1 / 51

Waste Summit

Waste Summit. 3 rd October 2007 Easter Road Stadium Edinburgh. Wolfgang Scholz. Bavarian State Ministry of the Environment Public Heath and Consumer Protection 3 October 2007. Waste Management in Bavaria. W. Scholz Dpt. Waste Management, Contaminated Sites and Soil Protection.

graiden-guerrero
Download Presentation

Waste Summit

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Waste Summit 3rd October 2007 Easter Road Stadium Edinburgh

  2. Wolfgang Scholz Bavarian State Ministry of the Environment Public Heath and Consumer Protection 3 October 2007

  3. Waste Management in Bavaria W. Scholz Dpt. Waste Management, Contaminated Sites and Soil Protection

  4. Introduction Principles Concept Change Total Cost of Ownership Disposal concepts Recovery Outlook Contents

  5. Introduction Europe Germany Bavaria Pop. 492 Mio 27 EU - States Area 4,230,000 km² Pop. 12 Mio 7 District Governments Area 70,000 km² Pop. 82 Mio 16 Federal States Area 360,000 km²

  6. Principles • Free, liberalized areas • Commercial waste, waste for recovery • Producers' responsibility • End-of-Life Vehicles (ELV), Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), etc. • Public provision of services of general interest • Household waste, special waste for disposal • Waste requiring special supervision • Disposal is subject to export ban and the obligation to be made available

  7. Concept Household waste and commercial waste similar to household waste avoid Materials for recovery Sorting and recovering Problematic waste Thermal treatment Flue gas cleaning Energy Slag Scrap metal Landfill

  8. 1970 7 2 3 0 0 0 Treatment Plants 18.000 5.000 2005 1.750 33 440 360 280 16 Sorting plants Recycling yards Recycling bins RC-Plants for Construction Waste Composting plants Landfills WEP (Waste to energy) Source: Household waste audit Bavaria 2005

  9. Waste Balance 12,4 Mio. Population 11,6 Mio. [mill. Mg] Total waste = 6,2 Mio. Mg *) Recyclable materials = 4,0 Mio.Mg Residual waste = 2,2 Mio. Mg Therm. treated = 2,2 Mio. Mg Landfilled, non-treated = 0, 15 Mio. Mg *) incl. sorting residues and reused slag, therefore the sum of residual waste and recyclable waste amounts to more than 100% Source: Household waste audit Bavaria 2005

  10. Abbildung : Cash flow and Fee of a landfill Total Costs of Ownership: Landfill - Incineration; 2006

  11. Abbildung : Fee depending on Inflation in 2017 Total Costs of Ownership: Landfill - Incineration; 2006

  12. Decision for Incineration and Against MBT • Incineration is an independant solution • Incineration is a well known and developed technique • Incineration produces nearly no waste for disposal (only about 6% - mostly filterdust and some ashes) • Slag is today a valuable (e.g. contains metal) • Slag after separation is used in civil engineering • Emissions are low • MBT and especially co-incineration need a network of industrial partners, who have another way of decisions

  13. Success of material recovery • Bavaria collects and separates >50% of the waste for recovery • A higher price of waste treatment enforces recovery • Citizens are convinced of separate collection

  14. Recovery Instruments • Public and Consumer Information • Internet, Press, Print Media, Radio/TV • Local Agenda • Exhibitions • Consultancy in Waste • about 200 local consultants • Consulting Customers, Citizens, Enterprises • Examplary Purchasing • Use of especially environmental sound products(e.g. longest life, recoverable, easy to repair) • Support of home composting • Second Hand use • Administrative Rules

  15. Collected Recovery Material [ kg / capita, year] ] Quelle: Hausmüllbilanz Bayern 2004

  16. Outlook • Implement new EU-Waste-Directive • Introduce further measures to avoid waste especially Integrated product policies, information on waste, develop waste markets • Increase waste recovery • Optimise Waste Management as part of Climate Protection • Avoiding Methane by • stop of land filling (60% of Methane cannot be used !) • optimized treatment of bio waste (producing biogas, in-house composting) • separation for maximum reuse of materials to replace fresh materials

  17. Outlook New Focus on Waste as resource and Energy • 3 – 4 Mg waste are equivalent 1 Mg of Oil • Bavaria avoids yearly the consumption of about 750,000 Mg of Oil by incineration and that since the middle of the 90´s !! • Incinerators continuously increase their efficiency (optimised sites) • Incinerators change to delivery of steam, heat and cold to customers, try to reduce production of electricity • Incinerators should be accepted by the new waste directive as Recovery Installations too

  18. Wolfgang Scholz wolfgang.scholz@stmugv.bayern.de Bavarian State Ministry of the Environment Public Heath and Consumer Protection 3 October 2007

  19. David Dougherty The Dougherty Group, LLC 3 October 2007

  20. Topics • Expanding recycling in Scotland • Lessons from communities with over 50% diversion • Waste prevention • Where can significant reductions be achieved? • Waste to Energy • In the near term, long term • Zero Waste Scotland • Moving towards zero waste

  21. Key Questions • What drives the recycling strategy? • To divert waste from landfill? • To more efficiently use natural resources? • What motivates people to recycle?

  22. Current status in Scotland • Rate of diversion • 27.1% through recycling and composting • Materials collected • HDPE, PET, News & Pams, mixed paper, ferrous metal, aluminum, glass bottles, cardboard • Method of household collection • 50% commingled (mostly without glass bottles) • 50% source separated

  23. Suggestions for achieving greater rate of diversion • Expand range of materials collected • Treat recycling as a business • Use financial incentives to improve performance • Use financial incentives beyond household collection programmes

  24. Suggestion 1: Expand range of materials collected • Other countries collect a wider range of materials • The wider the range of materials, the easier recycling becomes. • The wider the range of materials, the less expensive recycling becomes.

