The potential for plastic packaging
to contribute to a circular and
resource-efficient economy
Identiplast 2015, Rome, April 29th
Harald Pilz
denkstatt GmbH
Hietzinger Hauptstrasse 28 · A-1130 Vienna · Austria
T
(+43)1 786
89 ·00
F (+43)1
786 89 00-15
denkstatt
GmbH
Hietzinger
Hauptstrasse
28 · A-1130 Vienna · Austria
E (+43)1
[email protected]
www.denkstatt.at
T
786 89 00 F W
(+43)1
786 89 00-15 [email protected] www.denkstatt.at
How to get maximum value
from limited resources
Production of
technical
materials
Natural
resources
Landfilling,
dissipation,
increasing
entropy
Extraction
of raw
materials
End of life
management
Recycling,
energy
recovery
Reuse
Design for
optimal
functionality
Distribution
Use phase,
maintenance
denkstatt 2015
Slide 2
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
denkstatt 2015
Slide 3
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
denkstatt 2015
Slide 4
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
denkstatt 2015
Slide 5
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
Water consumption
ReCiPe
Metal depletion
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Weighted LCA impacts, two exemplary advanced methods
 GWP + fossil resources cover 82 – 94 % of total footprint
denkstatt 2015
Slide 6
GHG net benefit (impact) of various
recycling and recovery options for PE
1.500
kg CO2e / t PE waste
Source:
Denkstatt
(2014)
1.000
500
0
-500
-1.000
-1.500
100 %
material
recycling
40 % recycling, mechanical ind. en. recov. ind. en. recov. blast furnace
60 % industr. recycling of substituting substituting
feedstock
energy recov. mixed plastics coal/oil/gas
coal
recycling
MSWI, av.
energy
utilisation
No simple hierarchy can be derived
Industrial energy recovery better than mixed plastic recycling
denkstatt 2015
Slide 7
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
+
Savings on costs of primary production
(A)
& conventional energy conversion; recovery revenues excluded before (B)
+
=
Savings on environmental (= external) costs
(either “damage costs” or “avoidance costs”)
Cost-Benefit Balance
denkstatt 2015
(C)
(A+B+C)
Slide 8
Example 1: Cost-benefit balance
for recycling of PET bottles
Source:
Denkstatt
(2007)
Separate collection & sorting
Recycling & energy recovery
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
-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
EUR/t of waste
collected for recycling
0
200
400
600
Benefits of PET recycling outweigh additional costs
 positive cost-benefit balance
denkstatt 2015
Slide 9
Example 2: Cost-benefit balance
for recycling of domestic films
Source:
Denkstatt
(2007)
Separate collection & sorting
Recycling & energy recovery
Saved residual waste collection
Saved residual waste treatment
Sum = additional waste management costs
Break even with
170 EUR/t CO2
Saved costs of primary production
Monetised environmental benefits
Total = Cost-Benefit Balance
-800
-600
-400
-200
EUR/t of waste
collected for recycling

0
200
400
Benefits of domestic film recycling do NOT outweigh additional costs
 negative cost-benefit balance
denkstatt 2015
Slide 10
Estimated cost-benefit balances for recycling
of plastic packaging waste streams
Cost-Benefit Balance in EUR/t of waste to recycling
500
Solid Area =
realistic recycling rate
Commercial packaging films
400
Rigid commercial packaging
Shaded areas =
very optimistic recycling rate
300
Beverage bottles
Other bottles
Shopping bags
Other domestic
packaging
200
?
100
Commercial mixed / small
Domestic medium, rigid/flexible
Domestic small
0
10
-100
-200
20
30
40
50
60
Maximum recycling potentials
for plastic packaging, given in
% of total plastic pack. waste
-300
-400
-500
denkstatt 2015
70
80
90
100
?
Somewhere within 36 – 53 % :
Limit of sustainable recycling
For remaining plastic packaging waste, recycling
would show negative cost-benefit balance
(expensive, small benefits)
Source:
Denkstatt
(2014)
Slide 11
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
CO2e per year (compared to 100 % MSWI)
 equiv. to 138 billion car km or 9 million cars less on the road
denkstatt 2015
Slide 12
A reflection on recycling vs. packaging
resource efficiency in total life-cycle
Source:
Denkstatt
(2014)
MJ life-cycle energy demand for packaging per kg packed product
Mix of alternative packaging, as used
on the market for the same products
54% recycling
(2007)
Energy saving
on European level is
equivalent to heated
homes for 40 Mill people
27% recycling
(2007)
Average plastic packaging
?
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.
denkstatt 2015
Slide 13
How plastic packaging help to reduce food
waste; example cheese packaging
Source:
Denkstatt
(2014)
Gram CO2e per 150 g of sliced cheese
Net-benefit of improved
packaging solution
100
Reduced GHG
emissions due to
reduction of food
losses from
5 % to 0.14 %
80
60
Increased GHG
emissions for better
packaging
40
Small relevance of increased
transport and less recyclability
20
0
-20
Production
of wasted
cheese
Production of
packaging
Transport
Cheese sold at counter
denkstatt 2015
Waste
treatment
cheese
Packaging
recovery
Total GHG
balance
Packed cheese at shelf
Slide 14
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
denkstatt 2015
Slide 15
We drive the change
to a sustainable society.
Contact: [email protected]
denkstatt GmbH
Hietzinger Hauptstrasse 28 · A-1130 Vienna · Austria
T
(+43)1 786
89 ·00
F (+43)1
786 89 00-15
denkstatt
GmbH
Hietzinger
Hauptstrasse
28 · A-1130 Vienna · Austria
E (+43)1
[email protected]
www.denkstatt.at
T
786 89 00 F W
(+43)1
786 89 00-15 [email protected] www.denkstatt.at