Case RecyclingIncineration
with energy
recoveryLandfill Pyrolysis1[PE] +++ ++ +
1[PET] +++ ++ +
2[MIX1] ++ ++ + +++
2[MIX2] ++ ++ + +++
2[MIX3] ++ ++ + +++
2[MIX4] ++ ++ + +++
3[PE] +++ ++ +
3[PP] +++ ++ +
3[PS] +++ ++ +
3[PET] +++ ++ +
3[PVC] +++ ++ +
4[MIX] +++ ++ + ++
6[HDPE] +++ ++ +
6[LDPE] +++ ++ +
6[PET] +++ ++ +
7[PET] +++ +
7[PE] +++ +
7[PVC] +++ +
8[PS1] * + * +++
8[PS2] +++ +
8[PS3] +++ +4[MIX] +++ ++ + ++
7[PET] + +++
7[PE] + +++
7[PVC] +++ +
- Feedstock recycling scenario
Study n°5 does not include this indicatorStudies n°1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8 do not include this indicatorWater
consumption
(m3)Energy demand
(MJ)+++ best option
++ intermediary option
+ worst option
option not assessed3.3.3 Detailed comparison between the various treatment options
This section focuses on the comparison of the various treatment options indicator by indicator. The alternatives
serving as a reference for comparison are recycling and incineration with energy recovery.
For each indicator, the differences resulting from the comparison of the various end-of-life options compared to
recycling and to incineration with energy recovery are first presented in tables (values rounded up to the nearest
ten in the tables). The results are then grouped by range of 25% difference on the following graphs that follow in
order to highlight the main tendencies.
Climate change
Figure 13 clearly shows that recycling is preferable to the other end-of-life alternatives in all cases. Recycling
presents an unambiguous advantage to incineration since for 63% of the cases (12 cases out of 19), the
difference between both alternatives exceeds 150%. The low recycling benefits for case 3[PVC] are explained by
the fact that PVC is hard to recycle compared to the other plastics. In case 8[PS1], the recycling option assessed
is material recovery via blast furnaces, which explains the low advantage of recycling over incineration in this
specific case. When recycling is compared to landfill, recycling is at least 100% better for 89% of the cases (16