The potential for plastic packaging to contribute to a circular and resource-efficient economy

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "The potential for plastic packaging to contribute to a circular and resource-efficient economy"

Charlene Fisher
7 years ago
Views:

1 The potential for plastic packaging to contribute to a circular and resource-efficient economy Identiplast 2015, Rome, April 29 th Harald Pilz denkstatt GmbH Hietzinger Hauptstrasse 28 A-1130 Vienna Austria T denkstatt (+43)1 786 GmbH Hietzinger F (+43)1 Hauptstrasse A-1130 Vienna Austria E T (+43)1 office@denkstatt.at F W (+43) office@denkstatt.at

How to get maximum value from limited resources Production of technical materials Natural resources Extraction of raw materials Recycling, energy

2 How to get maximum value from limited resources Production of technical materials Natural resources Extraction of raw materials Recycling, energy recovery Design for optimal functionality Landfilling, dissipation, increasing entropy End of life management Reuse Distribution Use phase, maintenance Slide 2

3 Conditions for sustainable (eco-efficient) waste management Apart from technical feasibility & society benefits, two interlinked aspects of sustainability should be considered to choose optimal waste management options: Environmental benefits Which recovery option provides the highest environmental benefit? Does a simple hierarchy of options exist? Environmental impact evaluation through LCA Economic aspects Do benefits for society (monetised environmental benefits and economic benefits) justify recovery costs? Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) Eco-efficient waste management = relevant environmental benefits AND positive cost-benefit-balance Slide 3

4 LCA and CBA in EU-Legislation Packaging Directive: Member States shall, where appropriate, encourage energy recovery, where it is preferable to material-recycling for environmental and cost-benefit reasons.... fix recycling targets... based on the practical experience gained, calculation methodology... and the findings of scientific research and evaluation techniques such as life-cycle assessments and cost-benefit analysis. This process shall be repeated every five years. The Commission shall present a report... covering... encouragement of reuse and, in particular, comparison of the costs and benefits of reuse and those of recycling WEEE Directive and Waste Framework Directive Further references to LCA and CBA Slide 4

5 Main environmental benefits of plastic recycling and recovery Material recycling of plastic waste Feedstock recycling of plastic waste Saved fossil resources Saved GHG emissions Energy recovery of plastic waste Slide 5

6 Relevance of GWP & CED in total eco-footprint of recovery mix Source: Denkstatt (2014) NEEDS ( ) GWP Fossil resource depl. AP/EP/ODP/POPC Land use ReCiPe Water consumption Metal depletion 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Weighted LCA impacts, two exemplary advanced methods GWP + fossil resources cover % of total footprint Slide 6

7 GHG net benefit (impact) of various recycling and recovery options for PE kg CO 2 e / t PE waste Source: Denkstatt (2014) % material recycling 40 % recycling, 60 % industr. energy recov. mechanical recycling of mixed plastics ind. en. recov. substituting coal/oil/gas ind. en. recov. substituting coal blast furnace feedstock recycling MSWI, av. energy utilisation No simple hierarchy can be derived Industrial energy recovery better than mixed plastic recycling Slide 7

8 Methodology of Calculating a Cost-Benefit Balance for Recovery Systems Costs of separate collection and sorting Net costs of mechanical recycling and energy recovery + Savings on costs of residual waste collection + Savings on net costs of residual waste treatment and disposal = Result of Net Cost Analysis of Waste Management (A) + Savings on costs of primary production & conventional energy conversion; recovery revenues excluded before (B) + Savings on environmental (= external) costs (either damage costs or avoidance costs ) (C) = Cost-Benefit Balance (A+B+C) Slide 8

9 Example 1: Cost-benefit balance for recycling of PET bottles Separate collection & sorting Recycling & energy recovery Source: Denkstatt (2007) Saved residual waste collection Saved residual waste treatment Sum = additional waste management costs Saved costs of primary production Monetised environmental benefits Total = Cost-Benefit Balance EUR/t of waste collected for recycling Benefits of PET recycling outweigh additional costs positive cost-benefit balance Slide 9

