materiale organico da giardino; 9,16% 4,36% Giornali (quotidiani e riviste); 5,09% 0,95% Cartone ondulato; 6,12% 0,06% Cartone teso; 2,49% 0,27% Imballaggi cellulosici poliaccoppiati; Altra carta (non imballaggio e non 0,98% 1,46% giornali e riviste); 5,68% 9,77% Imballaggi flessibili in alluminio; 0,28% 1,07% Imballaggi rigidi in alluminio; 1,00% 0,00% Imballaggi in acciaio; 1,20% 9,35% vetro; 2,11% 1,26% Imballaggi flessibili in plastica; 8,76% 1,60% 15% x 20% = 3% 15-20% paper nappies Imballaggi rigidi in plastica (bottiglie 2,08% 0,61% Imballaggi rigidi in plastica (non bottiglie e flaconi); Imballaggi poliaccoppiati in 1,96% 1,17% plastica; 0,64% 1,91% Altra plastica: sacchi neri; 4,83% 0,61% Altra plastica: non imballo; 2,88% 8,05% Imballaggi in legno; 0,72% 5,75% Tessili e cuoio; 9,08% 17,30% Materiali inerti, 0,22% 2,64% Pannolini; 6,07% 13,65% RUP; 0,30% 0,30% Sottovaglio < 20mm. 3,25% 3,05% TOTALE 100% 100% 15-25% plastics

38 Basic flow-sheet Cold treatment of residual waste Residual waste Screening Coarse materials (low moisture, low fermentability Small size materials (high moisture; high fermentability) 60% Landfilling Biological stabilisation 20% Water + CO2 Stabilised waste 20%

39 Reasons for development of MBT Flexibility is important Not much dependent on throughputs Same process technologies as composting/ad Double-duty sites Modular adaptation to increased separate collection Fairly Good economies of scale Suitable also at low capacities (down to a few ktpa) Rural districts Delivers results (in terms of reduction of biodeg waste to landfills) in a comparatively short time Passive aeration, low-tech on site MBT may produce prompt improvement of landfill conditions in developing WM systems

40 Basic flow-sheet Cold treatment of residual waste 20% rejects Residual waste Screening Coarse materials (low moisture, low fermentability Small size materials (high moisture; high fermentability) screening, hand and optical sorting, extrusion Biological stabilisation Water + CO2 Material recovery Stabilised waste 20%

41 Optical sorters

42 extrusion

43 MBT potential in Material Recovery Recovery Performance Recovered Product Corrugated Cardboard, Kraft Board and Mixed Paper PET Clear, PET Other, HDPE Coloured and HDPE Opaque Ferrous Metal and Non-Ferrous Metal Glass MBT Recovery Rate (%) 75% 90% 95% Easily 25%;high rates possible

44 Organics in residual waste 50,00% 45,00% 40,00% 35,00% 30,00% 25,00% 20,00% 15,00% 10,00% 5,00% 0,00% 39,02% 13,45% 9,19% 4,20% MEDIA PRIULA anno 2000 MEDIA PRIULA anno 2002 MEDIA PRIULA anno 2003 PRIULA anno 2007

45 in the end of the story 70%+ sep collection ACHIEVABLE No increase of waste arisings (rather,, the contrary) ACHIEVABLE Further reduction of env footprint of landfills ACHIEVABLE, by means of biological stabilisation - another 20% process loss Further recovery of materials from reisiduals ACHIEVABLE, another 30-35% 35% recovery Only 40 % (or so) of residuals to be landfilled as a stabilised material 12 % of MSW!! Aren t we getting damn close to zero?

46 Bravo, Selma!

47 Thanks for your attention Enzo Favoino Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza