Time: 5:30 – 6:30pm
Room: Brandenburg Gate
Session 4: Waste Management from a Lifecycle Perspective
Presenter: Airi Kaneko, The University of Kitakyushu
Co-Authors: Toru Matsumoto
Jakarta has low sewerage coverage (2%), and domestic wastewater from other areas is commonly treated by septic tank. However, conventional septic tank emits high volume of CH4 thorough anaerobic treatment, and its performance is often not enough to meet national wastewater standard. Instead of conventional septic tank, Jokaso is expected to spread as an environmental friendly advanced wastewater treatment system. However, because the price of Jokaso is much higher than septic tank, users are still tends to choose septic tank.
In this study, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, environmental impact and life cycle cost (LCC) at each life cycle stages of septic tank and Jokaso are estimated in order to compare the cost and environmental performance. LIME is used to integrate GHG emissions and other environmental loads to monetary value. Both septic tank and Jokaso are located in the same factory in Jakarta to treat domestic wastewater from toilet including night soil and hand-wash wastewater. Because septic tank itself does not meet wastewater standard, it is equipped with secondary treatment facility. Scope of this study is one unit of septic tank including the secondary treatment facility and one unit of jokaso. The functional unit is wastewater treatment of one person. Life cycle of each system includes resource extraction, transportation, manufacturing, construction, operation and post-use disposal. Emission factors and basic units for LCI include GHG (CO2, CH4, N2O), land occupation, solid waste generation, water pollution, external environmental costs and LCC.
As a result, each GHG emissions of total life cycle of septic tank and Jokaso are 51 kg-CO2/year and 41 kg-CO2/year per capita. Each GHG emissions at the stage of operation account for 88% and 95% of total life cycle. It is mainly caused by CH4 and N2O emission arising from wastewater treatment process and sludge disposal at landfill. As a result of integration of GHG emissions and other environmental load, external cost of septic tank is 2 times higher than Jokaso. It is caused by large space of land occupation, and transport and disposal of large volume of cement which is required for septic tank including secondary treatment facility. LCC of Jokaso is 1.6 times higher than septic tank. It is caused by construction cost of Jokaso which is account for 32% of its total LCC. Because Jokaso has not been common in Indonesia, experienced construction engineers are lack. Therefore, it is thought that the construction cost tends to be high.
1) Ebie, Jo, Okazaki, Yamazaki: Gekkan Johkasou, 3(407), (2010), PP23-27
Presenter: Fionnuala Murphy, University College Dublin
Co-Authors: Amanda Sosa
This paper presents the results of an innovative research collaboration between academia and industry, highlighting how life cycle assessment (LCA) can enable the development of sustainable supply sourcing strategies. The research focuses on life cycle assessment of a novel waste plastic valorisation technology. The goal of the industry partner, Trifol Resources Ltd., is to develop novel, environmentally friendly, waste plastic treatment methods which convert end-of-life plastic to products with significant market potential. Trifol Resources Ltd. require life cycle assessment of their technology to be carried out which would allow them to identify areas for improvement in the process and to analyse how making changes to these areas would impact on the overall environmental impacts of the system. The aim of the project is to develop a novel, integrated optimisation and LCA methodology for optimisation of plastic waste treatment supply chains to facilitate maximisation of resource recovery and minimisation of environmental impacts across the supply chain. The optimisation tool was developed using Linear Programming, implemented using What’s Best solver package for MS-Excel. It is comprised of a georeferenced database with the spatial distribution of waste plastic resources in Ireland, a matrix of the transportation distances from the collection points to the proposed pyrolysis facility, as well as transportation costs and environmental burdens (from LCA) from cleaning, transporting and processing waste plastic. The objective of the model is to minimise transportation costs while reducing the environmental burdens (greenhouse gas emissions and abiotic depletion) from cleaning and transporting farm-plastic to the pyrolysis plant, and processing to value-added fuel/lubricants. The study highlights ‘hotspots’ in the supply chain or areas that contribute significantly to the overall environmental impacts, which could be minimised based on modifications to the system e.g. feedstock pre-cleaning, energy supply for the pyrolysis process. The optimised LCA then considers modifications across the supply chain tool to minimise environmental impacts and reduce the contribution of the ‘hotspots’ to the overall emissions. By linking with an academic partner to carry out life cycle assessment, Trifol Resources Ltd. are better able to develop their business strategy for the value-added fuel/lubricants business based on the carbon foot-printing of the products and hence the positioning of the products with in the carbon fuels market. The results of the study will be used to highlight lessons learned from the academia-industry collaboration and show how LCA can be used to foster innovation.
Presenter: Yasushi Kondo, Waseda University
The purpose of this research is to promote sound material cycles and circular economy in regions by developing a framework of systems analysis of the environment and economy and applying it to prefectures in Japan. The framework is based on material flow analysis and waste input-output analysis (Nakamura and Kondo, 2002, J Ind Ecol), in which we will extensively use data that local governments have already collected for the purpose of waste management. It is expected that the framework that we will develop can be used by local governments without additional cost of conducting social surveys. At the conference, we will share our experience of developing methodologies and databases, analyzing alternative waste-management and circular-economy options at prefectures in Japan, and communicating with local governments.
Presenter: Esra Aleisa, Kuwait University
Co-Authors: Rawa Al-Jarallah
The study considers the domestic waste generated by individual households (i.e., all solid waste originating from residential properties, including garden waste) and waste that is generated commercially (e.g., businesses, shops, and offices). Six municipal solid waste (MSW) management scenarios are proposed for evaluation using a triple bottom line (TBL) approach that incorporates environmental, financial and social aspects. The first (environmental) bottom line (BL) applies the four stages of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) -as outlined by ISO 14040- to evaluate the ecological and health burden of the different MSW scenarios. The financial BL uses regression analysis to develop long-term forecasts of the MSW that will be generated and associated initial investment, operating costs, and the per-ton costs associated with each proposed MSW treatment technology and the overall scenario (SR). The indicators within the social BL include employment potential, quality of life (noise, odor, traffic, and living conditions), health and safety (mortality, safety, health status and risks), land (change of land use, availability of land, and land quality degradation), agriculture and legislation for the proposed SRs. To integrate the TBL, we apply the analytic hierarchy process, AHP to cross-multiply with local relative scores within each BL to calculate a Composite Sustainability Index (CSI) for each SR. The research team thanks the Research Administration at Kuwait University for funding this project under grant number EV03/10 and the Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Science (KFAS) for funding the conference participation.
J. P. Su, M. L. Hung, C. W. Chao, and H. W. Ma, “Applying multi-criteria decision-making to improve the waste reduction policy in Taiwan,” Waste Manag Res, vol. 28, pp. 20-8, Jan 2010.
L. De Benedetto and J. Klemeš, “The Environmental Performance Strategy Map: an integrated LCA approach to support the strategic decision-making process,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 17, pp. 900-906, 7 2009.
K. Tsilemou and D. Panagiotakopoulos, “Approximate cost functions for solid waste treatment facilities,” Waste Management & Research, vol. 24, pp. 310-322, August 1, 2006 2006.
A. Emery, A. Davies, A. Griffiths, and K. Williams, “Environmental and economic modelling: A case study of municipal solid waste management scenarios in Wales,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 49, pp. 244-263, 1// 2007.