  25. UK Norwich NEWS Grundon, Slough RU Recycling, ONYX Hampshire WRG, Luton SITA, Huddersfield WRG East Riding Europe Lille, France Renne, France, Porto, Portugal North America WM Seattle, Washington Eureka Recycling, St. Paul Minnesota WM Minneapolis, Minnesota MRFs Surveyed

  26. 5 MRFs receive 8 different materials 2 MRFs receive 10 different materials 2 MRFs receive 11 different materials 2 MRFs receive 12 different materials 1 MRF receives 15 different materials 1 MRF receives 18 different materials 6 MRFs sort 8 materials into 5 categories 1 MRF sorts 11 materials into 5 categories 1 MRF sorts 10 materials into 9 categories 1 MRF sorts 11 materials into 10 categories 1 MRF sorts 12 materials into 8 categories 1 MRF sorts 12 materials into 10 categories 1 MRF sorts 15 materials into 16 categories Number of different materials & level of sorting

  27. Sorting costs per tonne • 8 materials into 5 categories £38-52 • 12 materials into 10 categories £30 • 15 materials into 16 categories £30

  28. Revenue per tonne • Mixed paper £30-50 • News & Pams £50-55 • White office £130-140

  29. Suggestion 2: Treat recycling as a business • Recycling is a business with costs and revenues; not a just a waste option. • Continuously strive to reduce recovery costs and increase revenues

  30. Example: Eureka, Minnesota • Predominantly 2-stream (paper separate) • 15 materials into 16 categories • Sorting cost £18/t • £12/t sorting mixed paper into six grades • £43/t sorting containers • Basket value £53/t • Revenue £35/t

  31. Example: WM Seattle • Predominantly 100% commingled • 19 materials into 10 categories • Sorting cost £30/t • Basket value £50-55/t • Revenue £20/t

  32. Suggestion 3: Use financial incentives throughout • Household incentives • Variable rate: 17% increase in diversion over 2 yrs • Collection company incentives • Most waste companies make greater share of profits on garbage disposal • Must be a financial partner

  33. Example of Incentive Contracts: Napa, Calif. • Diverting waste results in higher return on capital for collection companies • 50% diversion achieves 3% return • 55% diversion achieves 12% return • 66% diversion achievers 21% return

  34. Other examples: • Omaha, Nebraska • Tonnes over previous yr. $18 • Tonnes under previous yr. $36 • San Jose, California • Bid costs capped at 80% of refuse costs • Profits are on recycling

  35. Suggestion 4: Use financial incentives in a wide variety of commercial ventures • California construction & demolition recycling initiative • Deposit system • Seattle’s building code • Green building code

  36. Waste Prevention • At the household level • Relatively minor achievements • At the point of generation & through the power of the retail industry • WRAP’s wine bottle initiative • Food Packaging initiative • Retail initiatives

  37. Waste to Energy • Lessons from other communities • Long term financing & obligations • Local Authorities obligated to have continuous flow of materials to facility 24-7 • In some communities this forced curtailment expansion of their recycling programmes • Built-in conflicts • MRF with 40% paper residue • MRF with Tetra Pak containers • Long term, recycling will reduced calorific value in garbage

  38. Personal Response: • Recycling causes people to think • If residues are burned for energy, will people stop recycling? • Recycling; past and future

  39. Zero Waste • What’s the real question? • Zero waste, or • Zero misuse of our resources

  40. David Dougherty The Dougherty Group, LLC 3 October 2007

  41. The DebateMotion : Zero Waste And Energy From Waste Are Not Compatible Proponent: Iain Gulland Community Recycling Network for Scotland Opponent: John Ferguson Scottish Environment Protection Agency

  42. Workshops 6 workshops Colour Coded Name Badges Black : commercial and industrial waste Green : delivery structures Red / Blue : recycling and composting Yellow / Orange : waste prevention

  43. Workshop Feedback Ken Morin Caledonian Environment Centre

  44. What more can be done to reduce the amount of commercial and industrial waste sent to landfill? (group 1 – black) • Landfill tax – min £50/tonne and clear statement of escalator beyond 2011 • Landfill Ban on materials that are easily recycled or are harmful • Re-education from waste to a resource, change business waste producers attitudes • Tax credit if can prove recycling level in a business

  45. What more can be done to simplify delivery structures in relation to waste?(Group 2 – Green) Outcome agreements – LA autonomy, accountability Debate on “Scottish Waste” for treatment/disposal facilities Strategic Waste Forum – involving full value chain, and encouraging public bodies to buy recycled content 1 advisory body – merge existing bodies, emphasis on market development

  46. What more can be done on recycling and composting?(Group 3 – Red) Waste Types – each LA to determine how to extend range of recyclate collected Collection / Recovery – more community recycling centres (community involvement) Markets – intervention (economic development) and consortia buying working between LA’s Supporting Participation – differentiate waste awareness message to different parts of the community

  47. What more can be done on recycling and composting?(Group 4 – Blue) increase scope of producer responsibility, and supply chain pressure markets development and LA consortia selling fiscal measures – incentives and charges national political leadership to support change education and awareness ongoing national waste analysis – improve understanding of current and future practice

  48. What more can be done on waste prevention?(Group 5 – Yellow) Tougher approach with retailers, especially on packaging Culture change and awareness raising for all Action on disposable item e.g. tax and ban

More Related