Astrup, Thomas Fruergaard

Laner, David

Rørbech, Jakob Thaysen

Online Research Database In Technology

                       General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.  • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal   If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.     Downloaded from orbit.dtu.dk on: Dec 19, 2017Assessment of resource recovery within LCA: Innovative assessment of resourcepotentials in wasteRørbech, Jakob Thaysen; Laner, David; Astrup, Thomas FruergaardPublication date:2013Link back to DTU OrbitCitation (APA):Rørbech, J. T., Laner, D., & Astrup, T. F. (2013). Assessment of resource recovery within LCA: Innovativeassessment of resource potentials in waste. Poster session presented at ISWA World Congress 2013, Vienna,Austria.-5.0E+050.0E+005.0E+051.0E+061.5E+06Resource Potential Recovery cost Savings TotalGlobal warming, [kg CO2-Eq] S1 S2 S1 incl. RP S2 incl. RPComparison of the systems without inclusion of the Resource Potential in Figure 3 • S1 is perceived better due to a larger numerical saving  • This does not take into account the difference in input flow composition.  Comparison of the systems including the Resource Potential in Figure 3 • S2 performs better due to smaller numerical losses in the system • the aggregated impacts (Total) therefore represents a lost potential for recovery.         The recovery effectiveness (Table 1) for each system is the same, since the ratio of inputs to recovered amounts  are identical. The recovery efficiency (Table 1) is 1% lower for “S2 incl. RP” due to higher recovery cost (Sorting and Treatment) wherefore S2 has a slightly lower performance than S1.     Introduction  Assessment of resource recovery within LCA Innovative assessment of resource potentials in waste  Jakob Thaysen Rørbech1, David Laner2, Thomas Fruergaard Astrup1. 1 DTU Environment, Miljovej, Building 113, DK-2800 Kgs. Lyngby Denmark. Contact: jthr@env.dtu.dk 2 Institute for Water Quality, Resources and Waste Management, TU Vienna, Karlsplatz 13/226, A-1040 Vienna, Austria. Method Results & Discussion Environmental Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies of Waste Management Systems (WMS) have until now almost entirely been applied using Gate-to-Grave boundaries (zero-burden approach).1 This has several drawbacks: • As the waste is “for free”, it removes responsibility for optimal utilization of the input waste • Modern WMSs becomes net saving systems without a possibility to compare to a baseline resource potential. The purpose of this study is to investigate possibilities of including upstream raw material production as “Resource Potential“ in LCA of Waste Management Systems This can contribute to: • Emphasize on recovery efficiency and effectiveness by comparing savings and recovery cost with the resource potential  • Performance comparison between different systems as well as for waste prevention modeling.   WMS: Gate-to-Grave (Zero-burden assumption)       Extension: Inclusion of resource potential      Raw material production Disposal Use Production A LCA case study of aluminum recovery from bottom ash2 is extended with virgin aluminum production corresponding to the amount present in the bottom ash.  • Functional Unit: 5,000 tonnes of bottom ash from incineration • Geographical and temporal scope: Bottom ash management in Denmark, 2013 • Time horizon: 100 years • Impact assessment: IPCC 2007, Climate change, GWP 100a Two systems each with & without considering the Resource Potential, only difference is the aluminum content:      S1: 1.50 % Aluminum content in bottom ash   S2: 0.75 % Aluminum content in bottom ash • The proposed extension enables comparison between material recovery systems by including the Resource Potential:  - Ordinary Gate-to-Grave LCA in the case study shows significant advantage for S1 - inclusion of Resource Potential reveals identical rates of recovery with  S2 being only  slightly less efficient than S1. In addition, the inclusion of Resource Potential highlights  the higher loss of potential for recovery in S1. • Recovery Effectiveness & Efficiency indicators provide information on the system performance useful for compering and optimizing resource recovery in WMS systems.  • The use of Resource Potential can facilitate modeling and comparison of upstream waste prevention activities.  Table: 1: Recovery performance indicators Recovery Effectiveness Recovery Efficiency S1 incl. RP 23% 21% S2 incl. RP 23% 20% • Future studies shall explore:  - Recovery of energetic resources through e.g. incineration  - choice of where in the product chain to select level of raw material refinement for e.g. composite materials.  References 1. Laurent A., Bakas I., Clavreul J., Bernstad A., Niero M., Gentil E., Hauschild M.Z., Christensen T.H. 2013. Review of LCA studies of solid waste management systems – Part I: Key learnings and perspectives. Submitted to Waste Management (28/05/2013).  2. Allegrini E., Boldrin A., Astrup T.F. 2013. Life cycle assessment of metal recovery from municipal solid waste incineration bottom ash. Unpublished report for AFATEK A/S.  Figure 1: Inclusion of Raw material production as extension to state-of-the-art Gate-to-Grave LCA of WMS Figure 3: Characterized results of the two systems (S1 & S2) with and without including the Resource Potential (RP).  The goal of resource recovery is to optimize savings over costs given the available input material. Identifying the best combination of technologies in a system can be facilitated by assessing the effectiveness and efficiency of the recovery as done in the following.  Virgin aluminum production Sorting of bottom ash Aluminium Recovery Substitution virgin  aluminium Waste Management System Figure 2: Conceptual model of the extended WMS as used for modeling Al recovery from bottom ash from incinerated household waste.   Resource Potential Recovery performance indicators are calculated as: 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 =  𝑆𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝑃𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙,  𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑐𝑒 efficiency =  𝑆𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 −𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝑃𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙  Conclusion 

Assessment of resource recovery within LCA: Innovative assessment of resource potentials in waste

http://orbit.dtu.dk/ws/files/59512071/Assessment_of_resource_recovery.pdf

Assessment of resource recovery within LCA: Innovative assessment of resource potentials in waste

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Online Research Database In Technology