Resources, Conservation and Recycling 44 (2005) 309317

Recycling revisitedlife cycle comparisons of global warming impact and total energy use of waste management strategies
Anna Bj orklund a, , G oran Finnveden a, b
a

Centre for Environmental Strategies Research - fms, Royal Institute of Technology, Drottning Kristinas v ag 30 III, SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden b Swedish Defence Research Agency, Tegeluddsv agen 31, Stockholm, Sweden Received 15 October 2003; accepted 3 December 2004 Available online 12 February 2005

Abstract Recycling of waste materials has been analysed from a life cycle perspective in a number of studies over the past 1015 years. Publications comparing the global warming impact and total energy use of recycling versus incineration and landlling were reviewed in order to nd out to what extent they agree or contradict each other, and whether there are generally applicable conclusions to be drawn when certain key factors are considered. Four key factors with a signicant inuence on the ranking between recycling, incineration, and landlling were identied. Producing materials from recycled resources is often, but not always, less energy intensive and causes less global warming impact than from virgin resources. For non-renewable materials the savings are of such a magnitude, that apparently the only really crucial factor is what material is replaced. For paper products, however, the savings of recycling are much smaller. The ranking between recycling and incineration of paper is sensitive to for instance paper quality, energy source avoided by incineration, and energy source at the mill. 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Life cycle assessment; Waste; Recycling; Incineration; Landll; Key factor; Energy; Global warming potential

Corresponding author. Tel.: +46 8 790 8621; fax: +46 8 790 8550. E-mail address: annab@infra.kth.se (A. Bj orklund).

0921-3449/$ see front matter 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2004.12.002

310

A. Bj orklund, G. Finnveden / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 44 (2005) 309317

1. Introduction Environmental concern has led to rapidly increasing materials recycling over the last several years. Nevertheless, the general public as well as decision makers often question whether recycling is really the best option, and researchers struggle to give an answer. This question has many dimensions economic, technical, social, and environmental so there will never be a simple answer. If, however, focus is on environmental issues and if the main objective of materials recycling is to minimise overall resource consumption and environmental impact, the question should be addressed from a life cycle perspective to minimise risks of sub optimisation (e.g. Clift et al., 2000). Life cycle assessment (LCA) studies the environmental aspects and potential impacts throughout a products life, from raw material acquisition through production and use, upto nal disposal (from cradle-to-grave) (ISO, 1997). It is probably best known as a tool with which to analyse the life cycle impacts of physical products. But the methodology also allows analysis of services, such as waste management (e.g. Finnveden, 1999). A key feature of LCA is that all products in a comparison must provide the same functions, so that they are compared on equal grounds. Different waste management strategies may provide different outputs, such as recovered materials or energy. A fair comparison of different strategies requires this to be accounted for in the analysis. The ISO standards recommend that the environmental benets of recovered resources be accounted for by broadening the system boundaries to include the avoided burdens of conventional production (Ekvall and Finnveden, 2001; ISO, 1998). Since the beginning of the 1990s, LCA has been used in several countries to analyse waste management strategies and compare materials recycling to other waste management strategies. We have reviewed a number of LCA studies comparing materials recycling to incineration and landlling. Our aim was to nd out to what extent they agree or contradict each other, and whether there are generally applicable conclusions to be drawn when the role of certain key factors is taken into account. 1.1. Scope of the study The review was limited to LCAs of individual materials in household waste. LCAs of mixed municipal waste were only included if it was possible to distinguish the results for individual material fractions within the mixed municipal waste stream. Biodegradable waste was not included, as recycling of biodegradable waste (composting or anaerobic digestion) has little in common with materials recycling. An important requirement for the included studies was transparency regarding system boundaries and energy sources. Another requirement was that the system boundaries should be broadened to include the avoided burdens in general accordance with recommendations in the ISO standards. As a means to limit the reviewed material and to ensure a certain level of quality control and approval, only papers published in scientic journals were included. The survey includes 10 publications with altogether 40 cases. We deem this enough to give a fairly representative selection of results.

