Case Studies on Waste Management in Sweden

1. Case Studies on Waste Management in Sweden Jan-Olov Sundqvist IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, Stockholm E-mail: Jan-Olov.Sundqvist@ivl.se Jan-Olov Sundqvist

2. This presentation 1. General overview of Swedish case studies and their results 2. Deeper presentation of one of the studies: ORWARE Jan-Olov Sundqvist

3. Part 1. Case studies in Sweden Three research groups: • ORWARE: cooperation between • IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute • Royal Institute of Technology • Swedish Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering • fms (Environmental Strategies Research Group) • Chalmers University of Technology (MIMES/Waste, Natwaste) In a special co-operation project we penetrated our studies, to find general conclusions and to analyse differences.Totally 8 case studies were analysed Jan-Olov Sundqvist

4. The studies have some different scopes • environment and/or economy • societal perspective (“from the cradle to the grave”) or actors perspective (e.g. municipality or waste company) Jan-Olov Sundqvist

5. Different scopes Environ-ment fms ORWARE Economy (financial) NatWaste MIMES/Waste Societal perspective Actor’s perspective Jan-Olov Sundqvist

6. Some assumptions in all studies • Time perspective: best choices to build up a waste system now for the next 10 - 15 years • Best available technology • Incineration: high energy recovery - district heating • Material recycling: the same virgin material is recycled • Landfilling: gas recovery with heat and/or electricity production. Only emissions during the closest 100 years are shown Jan-Olov Sundqvist

7. …more assumptions • Anaerobic digestion: gas for bus fuel alternatively production of heat and electricity. The digestate is used on arable land and substitutes chemical fertiliser. • Composting: compost is used on arable land and substitutes chemical fertiliser. Jan-Olov Sundqvist

8. General conclusions 1. Landfilling should be avoided for wastes that can be recycled, incinerated (with energy recovery), anaerobic digested or composted. This is motivated from both environmental and economic reasons. Jan-Olov Sundqvist

9. 2. Anaerobic digestion and incineration is difficult to compare (~”equal”) - both have environmental advantages and disadvantages. The financial costs for anaerobic digestion is higher than for incineration. 3. Composting has no environmental or economic advantages compared to incineration or anaerobic digestion. Jan-Olov Sundqvist

10. 4. Material recycling is generally preferable to incineration from an environmental point of view. The result can be varying for different materials. Non-renewable materials such as plastic and metals are especially favourable to recycle. For renewable materials, e.g. paper and cardboard, the differences between material recycling and incineration are smaller than for non-renewable materials such as plastics and metals. Jan-Olov Sundqvist

11. 5. Transports of waste is of very low importance energetically and environmentally. Private transports of waste, from home to the collection site can play a role. Jan-Olov Sundqvist

12. 6. The landfill can in some cases work as a carbon sink, which can affect the results for renewable and slowly degradable materials such as paper. In a short time perspective landfilling also can have some advantages for some materials since the emissions are postponed to the future. Jan-Olov Sundqvist

13. 7. Phosphorus is a non-renewable resource. The domestic waste, however, plays a very minor role for the total phosphorus balance. In Sweden 1000 tons P in domestic waste, about 100 ton is recycled 6000 tons P in sewage sludge, about 2000 tons are recycled 20 000 tons in manure, almost all is recycled 20 000 tons chemical fertiliser are used Jan-Olov Sundqvist

14. Part 2. Results from ORWARE Jan-Olov Sundqvist

15. Computerised model: ORWARE Calculates • material, substance and energy flows • emissions • costs System perspective • LCA - from the cradle to the grave Jan-Olov Sundqvist

16. Waste core system in ORWARE Jan-Olov Sundqvist

17. Not only the waste system….. • The waste system can produce: district heating, bus fuel (biogas), electricity, plastic, cardboard, fertiliser • How shall the spared resources be handled?? • In all scenarios the same products are produced, either by the waste system or the compensatory system (external system) Waste system Compensatory system Product Jan-Olov Sundqvist

