Microsoft Word - Environmental benefits of recycling 2010 update.doc

Table 44 points out the diversity of assumptions in the selected studies. The influence of the sorting efficiency is
analysed in Figure 22 in which the studies are classified according to their loss rate during production. The figure
thus illustrates the relative difference between incineration and recycling for energy demand according to the loss
rate during sorting. The overall trend observed suggests that the impacts of recycling increase as the
sorting losses increase.

1

1

1

1

3

12

2

‐450%

‐400%

‐350%

‐300%

‐250%

‐200%

‐150%

‐100%

‐50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

Relative difference for energy demand

between incineration with energy recovery and recycling

according to the loss rate during sorting

>150%

<‐ 1

50

%

<‐150%

incineration with

energy recovery

preferred to

recycling

recycling preferred

to incineration with

energy recovery

>150%

<‐ 1

50

%

<‐400%

incineration with

energy recovery

preferred to

recycling

recycling preferred

to incineration with

energy recovery

Study n°1 Study n°4 Study n°3 Study n°2

Higher loss rate

during sorting

Lower loss rate

during sorting

Figure 22 Influence of the loss rate during sorting on the relative comparison between incineration and recycling for energy demand

3.3.4 Conclusion..............................................................................................................

The results show that mechanical recycling is the best alternative regarding the climate change
potential, depletion of natural resources and energy demand.

It also comes out that incineration with energy recovery performs quite poorly regarding GHG
emissions. Pyrolysis is still in early development and is included in only two studies, but the results suggest
that it could be a promising option regarding all indicators assessed. Unsurprisingly, landfill turns out to be
the option with the greater environmental burden in the large majority of cases.

However, for the assessment of the performances of landfill regarding the climate change potential,
the choice of the time perspective is essential. Indeed, as plastics degrade very slowly, a time frame of
several hundred years should, in theory, be taken into account to include the emissions resulting from
degradation. Most studies consider a 100-year time frame and therefore underestimate the contribution to global
warming as highlighted in the analysis. However, there is no consensus among LCA experts regarding the
approach that should be chosen. This issue is currently under discussion.

In the case of recycling, the analysis has highlighted that the environmental benefits are mainly
brought by the avoided material production. In order to maximise the benefits, emphasis should be put on
recovering good quality material with high purity (to limit the rejected fraction) that once recycled can replace
virgin plastics on a high ratio (1 to 1).