A. Bj orklund, G. Finnveden / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 44 (2005) 309317

311

Table 1 briey describes the reviewed LCA studies in terms of analysed materials and treatment options. Recycling is compared to incineration and/or landlling. Most studies analyse materials recycling, but some include feedstock recycling. Total energy use and global warming potential (GWP) were evaluated. While other impact categories were also analysed by many of the included studies, the published material was not considered to be complete enough to draw any conclusions. Energy use is, however, often a good indicator of other environmental impacts. Neither the magnitude of the difference between options, nor the data quality was considered in the compilation of results.

2. Results Table 2 describes the reviewed case studies in terms of a number of key factors along with the results in terms of the ranking of recycling, incineration, and landlling with respect to total energy use and GWP. The results reported in the two right-most columns of Table 2 are fairly consistent, showing that recycling has the lowest impact on total energy use and GWP in most, but not all of the assessed cases. Four key factors were identied by which it was possible to largely explain the few conicting results: type of recycled materials, type of materials avoided by recycling, energy sources avoided by energy recovery from incineration, and the time perspective of landlls. A short landll time perspective in principle covers decomposition of easily degradable materials. Most landll models assume the landlled material to be basically inert after this time frame (Finnveden, 1999). A longer time perspective assumes that landll decomposition will continue and cause environmental impact until all material has been spread to the environment (Finnveden et al., 1995). 2.1. Non-renewable materials (glass, metals, plastics) Both total energy use and GWP are in general lower for recycling than for incineration or landlling of non-renewable materials. Hence, the avoided burdens of recycled materials are signicant enough to motivate recycling. There are however two exceptions. Using recycled plastics to replace wood-derived products instead of virgin plastics, as in Finnveden et al. (2003) and Mlgaard (1995), makes recycling less favourable. The GWP savings achieved by avoiding virgin timber production are not large enough to motivate plastics recycling instead of incineration or landlling from a greenhouse gas perspective. Regarding total energy use, recycling however still appears better than landlling. Results from Denmark indicate that feedstock recycling may also be less favourable than incineration of plastics with regard to GWP (Mlgaard, 1995). This is, however, contradicted by more recent results from Germany (Wollny et al., 2002), according to which feedstock recycling is the preferable option. Feedstock recycling produces high value output, but typically has high energy consumption, which reduces overall performance. It is possible that improved overall performance may explain the different results by Mlgaard (1995) and Wollny et al. (2002), but this is not clear from the material presented in these publications.

312

A. Bj orklund, G. Finnveden / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 44 (2005) 309317

Table 1 Overview of surveyed LCA studies Reference Arena et al., 2003 Region Italy Waste fractions PE and PET liquid containers Treatment options Recycling (R) Landll (L) Incineration with electricity generation (I) Craighill and Powell, 1996 UK Paper, glass, steel, aluminium, PET, HDPE, PVC Recycling (R)

Landll with gas recovery, aring and electricity generation (L) Edwards and Schelling, 1996 UK Aluminium Recycling (R) Incineration (I) Landll (L) Recycling (R) Incineration (I) Landll (L) Recycling of 70% HDPE from households, 80% HDPE + LDPE from business, incineration with heat recovery of remaining waste (R) Recycling of 70% cardboard from households, 80% cardboard from business, incineration with heat recovery of remaining waste (R) Incineration with co-generation (I) Landll with gas recovery and electricity generation (L) Recycling (R) Incineration with heat recovery (I) Recycling (R)

Edwards and Schelling, 1999

UK

Glass

Eriksson et al., 2005

Sweden

Cardboard, PE

Finnveden and Ekvall, 1998 Finnveden et al., 2005

Europe Sweden

Paper packaging Newspaper, corrugated cardboard, mixed cardboard, PE, PP, PS, PVC, PET

Incineration with heat recovery (I) Landll with gas recovery and co-generation (L) Mlgaard, 1995 Denmark Plastics Recycling, manual or mechanical separation (Rms) Recycling, solvent separation (Rss) Recycling, no separation (Rns) Pyrolysis with recovery of combustible gas and oil (feedstock recycling) (Rp) Incineration with heat recovery (I) Landll (L)