18. System boundary Total system Compensatory system Alternative Alternative Alternative raw Waste sources fertiliser raw material energy raw material material material Emissions Waste management Material Alternative Alternative Alternative system production production of production of energy N- ,P- fertiliser of material Costs Energy Fertiliser Energy Material Energy Fertiliser Material Jan-Olov Sundqvist

19. All scenarios produce the same amount of products and services: • Waste from 186 000 people • District heating 762 TJ • Electricity 48 TJ • Bus fuel for: 4 100 000 km • Chemical fertiliser, P 15 ton • Chemical fertiliser, N 77 tons • Cardboard pulp 2 030 ton • Plastic granules 896 ton Jan-Olov Sundqvist

20. Upstream and downstrean processes Examples pre-process: • emissions and energy consumption from extraction of crude oil Examples: post-process • landfilling of ash from coal combustion for electricity production Jan-Olov Sundqvist

21. Questions of issue • How shall different materials in the waste be treated to make the energy utilisation (or material utilisation or plant nutrient utilisation) of waste as effective as possible with respect to environment and economy Jan-Olov Sundqvist

22. Scenarios 1. All waste is incinerated 2. All waste is landfilled 3. Degradable waste is anaerobically digested. Biogas is used for bus fuel. Other waste is incinerated 4. Degradable waste is anaerobically digested. Biogas is used for electricity/heat. Other waste is incinerated 5. Degradable waste is composted. Other waste is incinerated 6. Cardboard is recycled. The other waste is incinerated 7. Plastic (PE-plastic) is recycled. The other waste is incinerated. Jan-Olov Sundqvist

23. Some assumptions • Alternative district heating is produced by biofuel (wood chips) in the compensatory system. • Electricity is produced from nature gas (marginal electricity). Jan-Olov Sundqvist

24. Global warming Jan-Olov Sundqvist

25. Energy Jan-Olov Sundqvist

26. And a lot more diagrams…. Jan-Olov Sundqvist

27. Life Cycle Costs LCC • All costs from the cradle to the grave • Both waste system and external system • Included pre-processes and post-processes • Same system boundaries as the LCA part • Shows the costs for the society to produce the functional units Jan-Olov Sundqvist

28. Financial Life Cycle Costs 1 SEK  1 €  1 US$ Jan-Olov Sundqvist

29. Welfare economy = Life Cycle Costs + Environmental costs • Environmental costs by three different methods • ORWARE • ECOTAX • EPS 2000 Jan-Olov Sundqvist

30. Welfare (societal) costs - ORWARE 1 SEK  1 €  1 US$ Jan-Olov Sundqvist

31. Welfare (societal) costs - EPS SEK/person, year Welfare economy (EPS) 1 400 1 200 1 000 Emissions 800 Energy resources External system 600 Waste system 400 200 0 Landfill Incineration Composting 1 SEK  1 €  1 US$ Plastic recycling An. dig.- heat/el. An, dig - bus fuel Cardboard recycling Jan-Olov Sundqvist

32. Welfare (societal) costs - Ecotax Welfare economy (Ecotax) SEK/person, year 1 800 1 600 1 400 1 200 Emissions 1 000 Energy resources External system 800 Waste system 600 400 200 0 Landfill Incineration Composting Plastic recycling An, dig - bus fuel An. dig.- heat/el. Cardboard recycling 1 SEK  1 €  1 US$ Jan-Olov Sundqvist

33. If people’s time is valued to ~7 €/h SEK/person, year 800 700 600 500 Time spent by households Environmental valuation 400 External system 300 Waste system 200 100 0 Landfill Incineration Composting Plastic recycling An, dig - bus fuel An. dig.- heat/el. Cardboard recycling 1 SEK  1 €  1 US$ Jan-Olov Sundqvist

34. Thank You Jan-Olov Sundqvist