10 Example 2: Cost-benefit balance for recycling of domestic films Separate collection & sorting Recycling & energy recovery Source: Denkstatt (2007) Saved residual waste collection Saved residual waste treatment Sum = additional waste management costs Saved costs of primary production Monetised environmental benefits Total = Cost-Benefit Balance Break even with 170 EUR/t CO 2 EUR/t of waste collected for recycling Benefits of domestic film recycling do NOT outweigh additional costs negative cost-benefit balance Slide 10

11 Cost-Benefit Balance in EUR/t of waste to recycling Estimated cost-benefit balances for recycling of plastic packaging waste streams ? Maximum recycling potentials for plastic packaging, given in % of total plastic pack. waste Commercial packaging films Rigid commercial packaging Shaded areas = very optimistic recycling rate Beverage bottles Other bottles Shopping bags Commercial mixed / small Other domestic Domestic medium, rigid/flexible packaging Domestic small Somewhere within % : Limit of sustainable recycling Solid Area = realistic recycling rate? For remaining plastic packaging waste, recycling would show negative cost-benefit balance (expensive, small benefits) Source: Denkstatt (2014) Slide 11

12 Conclusions from LCA+CBA results No simple general waste hierarchy can be derived from LCA facts for plastic waste streams. Individual LCA and CBA studies are needed to find eco-efficient solutions. The maximum eco-efficient recycling level for plastic packaging is somewhere between 36 % and 53% not yet entirely utilised Recycling beyond this limit will either be low quality recycling (no environmental benefits) or will not be eco-efficient due to very high costs Future innovation can help to improve cost-benefit balance Optimal European plastic packaging waste recovery (recycling + industrial energy recovery) will save approx. 25 Mill tonnes of CO 2 e per year (compared to 100 % MSWI) equiv. to 138 billion car km or 9 million cars less on the road Slide 12

13 A reflection on recycling vs. packaging resource efficiency in total life-cycle MJ life-cycle energy demand for packaging per kg packed product Source: Denkstatt (2014) Mix of alternative packaging, as used on the market for the same products 27% recycling (2007) Average plastic packaging 54% recycling (2007)? Energy saving on European level is equivalent to heated homes for 40 Mill people 50% recycling, PLUS landfill ban & maximum industrial energy recovery Recycling rate (%) Despite common belief, plastics contribute significantly to increased resource efficiency, even when recycled at a lower rate than other materials. Slide 13

14 How plastic packaging help to reduce food waste; example cheese packaging Gram CO 2 e per 150 g of sliced cheese Reduced GHG emissions due to reduction of food losses from 5 % to 0.14 % Increased GHG emissions for better packaging Net-benefit of improved packaging solution Source: Denkstatt (2014) Small relevance of increased transport and less recyclability 0-20 Production of wasted cheese Production of packaging Transport Waste treatment cheese Packaging recovery Total GHG balance Cheese sold at counter Packed cheese at shelf Slide 14

15 Design guidelines for a circular, resource-efficient economy Sustainable design formula : + optimised material production x small material demand per functional unit + high functionality / quality / use-benefits + optimal recovery/recycling-mix (determined by CBAs!) = Low eco-footprint, economic & social impact Priority for functionality, then raw material and recycling aspects Slide 15

16 We drive the change to a sustainable society. Contact: harald.pilz@denkstatt.at denkstatt GmbH Hietzinger Hauptstrasse 28 A-1130 Vienna Austria T denkstatt (+43)1 786 GmbH Hietzinger F (+43)1 Hauptstrasse A-1130 Vienna Austria E T (+43)1 office@denkstatt.at F W (+43) office@denkstatt.at

Criteria for eco-efficient (sustainable) plastic recycling and waste management

Report Sept. 11 th 2014 Version 1.2 Criteria for eco-efficient (sustainable) plastic recycling and waste management Fact based findings from 20 years of denkstatt studies Background report for associated