A. Bj orklund, G. Finnveden / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 44 (2005) 309317 Table 1 (Continued ) Reference Pickin et al., 2002 Region Australia Waste fractions Paper Treatment options Recycling (R) Incineration with electricity generation (I) Landll with gas recovery and electricity generation (L)

313

Wollny et al., 2002

Germany

Plastic packaging

Blast furnace, heavy oil recovery (feedstock recycling) (Rbf) Solid bed gasication, methanol recovery (feedstock recycling) (Rg) BASF thermolysis, olen recovery (feedstock recycling) (Rt) Incineration with electricity, heat, and steam recovery (I) Landll (implicitly included in comparison with other treatment) (L)

According to the results cited in Table 2, landlling is preferable to incineration for glass and metals. Incineration uses more energy per tonne of treated waste than landlling, while no energy is recovered from glass and metals. Thus, from an energy point of view, incineration makes little sense, while for practical reasons these fractions may end up in incinerators as part of a mixed waste stream. As no greenhouse gas emissions are generated from inorganic materials in landlls, landlling is also better with regard to GWP. For plastics, landlling can be preferable to incineration regarding GWP if the landll is considered in a short time perspective, as in Wollny et al. (2002) and Arena et al. (2003). In a 100-year time perspective there is no signicant decomposition of plastic polymers and thus no GWP contribution. However, in Mlgaard (1995), incineration performs better than landlling, despite a short time frame of the landll. This can be explained by the importance of the avoided fossil fuel based heat production. Heat recovery in incineration has a much higher efciency than electricity recovery, and thus may have a larger inuence in terms of avoided burdens. The landll model in Finnveden et al. (2005) covers a longer time perspective, which allows plastics to decompose and release carbon to the atmosphere. In this case the GWP contribution is larger from landlls than from incineration. 2.2. Renewable materials (paper, cardboard) The results are straightforward regarding recycling and total energy use, which is lower (in one case equal) for recycling than incineration or landlling of paper and cardboard. More energy may be saved when recycling mechanical pulp, typically used in newsprint, than when recycling chemical pulp, typically used in cardboard (Finnveden and Ekvall, 1998). The GWP results of recycling versus incineration of paper and cardboard depend largely on the energy source avoided by waste incineration. GWP is in most cases lower for recycling than incineration of paper and cardboard when energy (heat and/or electricity) recovered from waste incineration replaces biofuels or other waste. On the other hand, GWP is in

314

Table 2 Key factors in the surveyed LCA studies Reference Arena et al., 2003 Craighill and Powell, 1996 Recycled material PE & PET Paper Glass Steel Aluminium PET HDPE PVC Aluminium Glass Cardboard Cardboard Cardboard PE PE PE Paper packaging Paper packaging Paper packaging Newspaper Newspaper Corrugated cardboard Mixed cardboard PE Avoided material Virgin PE & PET Virgin paper Virgin glass Virgin steel Virgin aluminium Virgin PET Virgin HDEP Virgin PVC Virgin aluminium Virgin glass Virgin cardboard Virgin cardboard Virgin cardboard Virgin PE Virgin PE Virgin PE Virgin paper packaging Virgin paper packaging Virgin paper packaging Virgin newspaper Virgin newspaper Virgin cardboard Virgin cardboard Virgin PE Avoided electricity Italian mixa Coal n.a. n.a. n.a. Coal Coal Coal n.a. n.a. Hard coal Hard coal Swedish mixd Hard coal Hard coal Swedish mix n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Avoided heat n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Biofuel Oil Biofuel Biofuel Oil Biofuel Fossil fuel Biofuel Solid waste Forest residue Natural gas Forest residue Forest residue Forest residue Landll time frame Short Not clear Not clear Not clear Not clear Not clear Not clear Not clear Shortc Shortc Short (100 years) Short (100 years) Short (100 years) Short (100 years) Short (100 years) Short (100 years) n.a. n.a. n.a. Long Long Long Long Long Total energy R<I<Lb R<L<I R<L<I R<I<L R<I<L R<I<L R<I<L R<I<L R<I<L R<I R<I R<I R<I<L R<I<L R<I<L R<I<L R<I<L GWP R<L<I R<L R<L R<L R<L R<L R<L R<L R<L<I R<L<I R = I<L R = I<L R<I<L R<I<L R<I<L R<I<L I<R Mixed Mixed R<I<L R<I<L R<I<L R<I<L R<I<L

A. Bj orklund, G. Finnveden / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 44 (2005) 309317

Edwards and Schelling, 1996 Edwards and Schelling, 1999 Eriksson et al., 2005

Finnveden and Ekvall, 1998

Finnveden et al., 2005

PP PS PVC PET PET PE PP PS PVC PET Mlgaard, 1995 Plastic Plastic Plastic Plastic Paper Plastic

Virgin PP Virgin PS Virgin PVC Virgin PET Virgin PET Impregnated wood Impregnated wood Impregnated wood Impregnated wood Impregnated wood Virgin plastic (Rms) Virgin plastic (Rss) Timber (Rns) Combustible gas and naphta (P) Virgin paper Heavy oil (Rbf); methanol (Rg); olens (Rt)

n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Australian mixe n.a.

Forest residue Forest residue Forest residue Forest residue Natural gas Forest residue Forest residue Forest residue Forest residue Forest residue Oil, natural gas, coal Oil, natural gas, coal Oil, natural gas, coal Oil, natural gas, coal n.a. n.a.

Long Long Long Long Long Long Long Long Long Long Short Short Short Short Shortf Short

R<I<L R<I<L R<I<L R<I<L R<I<L I<R<L I<R<L I<R<L I<R<L I<R<L R<I<L

R<I<L R<I<L R = I<L R<I<L R<I<L I<L<R I<L<R I<L<R I<L<R I<L<R R<I<L R<I<L I<L<R I<L<R I<R<L R<L<I

A. Bj orklund, G. Finnveden / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 44 (2005) 309317

Pickin et al., 2002 Wollny et al., 2002

n.a., Not applicable for this case; mixed, Mixed results (either recycling or incineration can be the preferable option). a Italian mix: oil 47%, gas 22%, coal 11%, nuclear 11%, hydro 9%. b Only consumption of fossil energy resources reported. c Not stated explicitly, but zero-emission assumption in landll model implies short time frame. d Swedish mix: 45.6% hydro, 41.9% nuclear, 6.2% biofuels, 3.3% coal, 1.2% oil, 1.1% natural gas. e Australian mix: not specied, mainly fossil fuels. f Not stated explicitly, but incomplete degradation of paper in landll implies short time frame.

315

316

A. Bj orklund, G. Finnveden / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 44 (2005) 309317

most cases higher for recycling when energy from waste incineration replaces fossil fuels. The results for paper recycling are thus somewhat predictable if the avoided energy sources are known. But apparently the results are sensitive to rather small changes in the system, indicating that the differences in GWP between recycling and incineration are not that large. Example of factors that should be further explored to explain the differences include: energy sources in production (e.g. electricity at the pulp and paper mills), efciencies in the energy recovery system, and different types of paper materials. Landlling is worse than recycling and incineration, both from GWP and energy use perspective, because paper in landlls generates methane and because much less energy is recovered from landll gas than through incineration. 2.3. Other possible key factors There are several other factors that one may assume to have an impact on the ranking of recycling versus other waste treatment with regard to total energy use and GWP. Several such factors (transport distances, trips by passenger car to deliver recyclables, fate of saved biomass when paper is recycled) were analysed in a number of sensitivity analyses by Finnveden et al. (2005). None of the assumed key factors turned out to be signicant enough to alter the ranking between recycling and incineration or landlling. 2.4. Other impact categories This review only covered total energy use and GWP. It is not possible to generalise these results to other aspects of environmental impact. A few studies, however, included acidication and eutrophication showing that, in most cases these impacts were also reduced by recycling. This is probably because acidication and eutrophication are to a large extent caused by energy conversion processes, and therefore often follows the trend of total energy use.

3. Discussion and conclusions The results presented in this paper indicate that producing materials from recycled resources is less energy intensive than from virgin resources. For non-renewable materials the savings are of such a magnitude, that apparently the only really crucial factor is what material is replaced. For paper products, however, the savings of recycling are much smaller, making the ranking between recycling and incineration sensitive to a number of factors. These ndings agree with an earlier literature overview by Finnveden and Ekvall (1998) and the results from a workshop on system studies of integrated solid waste management (Sundqvist et al., 2002). The difculty to identify and systematically analyse the key factors may be one reason why the question of recycling versus other waste treatment has not yet got a conclusive answer. As it appears though, the results are quite clear-cut and few key factors need to be considered. Still, this does not make the answer unambiguous. What is needed to draw conclusions for a specic time and place is rather understanding of how to determine, what these key factors actually are in the specic case. For instance, it is not always entirely

A. Bj orklund, G. Finnveden / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 44 (2005) 309317

317

obvious whether the avoided heat source is oil, natural gas, biofuels, or waste. This depends on the geographical and temporal boundaries, and whether the analysis is retrospective or change oriented.

Acknowledgements An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 10th SETAC LCA Case Studies Symposium, 34 December 2002, Barcelona, Spain (Bj orklund and Finnveden, 2002). Financial support from the Swedish National Energy Administration is gratefully acknowledged.

References
Arena U, Mastellone ML, Perugini F. Life cycle assessment of a plastic packaging recycling system. Int J LCA 2003;8(2):928. Bj orklund A, Finnveden G. Recycling revisitedComparing different waste management strategies. In: Proceedings of the 10th SETAC LCA Case Studies Symposium; 2002. Clift R, Doig A, Finnveden G. The application of life cycle assessment to integrated solid waste management: Part 1. Methodology. Trans IChemE, Part B 2000;78(4):27987. Craighill AL, Powell JC. Lifecyle assessment and economic evaluation of recycling: a case study. Resour Conserv Recy 1996;17:7596. Edwards DW, Schelling J. Municipal waste life cycle assessment part 1, and aluminium case study. Trans IChemE, Part B 1996;74:20522. Edwards DW, Schelling J. Municipal waste life cycle assessment. Part 2. Transport analysis and glass case study. Trans IChemE, Part B 1999;77:25974. Ekvall T, Finnveden G. Allocation in ISO 14041a critical review. J Cleaner Prod 2001;9:197208. Eriksson O, Carlsson Reich M, Frostell B, Bj orklund A, Assefa G, Sundqvist J-O, et al. Municipal solid waste management from a systems perspective. J Cleaner Prod 2005;13:24152. Finnveden G. Methodological aspects of life cycle assessment of integrated solid waste management systems. Resour Conserv Recy 1999;26(3/4):17387. Finnveden G, Albertsson AC, Berendson J, Eriksson E, H oglund LO, Karlsson S, et al. Solid waste treatment within the framework of life-cycle assessment. J Cleaner Prod 1995;3:18999. Finnveden G, Ekvall T. Life-cycle assessment as a decision-support toolthe case of recycling versus incineration of paper. Resour Conserv Recy 1998;24:23556. Life cycle assessment of energy from solid waste Part 1. General Finnveden G, Johansson J, Lind P, Moberg A. methodology and results. J Cleaner Prod 2005;13:21329. ISO, Environmental managementLife cycle assessmentPrinciples and frameworks, International Standard ISO 14040, International Organisation for Standards, 1997. ISO, Environmental managementLife cycle assessmentGoal and scope denition and Inventory analysis, International Standard ISO 14041, International Organisation for Standards, 1998. Mlgaard C. Environmental impacts from disposal of plastic from municipal solid waste. Resour Conserv Recy 1995;15:5163. Pickin JG, Yuen STS, Jennings H. Waste management options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from paper in Australia. Atmos Environ 2002;36:74152. Sundqvist J-O, Finnveden G, Sundberg, J. (Eds.), Proceedings from Workshop on System Studies of Integrated Solid Waste Management, April 23, 2001, Stockholm. IVL report B 1490, Swedish Environmental Research Institute, Stockholm, Sweden, 2002. Wollny W, Dehoust G, Fritsche UR, Weinem P. Comparison of plastic packaging waste options. Feedstock recycling versus energy recovery in Germany. J Ind Ecol 2002;5(3):4963.